Abstract for Measuring Virtue Better, A Little Later and Little Rougher

Measuring  Virtue  Better,   A  Little  Later  and  a  Little  Rougher   1   Abstract  for  Measuring  Virtue  Better,  A  Little  Later  and  Little  Rougher   Prior   to   developing   sound   ways   to   measure   virtue   fine   distinctions   must   be   made   about   both   virtue   and   measuring.     The   several   intricate   and   overlapping   responsibilities   of   schools,  families,  and  communities  in  developing  virtuous  understandings  and  behaviors  in   the   young   make   measuring   the   impact   of   particular   programs   a   complex   challenge.     In   addition  to  carefully  reviewing  both  traditional  and  expanded  definitions  of  measurement   procedures   we   must   insure   that   educators   are   allowed   to   design   creative   and   innovative   programs   prior   to   developing   measuring   plans.     Two   oft-­‐neglected   measurement   approaches,  longitudinal  and  qualitative  studies,  afford  rich  opportunities  for  determining   the   effectiveness   of   wider   range   of   curriculum   reforms   than   is   customarily   considered   in   program   assessments.     Too   often   the   convenience   and   lure   of   short-­‐range   assessments   attract  educators  and  policy  makers  to  curriculum  projects  that  may  not  have  an  enduring   impact  in  the  lives  of  the  students.    Important  advances  have  been  made  in  strengthening   the   validity   and   reliability   of   qualitative,   longitudinal   measurements.     They   may   not   have   the  exact  precision  of  short-­‐term,  quantitative  measuring  devices,  but  our  understanding  of   complex   matters   such   as   understanding   virtue   and   virtuous   behavior   can   be   greatly   enriched  with  qualitative,  longitudinal  study.     2   Introduction   In   his   1954   essay   “Knowledge   and   Wisdom”   Bertrand   Russell   described   the   essence   of   wisdom   as   “emancipation,   as   far   as   possible,   from   the   tyranny   of   the   here   and   now.”   (Russell.)   We   have   just   reached   the   60th   anniversary   of   that   advice   which,   given   current   infatuations   with   haste,   would   qualify   it   as   an   ancient   text.     In   drawing   his   distinctions   between   knowledge   and   wisdom   Russell   provides   important   guidance   for   educators’   endeavoring  to  determine  how  to  measure  something  complex  and  truly  non-­‐hasty  such  as   virtue.     Pragmatic   educators   who   are   trying   to   expand,   enrich,   and   deepen   what   young   people   study   in   schools   are   grateful   for   Russell’s     “as   far   as   possible”   qualifier.     This   gratitude   is   particularly   true   for   those   attempting   to   develop   specific   comprehensive   curriculum  reforms  dedicated  to  students  knowing,  understanding,  and  becoming  virtuous.   Such  efforts  have  been  undertaken  in  the  face  of  massive  traditional  customs  long  in  place   for  both  curriculum  and  measuring  learning.     Education   reformers   devoted   to   such   substantial   change   have   been   at   it   for   quite   some  time  and  come  from  several  diverse  perspectives.    Lately,  those  reformers  have  come   to   realize   that   although   the   diversity   of   perspectives   and   terminologies   has   value   and   must   be  respected,  that  diversity  at  the  same  time  often  enables  both  the  massive  status  quo  as   well   as   those   more   actively   resistant   to   successfully   parry   reform   efforts   with   challenges   along   the   lines   of   “Some   speak   of   virtues,   others   of   morals   and   ethics,   still   others   of   character;  what  exactly  is  it  that  you  want  to  accomplish?”   Reformers   respond   with   increasingly   improving   answers   to   that   important   question,   but   they   cannot   match   the   exactitude   found   in   more   traditional   curriculum   provinces  such  as  mathematics  or  reading.    Measuring  systems  there  are  deeply  rooted,  but   even  if  critics  come  to  be  mildly  satisfied  with  the  answers  about  the  exact  goals  of  moral   education,   the   next,   and   usually   immediate,   challenge   arrives   as   “How   will   you   ever   measure  that?”  The  question  carries  a  clear  implication  that  it  if  cannot  be  measured,  then   in  a  data-­‐driven  era  we  shouldn’t  teach  it.   These   basic   questions   about   what   it   is   to   be   accomplished   and   how   it   will   be   measured   require   large   answers   that   live   outside   the   narrow   “knowledge”   in   Russell’s   “here  and  now.”    In  Peter  Shaffer’s  Lettice  and  Lovage,  Lettice  constantly  comically  disdains   what   she   sees   as   “the   mere.”     She   is   actually   affording   wisdom   to   the   reformer’s   best   responses  to  these  two  basic  questions.  In  addition  to  unifying  diverse  reform  efforts  these   reformers     would   be   wise   to   work   with   the   very   best;   that   is,   a   Gold   Standard   for   the   diverse  curriculum  efforts  to  teach  virtue,  ethics,  morals  or  character  and  a  uniform  Gold   Standard  for  measuring  impact  with  a  sophisticated,  qualitative-­‐longitudinal  design.   A  review  of  some  of  the  major  reform  efforts  allows  identification  of   commonalities,   opportunities,  and  problems  in  curriculum  over  the  past  half  century.    The  broadest  over-­‐ arching   term   that   has   emerged   from   reform   programs   is   character   education.     Clear   insights  into  ethics,  morals,  and  virtues  are  indispensable  to  good  character  education.    But   character  education  includes  something  beyond  ethics,  morals,  and  virtues.    High  character   3   involves   making   good   judgements   which   itself   is   a   level   or   two   beyond   skills   at   decision-­‐ making.     High   character   additionally   includes   Aristotle’s   familiar   “habits   of   right   action.”   And  it  involves  sensitivity  and  perceptivity  in  relating  with  others  as  well  as  an  ability  and   inclination  to  anticipate  long-­‐range  consequences  of  judgment  and  actions.    Thus,  character   education   includes   more   careful   attention   to   recent   developments   in   social-­‐emotional   learning   than   the   more   traditional   terms   -­‐   virtue,   morals,   and   ethical   learning.     Those   approaches  customarily  focus  more  on  the  academic,  analytic,  and  abstract.         We   cannot   turn   attention   to   longer-­‐range   thinking   and   making   good   judgements   without  confronting  the  influence  of  a  rapidly  accelerating  technology  in  our  global  culture.     The   digital-­‐electronic   era   clearly   affords   many   opportunities   for   becoming   more   richly   informed   with   data   and   ideas.     But   it   carries   its   own   hidden   curriculum   –   a   tendency   toward  haste  and  hecticness.    Max  Frisch  described  technology  as  a  way  of  “arranging  the   world  so  we  don’t  have  to  experience  it.”  The  finest  character  education,  on  the  other  hand,   requires   getting   as   close   as   possible   to   reflective   learning   from   meaningful   experience.     Sound   moral   judgments   depend   on   thoughtful   reflection,   taking   time,   and   active   communication   about   nuances,   connotations,   understandings,   and   consequences.     In   his   novella   Slowness   Milan   Kundera   warns   us   that   “speed   is   a   form   of   ecstasy   the   technical   revolution  has  bestowed  up  man.”    (Kundera,  p.  2)    Whether  it  is  a  false  ecstasy  or  not  is  a   difficult   issue,   but   it   differs   markedly   from   the   rich   ecstasy   of   understanding   and   becoming   dignified  individuals  of  good  character  and  sound  judgement.       Across   the   last   half-­‐century   significantly   different   forms   of   ethical-­‐moral-­‐virtue-­‐ character  education  have  developed.  And  they  have  each  been  subjected  to  different  kinds   of   assessment   and   evaluation.     They   each   still   have   many   adherents,   but   the   degree   of   dedication  on  the  part  of  individual  schools  and  teachers  varies  greatly  from  year-­‐to-­‐year   as   a   consequence   of   a   variety   of   changing   pressures.   For   instance,   the   current   clamor   for   STEM  (i.e.,  acronym  for  Science,  Technology,  Engineering  and  Math),  which  actually  could,   but   rarely   does,   include   productive   opportunities   for   character   education,   has   had   a   negative  impact  on  the  advances  many  have  made  in  moral-­‐character  education.    So  often  a   crisply   measurable   education   reform   such   as   STEM   steps   in   line   ahead   of   a   more   risky   emphasis   on   character   education,   in   part,   because   the   latter   requires   more   complicated   measuring.   Mark  Twain  meets  at  least  two  standards  for  an  intellectual:  he  is  amusing  and  he  is   clarifying.     With   respect   to   character   education   he   is   amusing   and   partially   clarifying.     In   Following   the   Equator,   he   observed   that   “It   is   noble   to   be   good;   it   is   still   nobler   to   teach   others  to  be  good  –  and  less  trouble”(Twain,  1989,  p.1).    For  far  too  many  the  instruction  of   virtues   appears   easy.     Those   who   have   pursued   it   carefully,   especially   in   schools   know   that   it   is   extremely   complex.     But   Twain   was   fundamentally   correct;   it   is   noble,   and   we   have   found  ways  to  help  students  achieve  some  moral  nobility.       4   The  Historic  Baseline   In  the  early  days  of  mass  public  education  those  who  saw  the  task  as  easy  reigned.   To  them  moral  education  took  one  of  two  general  forms.   1. The  value-­‐neutral  tradition  can  be  summed  up  best  in  the  simple  declaration,  “In  a free  society  schools  cannot  teach  values.”   In   this   tradition,   schools   devoted considerable  effort  to  making  clear  to  students  that  formal  education  and  individual values   are   separate.     Formal   education   was   seen   to   be   the   domain   of   the   intellect. Values  were   believed   to   derive   from   more   subjective   and   elusive   matters   of emotions,   ethnicity,   religion,   culture,   and   family.     Teachers   became   reluctant   to assert   any   values,   in   part   because   a   free   society   supposedly   meant   no   one   should ever   impinge   in   any   way   upon   someone   else’s   value   system.     The   belief   persisted that   schools   could   meet   all   of   their   responsibilities   by   teaching   only   what   is verifiably   true.     Thus   the   separation   of   the   intellect   from   the   student’s   character development  was  deeply  engraved. 2. The   school   as   inculcator   of   basic   values   tradition   held   that   schools   must   teach   the importance   of   living   by   basic   codes   that   include   fundamental   and   seemingly straightforward,   virtues   such   as   honesty,   fairness,   kindness,   and   courage.     Usually, these  were  not  part  of  the  explicit  classroom  curriculum,  but  were  the  basis     of   the school’s   discipline/behavior   code.     Schools   conducted   explanations   of   virtues sporadically   and   unevenly.     Seldom   were   these   virtues   accorded   the   priority   of classroom   academic   instruction.     Nor   were   the   teachers   very   often   involved   in leading  students  to  understand  the  complexities  and  subtleties  of  a  particular  virtue. And   even   less   frequently   did   they   help   students   sort   out   the   delicate   choices between  competing  good  choices  or  choosing  the  lesser  of  two  evils. The   confusion   about   teaching   values   in   schools   is   reflected   in   recent,   frequent   discussions   with   young   liberal   arts   college   graduates   studying   to   become   teachers.     They   were   asked   to   rank   the   priority   of   important   educational   goals   for   the   public   schools.     This   group   had   declared   their   intention   to   become   teachers   and   clearly   understood   the   educational   system   where   they   had   been   so   successful.   Among   commonly   cited   goals   for   schools,   students   were   most   hesitant   about   setting   “to   teach   morals“   as   a   high   priority.     They   usually   ranked   it   last   or   next   to   last.     However,   another   group   of   students   with   the   same   background   and   professional   aspiration   using   an   only   slightly   modified   list   of   the   same  goals  ranked  the  phrase  “to  teach  about  morals”  as  one  of  the  most  important  goals  of   schools.    In  the  discussions  of  this  prioritizing  it  was  clear  that  the  first  group  was  deeply   afraid   that   in   teaching   morals,   schools   meant   indoctrinate.     To   the   second   group,   the   responsibility   “to   teach   about   morals”   drew   strong   support   because   then   teachers   could   discuss   moral   issues   without   compelling   students   to   agree.     If   talented   young   people   successful   in   schooling   and   eager   to   become   teachers   equate   the   verb   “teach”   with   “instill,”   “inculcate,”   and   “indoctrinate,”   great   care   must   be   taken.     Education   reformers   need   to   explicate   both   this   common   misunderstanding   of   the   verb   “teach”   and   the   simplistic   dichotomy  that  schools  can  only  either  indoctrinate  or  avoid  values.       5   In   a   free   and   diverse   society,   ultimately   it   is   actually   not   possible   for   schools   to   mandate  morals  for  students.    But  neither  is  it  possible  to  remain  purely  value-­‐neutral.    Any   institution   or   community   operates   on   a   set   of   values   and   priorities   that   it   ineluctably   communicates   in   a   variety   of   ways   to   members   of   that   community.     Schools   are   no   exception.     No   matter   what   schools,   do,   even   if   they   remain   totally   silent   on   moral   or   value   issues,   they   communicate   a   set   of   values   to   young   people.     Fortunately,   there   are   many   options  beyond  teaching  vaguely  about  morals,  ignoring  morals,  or  indoctrinating  morals.       Three   Reforms:   Values   Clarification,   Cognitive   Moral   Development   and   Literature  Based  Character  Education   Over  the  last  four  decades  three  broad  movements  have  emerged  in  the  domain  of   ethics-­‐values-­‐moral-­‐character  education.    These  are  in  addition  to  those  who  persisted  in   advocating  for  the  tradition  of  instilling  basic,  universal  virtues.    Each  of  these  movements   were   evaluated   and   researched   with   uneven   and   varying   degrees   of   success.     No   one   has   yet   produced   the   ideal   curriculum   in   the   domain   of   moral-­‐character   education.     The   best   option   for   discerning   the   impact   of   each   reform   curriculum   would   be   to   measure   each   as   it   is   conducted   optimally   with   a   uniform,   richly   designed   assessment   scheme   that   respects   the  complexity  of  good  character  and  the  importance  of  it  lasting  over  considerable  time.       One  major  challenge  to  the  values-­‐neutral  and  the  inculcating  values  traditions  was   the   values   clarification   movement.     To   the   originators   of   this   movement,   the   curriculum   was   not   concerned   “with   the   content   of   people’s   values,   but   with   the   process   of   valuing”   (Simon   et   al.,   1973,   p.   19).   The   values   clarification   movement   has   received   considerable   criticism,  but  it  did  make  significant  contributions  in  restoring  the  importance  of  values  in   schooling.    It  represented  the  first  major  challenge  to  the  belief  that  schools  could  teach  in  a   value-­‐free   manner.     Advocates   of   this   reform   claimed   it   would   be   wiser   for   teachers   to   discuss  directly  social  and  personal  values,  but  they  did  not  address  ways  in  which  careful   examination  of  values  could  be  integrated  into  the  curriculum.       This  theoretical  construct  is  based  on  a  three-­‐stage  process  so  students  learn  how  to   understand  values  in  a  personal  or  public  problem.    In  the  first  stage,  the  choosing  stage,   teachers   encourage   students   to   select   freely   from   alternative   choices   after   consideration   of   the  consequences  of  each  alternative.    In  the  second  stage  students  publicly  announce  their   conclusions.     The   reformers   claim,   with   some   validity,   that   prior   to   this   program   the   schools   customarily   went   to   great   lengths   to   avoid   any   acknowledgement   of   the   role   of   values   in   decisions   students   make   and   therefore   have   made   a   grave   error   by   severing   schooling   from   the   rest   of   life.     In   doing   something   about   their   choices,   students   are   participating   in   stage   three,   which   they   label   as   acting.     Teachers   must   not   only   help   students  analyze  an  issue,  but  also  help  design  a  course  of  action  mindful  of  the  impact  on   others.    Their  model  further  calls  for  making  these  actions  part  of  a  “life  pattern.”  In  doing   so  they  emphasize  that  decisions  should  not  be  a  casual  collection  of  independent  choices,   but  that  each  decision  must  be  situated  in  a  thoughtful  system  of  choices  about  basic  values   and  actions.       6   As   with   many   education   reforms,   the   differences   between   the   plan   and   the   actual   practices  in  the  field   became  considerable.    Though   some  of  the  values   clarification  reform   improves   upon   past   practices,   three   basic   challenges   emerged.     First,   nearly   all   of   their   vexing   incidents   for   discussion   are   slim,   ahistorical,   and   artificial.     Second,   the   specific   teacher   strategies   are   very   uneven   in   quality   and   mostly   result   in   the   teacher   withdrawing   from   the   discussion.     Third,   the   discussions   are   oriented   too   heavily   toward   personal   authentication   and   too   open-­‐ended.     Too   often   students   develop   a   basic   impression   that   their  choice  really  does  not  matter  because  all  options  can  be  explained.    The  incidents  do   not   have   the   texture   of   real-­‐life   science,   mathematics,   literature,   biography,   or   history,   so   the  thinking  engendered  is  often  thin.    Real-­‐life  decisions  are  complex,  textured,  evolving,   and   involving.     Too   often,   the   values   clarification   situations   are   simplified,   artificial,   and   sterile.     Harvard’s   Professor   Lawrence   Kohlberg   took   values   education   in   a   completely   different   direction.     He   repudiated   values-­‐clarification   as   too   relativistic.     His   plan   relied   heavily  on  students’  stages  of  development  he  saw  as  sequential.    At  each  stage,  students   conduct   a   completely   different   type   of   thinking   than   was   available   to   them   in   an   earlier   developmental  stage.    In  the  first  stage,  the  obedience  stage,  students  determine  whether   an  act  is  right  or  wrong  strictly  in  terms  of  what  the  teacher  or  parent  permits  or  forbids.   During   the   second   stage,   the   students   come   to   grips   with   interpreting   rules   so   they   can   think  about  the  spirit  and  basic  premises  of  the  rules,  in  addition  to  the  letter  of  the  law.    In   the   third   stage   students   determine   the   justice   of   an   action   in   accordance   with   what   the   rules   permit   or   forbid,   what   the   person’s   intentions   were,   and   the   larger   social   moral   values  of  justice    that  may  or  may  not  be  represented  in  the  law.   Kohlberg’s   work   became   powerfully   influential   in   the   larger   values   education   movement.     In   many   schools,   his   plan   replaced   the   values-­‐clarification   model.   He   predicated   his   reform   on   the   analytic   processes   necessary   for   students   to   resolve   moral   dilemmas.    The  ultimate  goal  is  universal  justice,  which  is  seen  as  independent  of  cultural   differences.    In  the  Kohlberg  plan,  the  implications  for  teachers  are  complex.    In  the  reality   of   students   in   classrooms,   the   lines   between   the   stages   are   blurred   almost   beyond   recognition.     But   the   basic   belief   that   students   proceed   through   them   sequentially   is   worth   some   consideration.     Significantly,   research   on   this   moral   cognition   model   has   suggested   that   students   with   extensive   peer-­‐group   participation   have   moved   more   productively   through  the  stages  than  those  without  such  group  work.       The   strengths   and   weaknesses   of   this   cognitive   moral   development   approach   are   epitomized  in  a  moral  dilemma  often  used  by  teachers.    In  simplified  form,  a  young  German   woman   in  Nazi  Germany  is  faced  with  the  opportunity  to  possibly  save  her  young  Jewish   friend.     To   do   so,   she   will   have   to   break   German   law   and   risk   her   fate,   as   well   as   the   fate   of   her   family,   and   her   friend.     In   determining   a   course   of   action,   the   Kohlberg-­‐trained   teacher   is  urged  to  provide  a  rationale  and  a  clear,  concise  set  of  classroom  procedures  that  reveal   to   students   the   strengths   and   weaknesses   of   each   option.   These   procedures   include   rational/analytic   questions   and   some   general   contextual   questions.     However,   the   overall   strategy   omits   any   sustained   discussion   of   how   this   larger   European   crisis   came   to   be   and,   7   more   specifically  how  it  could  have  been  avoided.    Further,  though  students  are  urged  to   come   to   closure   and   set   their   own   individual   response   to   the   challenge   –   “What   would   you   do?”   –   the   model   does   not   necessarily   recommend   that   students   publicly   state   their   choice.   This   classroom   practice   could   set   a   pattern   of   overly   individualized   and   thus   less   civic   approaches  to  public  concerns.    To  many,  it  reveals  the  extent  to  which  value  decisions  for   Kohlberg   are   more   analytic   exercises,   rather   than   real,   intricate,   and   humane   judgments   demanding   a   consistent   respect   for   subtlety   and   complex   interplay   of   emotions,   conflicting   values,  interpersonal  relations,  and  historic  factors.     The   heavy   emphasis   on   discrete   cases   can   lead   to   an   ahistorical   and   decontextualized  habit  of  mind  in  students  and,  eventually  in  the  public  mind.    It  reminds   us   of   the   Harvard   Law   School   Dean   who   claimed   that   the   persistent   study   of   discrete   cases   in  law  schools  is  like  trying  to  educate  horticulturalists  by  only  allowing  them  to  study  cut   flowers.    This  curriculum  overly  emphasizes  rational,  logical,  analytic  thinking  in  academic   cases   while   omitting   what   one   would   actually   do   in   a   complex,   real,   contextualized   situation.       One   of   Kohlberg’s   Harvard   colleagues,   Carol   Gilligan,   has   presented   a   different,   important,   and   very   specific   challenge   to   his   moral   development   model.     She   claims   that   Kohlberg  completely  omits  the  “morality  of  caring”  that  characterizes  women’s  approaches   to  the  kinds  of  dilemmas  found  in  Kohlberg’s  materials.    She  asserts  that  Kohlberg’s  base  of   empirical  data,  upon  which  his  curriculum  is  built,  derived  from  a  developmental  study  of   84   boys   over   a   period   of   20   years.     The   result,   she   concludes,   is   that   the   very   traits   that   have   defined   the   “goodness”   of   women;   that   is,   their   care   and   sensitivity   to   the   needs   of   others   would   “mark   them   as   deficient   in   a   highly   analytic   model   of   moral   development.”   Kohlberg’s  putatively  higher  and  better  stages,  Gilligan  claims,  are  inadequate  to  the  lives   of   women   in   which   their   moral   problems   arise   “from   conflicting   responsibilities   rather   than   from   competing   rights   and   requires   for   its   resolution   a   mode   of   thinking   that   is   contextual  and  narrative  rather  than  formal  and  abstract”  (Gilligan,  1982,  p.  19).   The   Kohlberg   reform   frequently   disparaged   moral   education   models   that   were   indoctrinating,  that  were  relativistic,  or  that  were  merely  a  “bag  full  of  virtues.”  However,   many  have  begun  to  reassert  that  a  set  of  core  virtues  is  a  valid  form  of  character  education   – as   long   as   the   education   is   rigorous,   thoughtful,   and   respectful.     These   reformers recognize  that  there  is  a  form  of  moral  judgement  that  includes  more  than  rational  analytic procedures.     It   involves   a   sense   of   integrity   or   judgment,   what   judges   call   “justice   with mercy,”   a   kind   of   humane   integrity   that   includes   and   extends   beyond   rationality,   beyond individual   feelings,   and   beyond   a   check   list   of   individual   virtues.   To   the   familiar   traditional individual   values   they   have   added   attention   to   a   sense   of   social   justice   and   caring.     A literature-­‐based   character   education   curriculum   realizes   that   there   are   subtle,   but significant,   differences   in   the   value   system   each   culture   holds   and   practices.     In   one important  sense,  core  virtues  are  central  to  the  mission  of  schools  because  the  continuation of  the  culture  depends  upon  it.    That  is  a  comparatively  easy  pedagogical  achievement  in  a monocultural   society.     But   a   stable   multicultural   society   depends   upon   the   successful interaction   of   many   subcultures   that   value   diversity,   progress,   and   growth.     Studying 8   literature   from   the   perspective   of   character   development   provides   rich   opportunities   for   understanding  such  complexity  and  opportunity.       The   literature-­‐based   character   education   model   recognizes   the   importance   of   subtlety  and  nuance  in  both  real-­‐life  interactions  and  in  relationships  between  characters   in   literature.     The   most   effective   vehicles   for   an   enriched   understanding   of   these   experiences  are  often  fiction  and  biography.    When  students  experience  the  complex  course   of   actions   and   choices   characters   make   in   a   believable   work   of   literature,   they   gradually   come   to   understand   the   important   and   intricate   interplay   of   rational,   humane,   caring,   courageous,  and  cultural  factors  in  judgments  and  decisions.       In   his   1986   book,   Actual   Minds,   Possible   Worlds   (Bruner,   1986)   Jerome   Bruner   describes  two  basic  ways  people  make  sense  of  experience  and  construct  reality.    Bruner’s   two   modes   of   mental   functioning   are   propositional   thinking   and   narrative   thinking.   Propositional   thinking   accords   closely   with   what   we   usually   mean   when   we   discuss   cognitive  functioning.    It  is  the  kind  of  thinking  that  schools  encourage  most  frequently  in   classrooms.    This  cause-­‐and-­‐effect  thinking  which  Bruner  describes  as  a  "logico-­‐scientific”   attempt  to  arrive  at  conclusions  which  are  abstract  and  context-­‐independent.   Narrative   thinking   is   enmeshed   with   people   and   events,   with   time   and   place.     It   is   concrete  and  context-­‐dependent.    To  think  narratively  is  to  think  in  story  form.    Actions  and   ideas   are   lived   out   in   the   intuitions,   intentions,   decisions,   and   experiences   of   each   individual.     While   propositional   thought   may   be   more   highly   regarded   for   many   human   ends  and  in  academic  settings,  narrative  thinking,  in  many  ways,  is  more  fitting  and  more   effective  in  developing  complicated  moral  understandings  in  the  lives  of  young  students.     Michael  Novak  (1970)  further  explained  the  importance  of  literature  and  culture  in   influencing   our   moral   compasses.     He   restores   the   importance   of   individual   exemplars   in   education.   Contemporary   studies   in   ethics,   especially   in   Anglo-­‐American   philosophical    circles,   concentrate   upon   logic   and   language.     I   wish,   instead,  to  concentrate  upon  the  drive  to  understand  and  upon  the   myth  of  symbols.    My  reason  for  doing  so  is  that  men  seldom,  if  ever,   act   according   to   principles   and   rules   stated   in   words   and   logically   arranged.  They  act,  rather,  according  to  models,     metaphors,  stories,   and  myths.    Their  action  is  imitative  rather  than  rule-­‐abiding.       Prior   to   their   intention   to   obey   sets   of   rules,   they   are   trying   to   become  a  certain  type  of  person.  (Novak,  1970,  p.26).   The  insights  of  Bruner  and  Novak  provide  important  new  perspectives  for  current   and   future   work   in   character   education.     Previous   programs   such   as   value-­‐neutral,   indoctrinating,   values   clarification,   and   cognitive   moral   development   have   each   communicated   directly   or   indirectly   that   moral,   ethical,   and   values   decisions   are   either   independent   of,   or   dependent   upon,   the   analytic   intellect.   Literature   and   biography   can   provide   the   productive   connections   between   affective   and   cognitive   ways   of   thinking.     9   Good  teachers  have  met  their  responsibilities  when  their  students  realize  through  careful   consideration  of  rich  stories  that  analytic  thought  can  inform  intuitions  and  feelings,  while   at  the  same  time  intuitions  and  feelings  can  enrich  logical  analysis.     The   most   effective   use   of   literature   occurs   when   stories   are   vivid,     vexing,   and   vicarious.    By  “vivid”  we  mean  that  the  reader  actively  cares  about  the  characters  in  a  story.   If   we   involuntarily   think   about   a   story   the   next   day,   then   it   is   vivid.     It   is   the   difference   between  entertainment  and  art.    For  adolescents,  particularly,  the  story  is  vexing  when  it   discloses   a   problem   to   be   solved,   when   the   main   character   must   grow   or   decide   not   to   change   or   grow.     If   students   read   about   believable,   memorable   characters   in   stories   and   biographies,   they   are   less   likely   to   succumb   to   the   conclusion   that   the   course   of   their   life   is   dominated   by   large,   uncontrollable   forces.     Instead,   they   will   see   how   it   is   usually   influenced   more   by   small   daily   judgments   best   grounded   in   a   moral   pattern,   which   often   leads  to  Novak’s  “becoming  a  certain  type  of  person.”  They  also  come  to  learn  that  they  are   each  writing  their  own  story.    They  are  making  choices  that  have  consequences.       Literature  provides  the  means  by  which  students  can  see  how  believable,  complex,   interesting   people   think   about   values   in   difficult   situations.     Literature   engages   the   teachers   so   that   students   see   them   as   adults   who   can   add   an   experienced   perspective   to   such   matters.   This   is   a   departure   from   other   approaches   in   which   the   teacher   is   either   neutral,  didactic,  or  merely  a  “devil’s  advocate.”  Thus,  in  this  model,  teachers  are  enabled  to   fulfill  one  of  their  most  important  obligations  of  teaching,  serving  as  an  exemplar  of  clear   thinking   and   responsible   action.     Doing   so   requires   logical   analysis,   humane   judgment,   a   sense   of   nuance   and   detail,   an   understanding   of   the   discipline   involved   in   holding   to   principles   under   pressure,   and   experience   judging   between   long   range   and   short   range   consequences  of  actions.    Those  who  ask  students  only  what  they  think  or  only  how  they   feel  about  a  problem  are  providing  incomplete  instruction.   The   literature–based   model   of   character   education   often   highlights   various   dimensions  of  basic  virtues  such  as  honesty,  courage,  kindness,  fairness,  caring,  and  social   justice.   Diverse   literary   selections   reveal   the   complexity   of   each   virtue.     For   example,   images   of   kindness   can   range   from   gentile   manners   to   simple   altruism,   to   generous   altruism,   all   the   way   over   to   darker   forms   of   manipulative   kindness   that   Charles   Dickens   described   as   “rapacious   benevolence.”     Thus,   a   teacher’s   injunction   to   students   that   they   should   be   kind   is   indeed   a   good   idea,   but   not   sufficient   to   the   complex   thinking   students   must  conduct  about  countless  nuanced  choices  that  come  before  them.       Not   only   must   students   see   that   each   virtue   is   complex   and   usually   embraces   a   spectrum   of   meanings,   but   also   they   soon   come   to   realize   that   good   judgment   involves   knowing  how  to  decide  between  competing  values.  Students  do  not  have  difficulty  deciding   that   honesty   is   preferable   to   dishonesty.     Any   of   the   reform   efforts   under   consideration   here  will  be  largely  successful  in  inclining  the  students  toward  honorable  values  and  away   from   dishonorable   ones.     However,   when   the   standards   of   honesty,   for   instance,   conflict   with   the   standards   of   kindness   in   a   particular   situation,   students   need   help   in   sorting   through   the   nuances   and   implications.     For   example,   in   simple   but   intensely   personal   situations,   such   as   asking   children   how   they   like   Aunt   Betty’s   pie   while   in   Aunt   Betty’s   10   presence,   we   are   asking   for   subtle   judgments   to   be   made   quickly.     Simple   injunctions   to   students  that  they  should  be  honest  and  they  should  be  kind  are  useless.    Rich  stories    of   such  seemingly  simple  incidents  would  tell  us  we  need  to  assess   the  kind  of  person  Aunt   Betty   is,   the   child’s   basic   relationship   with   her,   and   much   more.     They   give   students   vicarious  experiences  in  making  good  judgments.     Judgment   is   more   than   problem-­‐solving   skills   and   decision-­‐making   skills.     Good   judgment  often  seems  abstract  and  ineffable  to  students.    They  understand  that  it  has  to  do   with   real,   but   somewhat   remote,   concepts   like   integrity,   wisdom,   and   experience.     In   Harper  Lee’s  classic,  To  Kill  a  Mockingbird,  much  of  this  is  made  compelling  and  clear.    As   students  see  Atticus  Finch  bring  his  sense  of  courage,  humanity,  respect,  and  justice  to  bear   in  an  urgent  situation,  they  realize  that  high  principles  are  worth  holding,  thinking  about,   and  putting  in  to  action.    Each  character  is  richly  drawn.  Teachers  who  help  students  reflect   on   how   various   characters   in   this   story   acted   as   they   did   are   greatly   enriching   their   students’  character  development.       Alan  Gurganus  elegantly  explains  literature’s  importance  as  a  way  of  understanding:   “Literature  tells  us  that  imagining  each  other  is  not  just  a  luxurious  feat  achieved  by  rare   artists,   but   a   daily   necessity   for   all   of   us.”   (Gurganus,   1999,   p.   20).     His   imagery   of   us   “imagining   each   other”   every   day   captures   the   foundation   of   understanding,   caring,   and   behaving   well   when   we   are   involved   with   others.     He   is   in   fact   clarifying   how   the   finest   character   education   programs   embrace   analytic   intelligence,   narrative   intelligence   and   social-­‐emotional  intelligence.  Judge  Learned  Hand  once  observed  “the  spirit  of  liberty  is  the   spirit  that  is  not  so  sure  it  is  right”  (Hand,  1953,  p.  190).  Being  not  so  sure  we  are  “right”   generates   the   wondering   and   attention   to   detail   that   enlightens   the   nuances   and   complexities  of  wise  judgments.    Abstractions  and  generalizations  are  often  too  vague  and   inaccessible  to  help  students  learn  about  the  complex  interplay  of  thoughts,  emotion,  and   language.    In  good  stories  this  interplay  is  part  of  the  behavior  of  believable  characters  in   believable   circumstances.     Starting   there,   students   can   more   easily   grasp   how   to   transpose   subtle  ideas  to  their  own  lives.    Good  teachers  stop  at  various  points  in  stories  or  films  to   consider   what   will   each   character   will   do   next,   what   should   each   character   do   next,   and   eventually  what  each  student  would,  as  well  as,  should  do  next.  They  must  go  on  to  have   their   students   include   the   reasoning   and   evidence   behind   as   well   as   the   wisdom   of   each   answer.    These  issues  are  visited  again  at  the  end  of  the  story  so  students  can  evaluate  why   their  estimates  were  confirmed  or  not.       Measuring  in  a  Qualitative,  Longitudinal  Design   Before  turning  attention  to  the  specifics  in  qualitative  and  longitudinal  research  two   considerations   are   important.     The   first   is   considering   the   implications   of   these   two   approaches   for   measuring   different   versions   of   virtue-­‐moral-­‐ethical-­‐character   education.     Several   responsible   diverse   programs   have   evolved   over   the   last   four   decades.     To   understand  the  broad  field  more  productively  we  would  be  best  advised  to  study  at  least   one  site  at  which  each  kind  of  program  has  been  operating  optimally  for  some  time.    The   term   “operating   optimally”   cannot   be   defined   perfectly,   but   to   be   identified   as   a   Gold   11   Standard  program    it  should  be  integrated  in  to  the  regular  curriculum  and  the  climate  of   the   school   over   a   period   of   time,   the   teachers   should   have   received   some   preparation   in   how   to   integrate   the   principles   of   the   specific   program   in   to   their   classrooms,   the   program   should  reach  across  at  least  four  of    the  grade  levels  in  the  community’s  K-­‐12  program,  and   the  school  leaders  should  have  declared  a  continuing  commitment  to  both  the  curriculum   to   a   thorough   qualitative-­‐longitudinal   analysis   of   the   program’s   impact.     If   we   can   thoroughly  measure  the  impact  of  several  diverse  optimally-­‐operating  programs,  then  we   are   better   able   to   identify   strengths   of   various   approaches   and   look   in   to   the   wisdom   of   gradually  strengthening  and  possibly  combining  them.       The   second   consideration   before   turning   to   the   specifics   of   qualitative   and   longitudinal   design   involves   looking   into   the   interior   of   two   key   terms   employed   by   educators:   measuring   and   accountability.     A   careful   review   of   each   discloses   important   connotations   that   extend   and   enrich   the   narrower   definitions   researchers,   educational   leaders,   and   the   general   public   commonly   intend.   To   most   educators   trying   to   measure   impact  their  governing  images  and  connotations  turn  immediately,  and  usually  exclusively,   to   the   kinds   of   measuring   scientists,   mathematicians,   and   business   people   do   searching   for   the  specific  impact  of  a  specific  intervention.    All  these  reside  in  the  quantitative  research   domain   and   seek   a   specific   causal   relationship   between   a   precise   intervention   and   a   specific   outcome.     Unfortunately,   important   images   and   connotations   involved   in   another   usage  of  the  term  measure  –as  in  “take  the  measure  of  a  person  or  situation”  -­‐  are  seldom   evoked.       Generally   educators   would   benefit   from   this   larger   meaning   of   the   term   measure.   For  the  diverse   programs  in  the  complex  field  of  character  education  the  benefits  would  be   enormous.   Educators   who   consider   this   broader   meaning   could   begin   to   think   about   enlarging  both  what  is  taught  and  what  is  learned.    Of  course,  they  would  quickly  discover   that  “taking  the  measure”  of  a  broader  educational  goal  such  as  good  character  in  a  student   is  imperfect  compared  to  mastery  of  a  narrower  concept  or  skill.    But  as  educators  learn  so   often,  the  perfect  is  the  enemy  of  the  good.    Is  it  really  more  valuable  to  perfectly  measure   something  quite  modest  than  to  “take  the  measure”  of  something  important  and  complex   even  if  the  measure  is  rougher?     Similarly,   the   term   accountability   frequently   motivates   educators   to   be   sure   their   work   can   demonstrate   incontrovertible   effectiveness   of   a   particular   program.   Often   accountability   morphs   into   a   matter   archly   stated   as   “showing   that   the   taxpayers   are   getting   their   money’s   worth.”   If   the   interventions   and   the   learner’s   mastery   are   defined   narrowly,  then  the  likelihood  of  showing  a  high-­‐frequency  impact,  and  therefore,   a  narrow   accountability  is  high.    But,  as  Einstein  regularly  cautioned,  “Everything  that  can  be  counted   does  not  necessarily  count;  and  everything  that  counts  cannot  necessarily  be  counted.”    A   larger   version   of   accountability   derives   from   common   parlance   as   in   “give   an   account   of…”   This  suggests  a  narrative-­‐centered  explanation  where  the  phenomenon  being  explained  is   important  and  complex.    Causation  may  not  always  be  perfectly  clear  as  in  simpler,  more   narrowly   bounded   behaviors,   but   we   cannot   divert   educators   away   from   understanding   complex   phenomena   simply   because   we   connote   accounting   so   narrowly.     By   making   the   activities   of   educators   that   reductionist   we   risk   that   their   interactions   with   learners   will   become   too   heavily   reductionist.     The   noted   research   scholar   David   Berliner   has   warned   12   persistently   that   the   pressure   for   testing   narrows   the   curriculum   and   makes   it   more   superficial.  Good  character  education  simply  cannot  be  narrow  or  superficial.   Two   excellent   opportunities   exist   for   educators   to   make   their   assessments   of   curriculum   interventions   more   significant.     They   involve   accepting   assessments   that   are   little  rougher  than  the  current  heavily  quantitative  studies  and  that  are  conducted  over  a   longer   period   of   time.    There  are  likely  very  few  basic  educational  goals  more  suitable   to   well-­‐designed  qualitative,  longitudinal  assessment  than  character  education.     Both   qualitative   and   longitudinal   studies   have   been   around   for   quite   some   time.     As   we   review   their   applicability   to   character   education   programs   we   also   need   to   consider   suspending   a   common   custom   in   professional   circles.     It   is   usually   bad   professional   manners,   while   asserting   a   new   and   less   familiar   point   of   view   to   also   criticize   and   challenge   the   traditional   models.     More   typically   advocates   advocate   while   completely   refraining   from   criticizing   other   practices.     Such   restraint   may   have   negative   effects.   It   suggests   that   traditional   measuring   and   assessment   remain   just   as   they   have   been   and   eventually   become   a   contest   between   the   two   approaches   –   quantitative   and   short   range   on   one   hand   and   qualitative   and   long-­‐range   on   the   other   hand.     Such   a   contest   would   deprive   each   from   learning   from   the   other.     For   instance,   perhaps   learnings   traditionally   assessed   quantitatively   such   as   mastery   of   quadratic   equations   could   also   be   assessed   qualitatively  and  over  a  longer  period  of  time.    It  is  entirely  possible  that  a  set  of  students   could   show   mastery   of   that   particular   concept   one   semester   and   have   no   capacity   for   it   two,  four,  or  six  years  later.    Correspondingly,  a  well-­‐taught  character  education  program   might    show  only  modest  progress  at  the  end  of  a  semester,  but  could  show  frequent  usage   and   growth   over   two,   four,   or   six   years.   We   know   what   happens   when   teachers   and   students   focus   on   curriculum   content   with   the   understanding   that   the   most   important   demonstration   of   student   learning   is   a   short-­‐time   away   –   the   Friday   quiz   or   the   monthly   test.     Imagine   how   the   teaching   and   learning   would   be   designed   and   unfold   if   in   all   courses   the   most   important   demonstration   of   student   learning   would   be   two,   four   and   six   years   after  graduation.       The   mantras   of   data-­‐driven   decisions   are   incanted   often   in   education   circles   these   days.    Rarely  do  we  hear  mention  of  principle-­‐driven  decisions.    But  if  we  can  enlarge  the   definitions   of   data   to   include   qualitative   information   and   long   range   impact,   then   we   can   move  the  education  profession  more  in  the  direction  of  rich,  textured,  understandings  and   deeper   explanations   of   complex   teaching   and   learning.     In   doing   so   we   will   have   opened   better   opportunities   for   complex   assessments   that   will   improve   character   education   and   perhaps   widen   the   lens   for   current   assessment   practices   across   the   entire   curriculum,   so   that   teachers   teach   and   students   learn   with   an   eye   to   deeper   understanding   and   longer   range  impact.   Over   the   past   25   years   qualitative   research   has   come   of   age   in   education.     It   emerged   as   a   response   to   heavily   quantitative   measures   that   were   limited   to   students   demonstrating  whether  they  had  gained  mastery  over  pre-­‐determined  and  highly  precise   concepts  and  skills.    Experienced  educators  have  long  known  that  in  good  lively  classrooms   students   learn   much   more   than   specific,   predetermined   concepts.     Qualitative   assessing   13   developed   ways   for   evaluator-­‐researchers   to   uncover   deeper,   broader,   and   more   naturalistic  learning.    Whatever  qualitative  measuring,  or  more  accurately  assessing,  lost  in   objectivity  and  precision  it  gained  in  richer  understandings  of  what  students  did  learn.    The   narrowness   of   pure   quantitative   measuring   too   often   became   a   search   for   what   the   students   don’t   know.     In   general,   limiting   measuring   to   the   quantitative   paradigm   misses   much   of   the   subtlety   of   diverse   ancillary   learning   that   frequently   is   influential.     For   a   character  education  curriculum  that  emphasizes  the  importance  of  complexity  and  nuances   the   opportunities   for   rich   understanding   afforded   by   a   careful   qualitative   study,   conducted   longitudinally,  must  be  thoroughly  limned  and  considered.    In  doing  so  we  must  review  the   conventional   wisdom   which   holds   that   objective   measures   have   accuracy,   independence,   and  veracity  subjective  measures  can  never  attain.  Examples  of  rich  qualitative  data  came   from   students   answering   open-­‐ended   questions   about   healthy   caring   relationships   in   a   literature-­‐based   character   education   curriculum.     Two   responses   illustrate   powerful   ancillary  learning.     One   student   wrote:  “I’m  not  sure  what  I  want  to  be  when  I  grow  up,   but   I  don’t  want  to  be  like  Judy.”  (a  character  in  a  story  used  in  the  curriculum.)  another  wrote:   “I   learned   that   relationships   are   more   complicated   than   computers.”     This   curriculum   is   centered  on  The  Art  of  Loving  Well,  A  Character  Education  Curriculum  for  Today’s  Teenagers.   It   includes   over   40   literary   selections   and   classroom   activities   that   focus   on   helping   students  develop  a  wide  range  of  healthy  relationships.   In   their   valuable   challenge   to   high   stakes   testing,  Collateral   Damage,   Sharon   Nichols   and   David   Berliner,   point   to   a   study   of   students   who   took   the   renowned   TIMSS   (Third   International  Mathematics  and  Science  Study)  exams  (p.  186-­‐87).    Interviewers  found  that   58%   of   the   students   understood   more   than   what   was   on   the   exam   and   would   have   answered   more   questions   correctly   if   they   were   in   conversation   and   could   ask   about   the   problem.     On   29%   of   the   correct   answers   students   conversely   did   not   really   understand   why  their  answer  was  correct.    On  only  13%  of  the  items  were  interviewers  convinced  that   the  item  disclosed  what  the  students  knew.    At  the  very  least  this  should  caution  us  about   assuming  that  quantitative  measures  are  rigorous  while  qualitative  measures  are  somehow   soft.   Qualitative   research   has   emerged   largely   from   anthropology,   investigative   journalism,   and   clinical   psychology.     In   these   fields,   when   conducted   optimally,   these   researchers  rely  on  a  variety  of  instruments  to  construct  a  broad,  deep,  and  rich  account  of   complex  evolving  phenomena.    In  assessing  the  longitudinal  impact  of  any  of  the  character   education  programs  described  previously  researchers  could  include  some  of  the  customs  in   quantitative  research.    For  example,  a  control  group  that  did  not  use  the  curriculum  could   be  identified  and  tracked.    Also  a  form  of  the  pre-­‐and  post-­‐test  model  easily  could  be  set  up.   Good  qualitative  research  is  time-­‐consuming,  but  there  is  not  any  good  way  to  get  sound,   reliable,   valid,   and   meaningful   information   about   the   impact   of   a   complex   curriculum   except   to   examine   it   from   several   angles.     One   of   the   angles   could   well   be   an   information/knowledge-­‐centered   paper-­‐pencil   examination   given   before   the   teaching,   at   the   conclusion   of   the   teaching,   as   well   as   two,   four,   and   six   years   after   the   teaching.     A   thorough   plan   could   also   have   participants   complete   an   open-­‐ended   short   answer   questionnaire  which  could  in  turn  could  be  part  of  a  face-­‐to-­‐face  interview.  In  an  optimal   assessment   this   quantifiable   information   would   be   integrated   with   what   evaluators   learn   14   through  interviews  at  each  stage  and  student  journals  across  the  full  10-­‐year  time  span  that   includes  a  four  year  instructional  program.    If  we  use  the  literature-­‐based  curriculum  as  an   example,  then  researchers  could  evaluate  what  students  recall  over  the  several  years  of  the   longitudinal  study  to  determine  if  one  story,  one  character,  or  one  problem  became  a  sort   of   talisman   for   students.     They   could   also   assess   the   habits   of   mind   that   the   curriculum   generated  by  asking  participants  to  read  a  new  short  story  to  identify  the  degree  to  which   the  participants  could  transfer  any  understandings  or  recollections  from  the  original  direct   teaching   and   apply   it   to   a   new   situation.     If   a   significant   number   of   participants   demonstrated   the   ability   to   transfer   insights   to   new   situations   and   the   ability   to   do   so   over   a   period   of   time   would   have   to   establish   any   program   as   successful.     Similarly,   skilled   interviewers   could   discuss   with   participants   how   they   have   handled   moral   dilemmas   at   two,   four,   and   six   years   after   the   original   teaching.     Unprompted   information   from   participants   is   of   more   value   than   unprompted   information.     But   qualitative   researchers   can  gain  insight  after  prompting  participants  to  determine  if  any  of  the  impact  is  somewhat   latent.    Asking  if  participants  recall  any  character  from  any  story  is  one  kind  of  information.   Identifying   a   character   and   talking   over   any   possible   meaning   that   character   has   for   the   student  is  also  valuable  information.       In   terms   of   understanding   the   impact   or   the   effect   of   any   education   program   the   Gold   Standard   measurement   scheme   also   would   have   to   include   studying   the   long   range   influence   on   the   lives   of   the   learners.     It   means   that   long   after   the   period   of   direct   teaching   the   learner   would   demonstrate   a   rich   understanding   of   the   key   ideas,   the   ability   and   inclination   to   transfer   those   key   ideas   to   new   situations,   good   judgment   about   consideration  of  alternative  courses  of  action,  and  the  courage  and  skills  to  take  the  right   action.  Across  the  culture  and  in  the  education  profession  we  have  heard  a  great  deal  about   Big  Data  to  help  understand  and  predict  sweeping  phenomena.    Only  very  recently  have  we   heard   as   much   about   Long   Data.     But   the   New   York   Times   on   December   8,   2013   (Business,   p. 3)   reported   on   the   powerful   insights   gained   from   tracking   data   over   time.     Character education  reformers  would  do  well  to  turn  the  attention  of  the  entire  profession  toward  the impact  of  programs  across  students’  later  lives,  not  just  their  lives  in  school. One  obvious  and  important  downside  to  such  a  plan  is  that  it  is  expensive  and  does   not   accord   well   with   contemporary   culture’s   widespread   lust   for   instant   results.     And   it   carries   the   risk   of   multiple   intervening   variables   impacting   a   treatment   group   over   several   years.     Thus,   the   standards   for   declaring   a   project   as   impactful   must   be   modest.     On   the   positive   side   if   a   longitudinal   study   is   carefully   designed   and   implemented   it   can   provide   information   so   we   can   truly   understand   about   the   ultimate   goal   of   education   programs;   that  is,  that  they  influence  the  lives  of  the  learners  long  after  schooling.       There   are   several   approaches   to   longitudinal   studies,   but   for   the   purposes   of   the   richest  understanding  of  character  education  programs  the  best  option  is  what  qualitative   researchers  identify  as  panel  studies.    This  means  that  researchers  examine  the  same  study   participants  over  as  long  a  period  of  time  as  possible.    It  requires  a  large  pool  to  account  for   a   likely   evaporation   rate   that   can   undermine   a   study.     The   longitudinal   research   design   must   be   qualitative   in   that   it   involves   an   interaction   and   adjustments   for   the   researcher   and   for   the   participants   as   time   unfolds.   This   design   can   productively   involve   comparisons   15   with  a  control  group;  that  is,  students  with  no  focused  character  education  program.  Good   longitudinal  qualitative  studies  include  paper-­‐pencil  surveys,  interviews  about  the  survey   and   about   the   participant’s   daily   life   as   well   as   the   participant’s   reflective   journals   over   time,   participant’s   responses   to   triggered   recollections   and   classroom   portfolios.     If   the   curriculum   and   the   assessment   plans   are   well   constructed   and   well-­‐supported,   and   if   it   includes   diverse   assessment   mechanisms,   educators   can   point   to   either   a   high   quality   program   that   has   a   lasting   impact   or   we   will   find   out   how   to   improve   the   intervention   program  and/or  the  complex  measuring  system  to  improve  results.    But  in  this  design  we   will   be   working   in   the   area   of   complex   education   goals,   programs,   and   measuring   rather   than  keeping  each  component  very  simple  to  honor  a  declared  need  for  objective  data.    In   the   fields   of   character   education   objective   data   about   longitudinal   impact   is   almost   impossible   to   produce.     Critics   of   longitudinal   studies   say   that   the   time   delays   allow   for   nearly   uncountable   intervening   variables   affecting   outcomes.     But   if   the   results   are   affirming  it  does  not  mean  that  the  original  program  was  without  impact.    Qualitative  and   longitudinal   studies   more   commonly   come   up   with   correlations   rather   than   direct   causations.     The   mantras   about   “Correlation   is   not   causation”   echo.     But   it   is   an   oversimplification.     Edward   Tufte   sagely   points   out   that   to   be   purely   accurate   the   statement   would   read   “Empirically   observed   covariation   is   a   necessary   but   not   sufficient   condition   for   causality.”     If   that   makes   one   yearn   for   Standard   English   Tufte   generously   translates,   “Correlation   is   not   causation,   but   it   sure   is   a   hint.”   (Tufte,   p.   45)     A   hint   of   causation  and  the  opportunity  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  the  hint  should  encourage  those   curriculum  providers  and  measurers  of  programs  who  want  to  venture  into  new  complex,   consequential   territory.   It   can   illustrate   the   ways   in   which   the   achievement   of   a   complex   good  triumphs  over  the  need  for  perfect  measurement.       Among   many   well-­‐regarded,   influential   longitudinal   studies   is   the   US   Framingham   Heart   Study.     Like   many   medical   longitudinal   studies   this   began   as   a   descriptive   study   originally   relying   on   5200   healthy   adults.     Since   1948   this   continuing   study   now   reaches   across  three  generations.    This  moved  from  descriptive  and  correlational  to  causal  study  as   the   epidemiology   of   cardiovascular   disease   was   reconstructed   around   the   discovery   of   risk   factors   such   as   blood   pressure,   smoking,   cholesterol,   obesity,   diet,   and   limited   exercise.   This,   of   course,   is   more   than   one   could   hope   for,   or   perhaps   even   need,   in   studying   good   character.    But  it  affirms  the  power  and  importance  of  going  well  beyond  Lettice’s  “mere.”  It   is  a  rich  qualitative,  longitudinal  study  that  has  unquestionably  saved  lives.    Our  challenge   is  to  come  up  with  the  curricular  moral  equivalent.       16