Note: The views expressed here are those of the author, Garrison Walters, and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the South Carolina Higher Education Foundation, for which Walters is a volunteer staff member.
Culturally Transmitted Educational Fatalism is a belief about educational success that individuals get from the society that surrounds them. People with CTEF lack “self efficacy” about education, believing that fate, either in the form of genes or in the decisions of others (or both), determines whether education can have an important role in their own economic success and quality of life.
>Isn’t talking about CTEF just a way of helping the schools avoid responsibility?
Given our long history of assuming that the only way to improve educational outcomes is through “fixing schools,” I can see why someone would think this way.
I certainly don’t believe that schools should be off the hook, because everyone in every institution should always be working hard to improve.
I do believe that schools can make a difference even if the surrounding culture doesn’t change; I just think the effects will be much smaller than what our society requires.
Although some individuals will always be helped, I don’t think schools will ever be able to make significant improvements at scale if the surrounding culture doesn’t change. Thus, I argue we should start to pay strong attention to CTEF (vs. none at the moment).
>Isn’t this a dangerous attempt to have government impose a kind of mind control on parts of the population?
Attempted in the wrong way it certainly could take on those characteristics.
My own view is that government shouldn’t be involved in dealing with CTEF. Maybe as a funder, but I’m skeptical about even that. Offsetting CTEF is an effort that’s best undertaken by individuals and private entities.
Finally, based on the research I’ve seen, I’m confident that any attempt at mind control-like propaganda would have little effect, except perhaps to vaccinate people against the idea. Americans don’t respond well to propaganda.
>Won’t this be seen as racist?
It can be, and probably will be seen that way by some, but the issue isn’t race-based at all. All ethnic groups in the U.S. are affected by CTEF. My interest in the area was shaped by more than a decade and a half of teaching young people from the industrial areas of Ohio, nearly all of whom were white. Also, remember that culture and ethnicity (in the sense of race) aren’t necessarily the same—witness the diversity of culture in white European communities. If you’re thinking of ethnicity in the sense of language/nationality then the answer is that these identifications can often, but not always, drive cultural foundations and behaviors.
>Is the British research really solid?
I think it’s very persuasive. The investigators avoided the dangers of simple surveys with an extensive interview process. Of course, interviews can also introduce bias. Ultimately, more research will certainly be needed. In the meantime, I’m persuaded in part by the carefulness of the approach and in part because the results align so well with what we know from other sources like The Learning Curve. I’m obviously also influenced by my own experiences as a teacher, perceptions from the classroom have been strongly reinforced by the experiences of those who have taught similar kinds of students. Not surprisingly, the issue of motivation/self-efficacy doesn’t resonate strongly with folks who have only taught at highly selective universities.
>What do you mean by “personal responsibility?”
I believe that, ultimately, your success in education (or in other areas) is dependent on your own choices and your own willingness to follow through on those choices. From this perspective, a school can’t make you successful, nor can government or society as a whole. Only you can do what needs to be done.
This language may appeal to some modern conservatives, but I expect I’ll lose many with the next part.
Responsibility isn’t unique to individuals. Unless society meets its responsibility to provide the essential conditions for personal growth, such as adequate food and shelter (and in my view including some level of health care), it’s not reasonable to expect that more than a small proportion of individuals living in poverty will succeed in education. Further, material support isn’t enough. Society must also provide the psychological assistance necessary to make it possible to break the cycle of educational fatalism.
Again, though, “provide” isn’t the same as “make.” If an individual chooses not to respond to what’s available, in the end it’s his or her decision and responsibility.
>Isn’t the whole issue of educational fatalism overdrawn? Does it really affect that many people? Isn’t the issue self-correcting in any case?
A lot of questions wrapped in one, but I’ll allow it since they’re all closely related.
I don’t think my description of the problem is overdrawn with respect to the U.S.; after decades of trying we are still doing a terrible job of getting low-income people successfully through to the level of education they need for economic success—some college level credential.
As for whether the problem is self-correcting, the answer has to be nuanced. In some cases, it clearly is. I’ve seen many people in the post-industrial Midwest who get the message and understand that education is the future. Many, but not all, are still shaky on the confidence in the ability of people like them to succeed, though.
Similarly, I’ve met many African Americans from destitute areas of the South who have overcome prejudice, discrimination to become highly educated, highly successful people. Usually, when I’ve had a chance to ask about what made them achieve so much, it’s been a mentor, someone who encouraged them not merely to get an education but more important to think of themselves as someone who could be successful at whatever they did. There’s research to support the idea that mentors like this make a big difference.
Similarly, a great many people of Hispanic heritage have overcome very limited opportunity, not to mention active bias, to become highly successful.
So there’s been some progress, but as for whether educational fatalism self corrects at scale, I think the answer is something like “often yes, often no.”
In areas like the industrial Midwest, I think some change is occurring fairly rapidly. The message that you need at least some post high school education to get any kind of a job is getting out, and community colleges are doing a great job of providing effective and affordable programs for people looking to move up. Still, the overall system is a lot less productive than it needs to be, as evidenced by the fact that college graduation rates are still low. The conventional wisdom is that the graduation rates are the fault of the colleges and universities, but I don’t think that’s accurate. My own view is that the core problem in graduation remains weak self-efficacy, and that there’s a huge amount of work to be done both on campuses and in communities to correct that.
I’ll conclude with a simple point: there’s an enormous human cost to waiting for things to self correct.
>What’s the difference between “culturally transmitted educational fatalism” and “mindset,” “self efficacy,” “drive,” “grit,” “resilience,” “character,” and all the other terms that are fashionable now? Do we really need another buzzword?
They’re all related in the sense that they refer to whether or not an individual possesses a belief in his or her ability to be a successful learner (when used with reference to education). I prefer “mindset” because I think it most effectively carriers the broader context and is very easily explained. Of course, linguists and philosophers have shown that the words we use don’t have the universal meaning we think they have, but instead reflect the context in which we learned them. With that in mind, I don’t like “character” because I think for most people it connotes a moral or even a religious direction. The term I should use is “self-efficacy,” because I think Bandura’s research is the basis for all the others and, when you focus on it, most clearly describes the problem. Unfortunately, it’s too social-sciency for everyday use.
I chose my long and clumsy term with the goal of focusing on the genesis of the problem, rather than it’s current manifestation in a particular individual or group of individuals. I’ve been fascinated that the very distinguished group of people talking about “mindset,” “grit,” et al seem to have little interest in how weakness in these areas is generated. They’re doing thoughtful work on treatment, but I think prevention is at least as important in this case. CTEF isn’t likely to get widespread use, so I’m not worried about confusion from conflicts or overlaps.
>Why not just focus on programs in the schools? Charters like KIPP are doing a good job.
I admire what KIPP it’s doing. But, because they don’t connect directly with the parents and surrounding culture, I think their work is inefficient and incomplete. Young people spend only about 13 percent of their waking hours in school, so it’s easy for the surrounding culture to undo the good work that’s done there. KIPP’s college graduation rates aren’t that high yet (as far as I can tell), something that in my view suggests that self efficacy and surrounding culture support are still weak.
While I do believe that this is an area where schools should be actively involved, it doesn’t seem reasonable to put the full burden on them. Remember the 13 percent issue in the context of all the other responsibilities schools have.
Also, doesn’t it seem likely that young people will have better educational outcomes if they acquire positive attitudes from their earliest years, rather than having to undo negative attitudes and learn different ones when they get to school?
>Are there programs out there that you think are good?
Yes, there are lots of outstanding ones.
The program that is philosophically closest to what I advocate is Big Brothers/ Big Sisters. They really have an impact. The weakness here is scale, both in numbers helped and in the ability to reach out to the children’s surrounding culture. Also, I’m not sure they do the level of psychological training of mentors that’s really needed.
The same comments apply to early childhood programs. They do great work, but focus narrowly and don’t emphasize the psychology. I really like the stuff coming out of Harvard Family Research.
Beyond that, the neighborhood/school programs, such as communities in schools, do a lot of good. But the exclusive focus on schools is problematic in my view, in the sense that I believe it’s essential but not enough. I’ve not seen any that go beyond a general (and of course valuable) highlighting of the value of education to have a significant component on the surrounding culture and its psychology. I don’t know them all, of course.
As for programs in college, I’ve read descriptions of a lot of effective mentoring programs and some good, if early, shots at changing mindset. I really like the work of bottom line.org.
Professor Ellen Usher of the University of Kentucky is doing very interesting and important work: http://p20motivationlab.org/
>Selected Links
· A. Bandura (1994). “Self-efficacy.” In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
o One of the best summaries of his ground-breaking research.
· British Research on Education Culture
o Cabinet Office (UK): Social Exclusion Task Force, Aspiration and Attainment Amongst Young People in Deprived Communities. http://www.farehames.org.uk/aspirations_evidence_pack.pdf
§ Superb research summary.
o Department for Communities and Local Government (UK). Inspiring Communities Customer Insight Research Report. http://www.farehames.org.uk/aspirations_evidence_pack.pdf
§ A fascinating study.
· Carol Dweck, Mindset. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007.
o A summary of her work.
· Les Robinson, Changeology. Totnes, Devon: Green Books, Ltd., 2012.
o An excellent summary of research on psychology of culture change with numerous clear and well-written examples.
· Tina Rosenberg. Join the Club. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011.
o Rosenberg covers much the same ground as Robinson but with extended examples.
· Usher, Ellen L “Sources of Middle School Students' Self-Efficacy in Mathematics: A Qualitative Investigation,” American Educational Research Journal; Mar 2009; 46, 1
o Interesting small study. Builds closely on Bandura’s work.
