Over the 18 months between spring 2005 and winter 2006, the Institute for Global Ethics visited exemplary independent high schools in both the U.S. and Canada. During the course of our study, we spoke to over 500 people, including students, faculty, administration, parents and trustees. Ten schools participated—their settings, size, demographics, and location varied widely. We deliberately sought a diverse group of schools to study in order to approximate the wide range of independent schools across the U.S. and Canada. The findings in this report are common to all these schools, despite their striking differences. We recognize that other independent schools across the U.S. and Canada—and indeed, around the world—are also dedicated to this kind of quality education. The schools in our study represent a small sample of a large and diverse set of schools.

The purpose of this study was to delineate school practices that balance academic rigor with attention to ethical development. Not surprisingly, all our findings relate to deliberate efforts to build trust within the school culture. Less predictably, each of these findings can be said to support a genuine examination of “truth”—of true relationships, of true understanding, of true intention—as essential to trust building and, consequently, to deep learning. Hence the title for this report; the adults working to provide quality education in these schools seem genuinely driven to learn what their students, colleagues, and leadership “really think” in an inspiring enterprise that can ultimately be described as a quest for the truth. This journey involves everyone in these schools, and promises to produce the “knowledgeable, compassionate citizens and effective leaders within a rapidly transforming world” espoused in the NAIS Best Practice: Educating for Global Citizenship.

Given the skeptical-at-best attitudes that today’s adolescents are reputed to hold toward adults, building trust would seem a formidable undertaking. Yet consistently, the schools we were fortunate enough to visit during this study were alive with positive attitude, enthusiasm, and joy. Far from feeling daunted by their task, the teachers, faculty, parents, and trustees with whom we met seem on fire about the mission and promise of their learning environment. Likewise, we spoke to scores of young adults who, while sharp and sophisticated, well traveled and well read, rarely came across as cynical. Many described their learning experiences as deeply meaningful and look forward to leveraging this learning to contribute to a better world.

Hence, our strong interest is in not only describing common themes and practices across these schools, but in suggesting ways other schools might replicate them to move their own learning environment in the same direction. The 10 key findings from this project fit together and arise out of this essential commitment to building trust and truth-seeking.

1. Cross-cutting dimension: Attention to values and ethics permeate these learning environments at both the adult and the student level. If we want students to be truly good people, the climate of their learning environment—the “how we do things around here” of their school’s organizational culture—must clearly stem from and telegraph a platform of shared ethical values. However, while all the adults we met were clearly committed to promoting ethics and values, many of them could not point to a poster or recite an official “code of ethics” for their school. The more seamless, natural, and earnest the effort to seek “the good,” the more likely students will internalize this lifelong quest.
2. Driver and connector: Across participating schools, higher-order thinking skills are emphasized and deliberately linked to the moral realm. Values and ethics undergird critical thought by connecting “the personal” to the more academic topics and concepts. Deep critical thinking and learning take place as students are encouraged to articulate and test their true perceptions of the world, forming and defending authentic opinions.
3. Fueling relationships: The perceptions and opinions students volunteer will only be authentic in an environment where they feel trusted and can really speak their minds. Students in these schools develop trust through strong relationships with people who are committed to honest self examination and try to model this quality in all their interactions.
4. Culture of open feedback: For adults to build these strong, successful relationships with students, the same high levels of trust must permeate faculty relationships. In the majority of these schools, teachers are clearly empowered to be bold learners. They speak their minds without reprisal, take different tacks without rebuke, take risks with support, and take feedback or criticism as an expression of caring.
5. Trustees as keepers of the moral compass: If there is a source from which trust most effectively evolves in a school, it may be from the body bearing the name. Despite a mostly behind-the-scenes role, in several cases, participating schools’ trustees view their primary role as developing and sustaining the trust level of the school.
6. Tone at the top: The most important conduit for trust is the head of school. Students, faculty, trustees, and parents frequently refer to this important leadership feature. Throughout these cultures the ethical actions, decisions, and communication of the school head are noticed and appreciated.
7. Tolerance for ambiguity: Is trust conveyed simply through incantation of a philosophy? Not in these schools. Specific codes of ethics and values may or may not be articulated, but heads and other adults in the environment model and live “trust:” they trust their collaboration and processes, they trust that they’ll sometimes get stuck and that they’ll constantly have doubts, and they trust their personal ability to think things through and their personal commitment to see things through.
8. Professional development from the ranks: In many of these schools, teachers are expected to trust their professional judgment and to share it, just as they expect students to contribute their very best perceptions, opinions, and understanding. These educators readily build on colleagues’ or students’ learning in a creative synergy, rather than feeling competitive or defensive.
9. Authentic student input: Teachers and other adults naturally and expertly welcome serious student input in a variety of aspects of these school communities. They trust their students’ ability to make good decisions.
10. Growth, not punishment: Disciplinary approaches are the most consistent area of student input across these schools. Students are trusted to provide effective feedback and consequences that educate, rather than punish, fellow students who have broken the rules.

Share this: