| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
Character education often is used synonymously with terms such as moral education, values clarification, and moral reasoning. In its broadest sense, it is any one of several approaches used by educators to foster good values and character in young people (Jones, Ryan, and Bohlin, 1997). Berkowitz (1998) also defines character education broadly as the “ . . . intentional intervention to promote the formation of any or all aspects of moral functioning of individuals.”
Educators always have tried to have a positive influence on the values, habits, and behaviors of students. Horace Mann and others who supported the concept of the common school believed that character development and education for citizenship were two of the most important objectives of public education. The mission of schooling was not to be restricted to academics. Rather, it was to serve as “an engine for public virtue” (Jones, Ryan, and Bohlin, 1997).
Some have argued that it is not possible to reach agreement regarding what values to teach. They advise caution in any instruction related to values or morality. Others are concerned about the separation of church and state and believe any attempts to teach values or morality will introduce religion into the classroom.
Cunningham (1996) notes that character education often has been a euphemism for “proper behavior” and used as a cover by some groups to control and direct the behavior of others. As a consequence, there has been a long-standing debate between those who want the public schools to focus primarily on the teaching of academics and those who have argued that education must do more than teach subject matter content or skill development. (1)
Although concerns may arise regarding which values to teach, the debate may be far less controversial than some would believe. In a statewide poll of Wisconsin adults conducted by WEAC in July, 1996, 91 percent thought that schools should emphasize “character education,” in which students are taught values such as respect for others, personal responsibility, and citizenship.
Two and one-half years earlier, in January, 1994, a statewide sample of adults in Wisconsin was asked if they thought it was possible to get people in their community to agree on a basic set of values that should be taught in their public schools. Only two-thirds of respondents thought this goal was possible. However, when asked if specific values should be taught, there was a near consensus for most of the values listed below:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Others also maintain that there is widespread agreement within this country regarding what constitutes the core values of character education. In a 1993 article (see Berreth and Scherer), Amatai Etzioni argues that the question of whose values to teach is not a strong counter-argument to character education. He states:
But the fact is that there are lots of values we all share. Nobody argues that discrimination is morally appropriate. A lot of people, unfortunately, engage in it. Nobody argues that lying is better than truth-telling. Philosophers might argue the margin of white lies, but I never heard somebody say, “I think lying is morally good”(p. 6).
Further, “. . . there is no way of teaching subjects without teaching values. So let’s be up front about that and have explicit curriculum. If we don’t, we are going to teach values only in hidden and most devious ways. Let’s have discussions about the values we want to transmit” (p. 6).
Ryan (1993) maintains that the Chinese concept of the Tao (becoming a good person) can provide a framework for character education:
“Over the years, teachers, curriculum specialists, and school officials have used the Tao, albeit unconsciously, to guide the work of schools. Translated into curriculum, the Tao guides schools to educate children to be concerned about the weak and those in need; to help others; to work hard and complete their tasks well and promptly, even when they do not want to; to control their tempers; to work cooperatively with others and practice good manners; to respect authority and other people’s rights; to help resolve conflicts; to understand honesty, responsibility, and friendship; to balance pleasures with responsibilities; and to ask themselves and decide, ‘What is the right thing to do?’ ”
Practical Concerns
Even though educators and parents may agree that there is a need to teach ethics and character, there are practical concerns that must be addressed.For example, Greer (1998) and others believe that many teachers are not qualified to teach ethics or character in a formal manner because they lack a basic understanding of such concepts as ethics, virtue, courage, justice, self-control, wisdom, friendship, cynicism, skepticism, relativism, and dilemma.
Greer also argues that many programs fail because of four reasons: (1) teachers feel they are not well-grounded in the content and are not serious and consistent about teaching ethics and character to their students; (2) teachers believe ethics and character should be taught, but they do not feel confident or competent to teach in these areas; (3) teachers feel they already are teaching ethics and character and don’t need any special training or background; and (4) teachers are suspicious of the idea of identifying what is right or wrong.
In a 1999 article in Education Week, Ryan and Bohlin outlined three ways in which schools currently are addressing the issue of character education: the values approach, the views approach, and the virtues approach. In their discussion of these approaches, they discuss why they believe the virtues approach is the only procedure with merit. A brief description of each approach follows:
The Values Approach. This approach gives children opportunities to deal with moral and nonmoral issues and to make personal decisions. This approach is based on the idea that children need practice in sorting out their own values. The teacher identifies the issues and provides the setting for addressing them; however, the teacher does not attempt to influence or direct values. This approach is popular because many teachers and schools fear that they will be accused of indoctrinating students or imposing their values on students. Ryan and Bohlin criticize the values approach because it does not evoke a moral commitment, nor does it lead to a better person.
The Views Approach. In this approach students engage in discussions of controversial issues. The authors point out that the discussions often are very intense and frequently lead to anger. The teacher’s role is to help the student identify with, and eventually adopt, the correct views. However, Ryan and Bohlin also are critical of this approach because they see the end product as simply being the adoption of intellectual positions.
The Virtues Approach. The goal of this approach is to have students develop virtues, including diligence, sincerity, personal accountability, courage, and perseverance. Ryan and Bohlin favor the virtues approach because they believe it secures an internal commitment on the part of students to lead a good life. The authors argue that it is our virtues which make us better and happier people. Virtues enable us to give shape to and lead worthy lives.
Americans Most Concerned About Morality and Values
A poll done for the NEA in May 1999, New Challenges…New Opportunities, found that morality and values top the list of issues of most concern to the American public. The most pressing issues were said to be:
|
||||||||||||||
About the NEA poll, Pollster Mark Penn writes that Americans agree on the importance of civic life, citizens' responsibility to contribute to the community, and the need for government action to take new forms. Penn encourages efforts to integrate the concepts of responsibility and citizenship into the public dialogue.
Other highlights of the survey include:
A second NEA poll, the Shell Poll, looks at values across a broad range of areas, including civic values and morality. The study suggests “three key values are most endangered in America: respect, responsibility, and honesty…Large majorities feel that the nation has become weaker in terms of respect for other people (74%), respect for the law (77%), and respect for authority (86%).” Two-thirds also say that society’s standards for acceptable behavior are getting worse.
Among the most significant findings in the polls:
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Conclusion
There is strong public support for teaching young people to become good citizens. WEAC has always supported the teaching and reinforcement of commonly held community values. Study after study has shown strong public support for this effort; very few people expect schools only to teach academics. Responsibility for effective schools lies with not only with schools, business and government leaders, but with parents and communities as well.
—WEAC Division for Instruction and Professional Development
Sources
Bebeau, Muriel J., Rest, James R., and Narvaez, Darcia. “Beyond the Promise: A Prespective on Research in Moral Education.” Education Researcher (May 1999): 18-26.
Berkowitz, Marvin W. “Obstacles to Teacher Training in Character Education.” Action in Teacher Education (Winter 1998): 1-10.
Berreth, Diane and Scherer, Marge. “Transmitting Values: A Conversation with Amitai Etzioni.” Educational Leadership (November 1993): 12-15.
“Character Goes Back to School.” Time Magazine (May 24, 1999): 68-69.
Cunningham, Craig A. Character Education Home Page. Available at the following internet address: http://www.ecnet.net/users/uccunnichared.html#intro)
Jones, Emily Nielsen, Ryan, Kevin, and Bohlin, Karen. “Character Education and Teacher Education.” In Action in Teacher Education (Winter 1998): 11- 28.
Greer, Peter R., “Teaching Virtue,” Education Week on the WEB (February 4, 1998). Available at the following internet address: www.edweek.org/.
Lickona, Thomas. “The Return of Character Education.” Education Week. (November, 1993): 6-11.
Lockwood, Alan L. “Character Education: The Ten Percent Solution.” Social Education (April-May, 1991): 246-48.
“Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century,” poll conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland (Feb. 1999) for the National Education Association.
“New Challenges … New Opportunities,” poll conducted by Peter Hart (March 1999) for the National Education Association.
Ryan, Kevin. “Mining the Values in the Curriculum.” Educational Leadership (November, 1993): 16-18.
Ryan, Kevin and Karen Bohlin, “Values, Views, or Virtues,” Education Week (March 3, 1999): Available at the following internet address: www.edweek.org/
(1) Although character education has always been part of the American system of education, some argue that support declined during the latter half of the 20th Century. One explanation for this decline is offered by Lickona (1993). “In the 1960s, a worldwide rise in personalism celebrated the worth, autonomy, and subjectivity of the person, emphasizing individual rights and freedom over responsibility. Personalism rightly protested societal oppression and injustice, but it also delegitimized moral authority, eroded belief in objective moral norms, turned people inward toward self-fulfillment, weakened social commitments…” (p. 6).
back
to issue papers