1
Character Education /Jennifer Simonson
EDU 6085
Inquiry Mini-project 1
February 4, 2011
Character education is a collaborative effort between the family, the school, and the community to focus upon the developing virtues within students in addition to, or in conjunction with, the pursuit of content. Popular among these virtues are empathy, responsibility, and honesty, as these ones have been identified as the "life skills" of the "world of work."(Marzanno 2006) Traditionally, educating for character either constitutes an entirely separate curriculum or an embedded, implicit strand that educatorsvalue but do not necessarily teach directly. These virtues can be based on school or classroom rules or simply by teacher preference. The demand for character education comes from a genuine concern. AsJamesLeming states, "...as public concern about the crisis in youth character has swelled, a dramatic increase has occurred in the number and variety of character education curriculums."(Leming, Whither Goes Character Education? Objectives, Pedagogy, and Research in Education Programs, 1997) But just because the concern has "swelled" does that mean that character education programs are the appropriate response? Are they appropriate to schools in an ever increasing standards-based, competency driven environment?
The answer is yes, butspecificallyas it pertains toissues of "character" embedded in the mastery of state, district, and building academic standards. Teaching character can and should happen, butit must be fair and equitable to all students, even students with opposing and constitutionally protectedvalues and beliefs. The school's charter is to educate everyone. There can be "no child left behind," and students lacking "character" are still expected to learn. Successful schools best operate around a clear mission. Instruction of character for character's sake runs counter to the mission of schools and has been shown to have only limited effectiveness anyway.
Character educationraises concerns such as how do we assess student work for"character," and how does "good character"correlate to mandated learning standards? William J. Bennett argues, "The vast majority of Americans share a respect for certain fundamental traits of character: honesty, compassion, courage, and perseverance." (Bennett, 1993) Fortunately, virtues such as the ones Bennetstates are embedded in grade level academic expectations state to state. Fluency in communication, for example, benefits directly from analyzing social and interpersonal norms - a natural component of character education. Analysis of literal characters in a literary text relies heavily on universal agreements as to what "courage" or "compassion" look like. Every state has academic standards such as these. Addressing the communal needs of character education with the academic needs of skills-based standards work naturally together.
One example of character education woven into academic instruction, meeting academic as well as character educative needs, is in theWashington's Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALR's). Starting in grade three, under the EALR for writing, EALR 3 reads, "The student writes clearly and effectively."(OSPI, 2011) The grade level expectation (3.3.8.) states, "Applies conventional forms for citations."(OSPI, 2011) Embedded inthe expectation is learners apply acceptable citationsin their writing when quoting an outside source. Within a classroom where moral and ethical character development are explored and practiced, this would be a natural place to talk about academic honesty and why it is important when using other peoples words and ideas in written work. The teacher reviews not only how, but why we cite others' work and are honest. This topic can lead to discussions about virtues such as conscience, respect, and fairness and their importance within the immediate learning community as well as beyond the classroom walls.
Furthermore, many school communities can and do successfully establish their own local, personalized approach to developing and maintaining character within school walls but do so carefully. None of these infringe upon differing students' potentially core values and beliefs. They exist within the framework of establishing rules and procedures, not judgment. At Breidablick Elementary in Poulsbo, Washington, personal responsibility and character development are a stated priority. Starting in kindergarten, students are taught the four Rs: Respect, Responsibility, Relationships, and Rights. This program teaches students pro-social skills such as taking turns, sharing, showing respect to themselves and others, and listening. Teachers and staff also know the four Rs and build them into their classroom communities. Students are taught to work through social difficulties by incorporating the four Rs. This routine deliberately teaches character as it is an agreed upon building standard; one that does not interfere with anyone's constitutionally protected rights such as the right to an education. The four R's exist not just for their own sake but as a pathway to academic success.
To reiterate, even without mandated character education taught directly as a separate subject matter schools can teach and influence student character development as it is integrated into already established curriculum. In her article titled, Educating a Democracy-Standards and the Future of Public Education, Deborah Meier states,
"Human learning, to be efficient, effective, and long-lasting, requires the engagement of learners on their own behalf, and rests on the relationships that develop between schools and their communities, between teachers and their students, and between the individual learner and what is to be learned." (Meier, 2000)
Again, there is evidence supporting that this method of influencing character development, along with providing students with a safe, fair, orderly, cooperative learning environment may be more effective than an additional curriculum that is added to an already full academic course load.
With the vast cultural, societal, and religious backgrounds inherent in schools, what standardized core of moral and ethical characteristics is best to teach all students? Who mandates the fundamental traits of character? The Character Education Manifesto states, "Character education is about developing virtues — good habits and dispositions which lead students to responsible and mature adulthood"(Ryan, Bohlin, & Thayer, 1996) Yes, civic virtues such as honesty, responsibility, respect for all persons, and service are important. But, what may be important to one administrator, teacher, parent, or student may not be representative of the entire community. However, "...no form of schooling is values-free, and every aspect of the school curricula, pedagogies, climate, structures, and policies affect the moral sensibilities and dispositions of its students." (Williams, 2000) Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that character education, taught within public schools, limited to state, district, or school standards lies neatly between the two extremes. As long as character education does not interfere with other peoples' protected rights, it is an acceptable even necessary component within education. Michelle Borba, when promoting her perspective on moral intelligence, specifies the seven essential virtues of goodness. "The virtues are empathy, conscience, self-control, respect, kindness, tolerance, and fairness."(Charles, 2011) These seven virtues complement well the same necessary expectations for incorporating rules, procedures, teamwork, and instruction, what good teachers must teach.
As students are expected to engage in behavior that reflects positive character so does the teacher. The teacher should modelideas such as friendship, teamwork, citizenship, kindness, courage, ability, and effort at various ages of development. As noted by Gordon Vessels' character education framework, on the first days of schoolthe teacher establishesthe rules and procedures of the classroom community based on theseven virtues mentioned above. It sets the stage for character developmenteven if not necessarily age appropriate at that time. These virtues are what is expected of the students as well as what the students can expect of the teacher. However, these virtues may not be in agreement with all students, their families, and cultures. When those conflicts arise, it is important to address the situation as a cooperative community.
However, even if students are demonstrating newly learned virtuous acts, character education, state mandated or not and taught via didactic, direct instruction or embedded within daily teachings and interactions with students, is producing limited evidence of quantifiable success. In Moral Education in America, B. Edward McClellan quotes James S. Leming stating, "... there is no systematic study to indicate just how deeply moral education has penetrated the daily life of the classroom and no evidence to suggest whether it has made a difference in the behavior of the young." (McClellan, 1999) That being said, lessons that include conversations and teachings about virtuous behaviors and school communities where administration, teachers, and students model moral acts are necessary, but only as they supplement existing academic lessons. Inside the learning community, it is not impossible to assess important skills needed for life beyond school. For example, learners can be assessed based on "life skills". Robert J. Marzano recommends the following: "Participation, work completion, behavior, and working in groups." (Marzano, 2006) A rubric designed to assess the lessons' learning objectives along with well defined classroom behavior and interactions with classmates can be an effective method to evaluate a character based curriculum as well as a means to adjust classroom practices or lessons based on the feedback from the assessment information.
Curriculum that is weaves into the school and classroom community, indirect character education to support educationally sound instructional approaches, and subject matters is a necessary piece of our educational system. Teaching should always be done with the respect of the patchwork of cultures, backgrounds, and religious beliefs student share or do not share, without crossing the line of infringing upon the rights of the learner. In cooperative learning communities, ones that are grounded in rules that support virtuous and ethical behaviors modeled by administration, teachers, and students, character development can take shape and have a lasting effect because it is practiced and evaluated on a daily basis. It's a part the school and classroom culture.
Resources
Bennett, W. J. (1993). The Book of Virtues. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Charles, C. M. (2011). Building Classroom Discipline. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Leming, J. S. (1993). In Seach of Effective Character Education. Educational Leadership , 63-71.
Leming, J. S. (1997). Whither Goes Character Education? Objectives, Pedagogy, and Research in Education Programs. Journal of Education , 11-34.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom Assessment and Grading That Work. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
McClellan, B. E. (1999). Moral Education in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
Meier, D. (2000). Educating a Democracy: Standards and the Future of Public Education. Boston Review , 1-16.
OSPI, S. o. (2011). Online Grade Level Standards & Resources - Writing. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from OSPI Teaching and Learning:
Ryan, K., Bohlin, K. E., & Thayer, J. O. (1996, February). Character Education Manifesto. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from CAEC at Boston University School of Education:
Williams, M. M. (2000). Models of Character Education; Perspectives and Developmental Issues. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development , 32-40.