Character Education: A Solution?
by Amy C. Perkins
Professor Geoff Quick
SED 310: Psychological Foundations of Education
“To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society” (cited in Lickona, 1993, p. 6). The author of this conclusive statement, Theodore Roosevelt, was aware of a once potential reality that has now become an all too evident actuality. As news broadcasts vividly illustrate, the United States is in a period of deep moral turmoil. The disheartening signs choke the civility of this nation from every direction: the breakdown of the family, the omnipresent sexual culture, and the ever-increasing crime rate that has crowned the United States the most violent of all industrialized nations. Americans can no longer afford to ignore the overwhelming evidence of a society in moral crisis (Lickona, 1993).
Responding to indications of societal crisis, the nation has focused its attention on the public school system. A traditional site of cognitive and moral development, schools of the twentieth century have adapted to the modern age by shedding their responsibility in the realm of character education. They have shied away from teaching Judeo-Christian values in favor of a strictly academic curriculum. Recently, however, schools have begun to realize that this modification in instruction has done more harm than good. While students may be proficient in calculus and geophysics, they often lack a more basic understanding of how to be a good person. Indeed, if students cannot abide by the moral expectations of their society, their academic knowledge is of little worth (Lickona, 1993).
In recognizing the need for moral instruction in the public schools, educators and school administrators are reevaluating the possibility of teaching values in the classroom (Lickona, 1993). Could the reintroduction of character education be a solution to the current societal crisis? To answer this question, researchers are considering the role of character education in the schools of the past, of the present, and of the future.
Historically, schools of the Early Republic tackled character education directly through strict discipline, the teacher’s example, and the daily school curriculum. With a switch in hand, schoolmasters and schoolmarms were ready enforcers of classroom rules. They instilled fear and respect in their students by threatening physical harm and humiliation to anyone that misbehaved. Indeed, the early school exemplified the views of Bruno Bettlehiem. Bettlehiem asserts that moral instruction is possible provided it is based on fear: “Desirable moral development is impossible unless it is grounded in fear” (Park and Baron, 1977, pp. 13-14). Schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth century evidently embraced Bettlehiem’s philosophy as teachers used fear to motivate students to abide by the morals of society.
The curriculum of early schools was devoted to developing a moral conscience within students. Originally, the Bible served as the public school’s sourcebook for both moral and religious instruction. Literacy was the ultimate goal. Once students learned how to read, they were expected then to apply this skill by reading the Bible on a regular basis. Disagreement eventually erupted over whose Bible should be used and which doctrines should be taught in the classroom. William McGuffey offered an attractive compromise. In 1836 McGuffey published his McGuffey Reader. While this new sourcebook retained many favorite Biblical stories, it also included poems, exhortations, and heroic tales. As children practiced their reading and arithmetic, they also learned lessons in honesty, love, kindness, thriftiness, and patriotism (Lickona, 1993).
With the commencement of the twentieth century, the consensus supporting character education began to crumble under the blows of several powerful forces. First and foremost, the decline in character education was coupled with the rise of Darwinism. Nineteenth century naturalist Charles Darwin contributed a new metaphor (evolution) to the human understanding of creation. This scientific theory boldly challenged creationism, the traditional explanation for earth’s origination, and further implied that all things, including morality, were in a state of constant fluctuation. He led the new trend of moral relativism, proclaiming that values were not set in stone, but rather subject to change (Lickona, 1993).
In addition to Darwinism, logical positivism also played a part in disarming support for character education. The philosophy of logical positivism asserted that a radical distinction existed between facts (information that could be scientifically proven) and values (mere expressions of feeling and not objective truth). Courtesy of positivism, morality was relativized and privatized. Consequently, morals were perceived as matters of personal value judgment and not a subject for public debate and transmission through the schools (Lickona, 1993).
In the 1960s, the perspective of personalism further challenged the role of character education in the public schools. This new approach to morality celebrated the worth, autonomy, and subjectivity of every individual. It emphasized individual rights and freedom over responsibility and accountability. In a period of great confusion, personalism justifiably protested societal oppression and injustice, but it simultaneously delegitimized moral authority, eroded belief in objective moral norms, and turned people inward toward self-fulfillment. Consequently, the “Me Generation” successfully secured a temporary end to character education in the public school system (Lickona, 1993).
Finally, the pluralistic nature of the United States and the trend toward secularization delivered the last blow to character education. The rapidly intensifying pluralism of American society raised the question of whose values should be taught in the classroom. How could a public school catering to a population of Muslims and Jews justify teaching students values derived from Christian doctrines? Additionally, the increasing secularization of the public realm identified moral education as a possible violation of the separation of church and state. Undoubtedly, pluralism and secularization added two more barriers to achieving a consensus in support of character education (Lickona, 1993).
In consideration of these attacks on character education, one may wonder why some current teachers are calling for the return of moral instruction. The explanation is simple: the abolishment of character education has been matched by an increase in crime and otherwise immoral behavior in society. The public, with growing eagerness, welcomes the addition of character education as a possible solution to the present societal crisis. Responsively, educators of the 1990s have initiated a new character education movement which “restores ‘good character’ to its historical place as a central desirable outcome of the schools’ moral enterprise” (Lickona, 1993, p. 7).
Twenty years ago the reintroduction of character education took the form of values clarification and Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral dilemma discussions. First of all, values clarification encourages students to identify the values at stake in their actions, to decide which values are desirable and which are not, and to act upon the values they esteem. Teachers are discouraged from imposing values. Instead, they are expected to help students choose their values freely. This requires complete ethical neutrality on the part of teachers. However, as critics point out, ethical neutrality is impossible and irresponsible. Values clarification essentially says, “Go ahead and do what you want” (Beach, 1991, p. 313). It fails to distinguish between personal preferences (a matter of free choice) and moral values (a matter of obligation) (Lickona, 1993).
Kohlberg’s cognitive-development theory offers a second dimension to the reintroduction of character education. Kohlberg theorized that ultimately “Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles appealing to logical consistency and universality” (Beach, 1991, p. 314). He outlined six stages of moral development beginning with reward versus punishment and ending with social contract orientation (Slavin, 1997). His list of moral dilemmas implied that (1) moral thought is sequential in that it progresses through stages; (2) levels of moral thinking appear to be independent of any particular religion; and (3) a person who understands justice, for example, helps to create a moral climate in which justice can be realized (Park & Barron, 1977). Kohlberg’s theory, however, has not escaped criticism. Although educators recognize the necessity of moral reasoning, they have concluded that it is not sufficient for the development of good character and, furthermore, it underestimates the school’s role as a moral socializer (Lickona, 1993).
As values clarification and Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas remain as a source of great debate, character education continues to attract an increasing number of supporters. People are desperate for a solution to the current moral turmoil. Many are beginning to agree with twentieth-century philosopher Martin Buber who stated that “Education worthy of the name is essentially education of character” (cited in Kohn, 1991, p. 496).
The recent return of character education was originally sparked by four societal developments. First of all, Americans have witnessed an obvious decline of the family. The family, traditionally the child’s primary source for values instruction, is failing to provide children with adequate moral guidance. Ironically, the decline in the well-being of today’s children has coincided with a reduction in the average family size, an increase in the educational level of parents, and historically high levels of public spending on education. The decline of two-biological-parent families in the United States has distracted many students’ attention away from academics and, furthermore, has resulted in a virtual end to domestic moral instruction. Psychologist Thomas Lickona (1993) states:
Children of marriages that end in divorce and children of single mothers are more likely to be poor, have emotional and behavioral problems, fail to achieve academically, get pregnant, abuse drugs and alcohol, get in trouble with the law, and be sexually and physically abused. (p. 8)
Lickona adds that there has been a dramatic rise in aggressive tendencies among boys of single-parent families (p. 9).
In addition to the increase in the number of broken families, few parents in the 1990s can present themselves as paragons of civic and ethical virtue. As one twenty-year-old ex-convict stated, “Kids grow up with a father or an uncle who is robbing stores. They figure if my father can do it, so can I. In other homes parents simply aren’t around” (Townsend, 1992, p. 29). A large number of parents have neglected to fulfill their primary responsibility: to serve as positive role models to their children. Experts claim that children of alcoholics often become alcoholics themselves; they are simply mirroring the behavior they observed by watching their parents. Similarly, the parents’ disregard for societal values has resulted in their children’s indifference to what society deems appropriate and “right” (Lickona, 1993).
Troubling trends in youth behavior have also contributed to the return of character education in public schools (Lickona, 1993). These trends include a rise in youth violence. In “two recent years” there were no less than 105 cases of school-associated violent deaths, thirty percent of which occurred at the elementary level. In one study twenty percent of public school teachers reported being verbally abused within the last month, eight percent reported being physically threatened, and two percent reported being physically attacked. In the nation’s largest school system, New York City, 3,984 teachers were victims of crime in the 1994-1995 school year. On the national scale twelve percent of middle/junior high school students reported being bullied. Eight percent of high school students claimed that within the thirty days preceding the survey they had been in at least one physical fight that had resulted in injury requiring treatment from a doctor or nurse. The evidence illustrating an increase in violence among youths is overwhelming and provides yet another indication of societal crisis (Crime and Violence in Our Schools, 1996).
Students have also demonstrated an ever-increasing level of dishonesty, disrespect for authority, sexual promiscuity, self-centeredness, laziness, and civic irresponsibility. Addressing the issue of dishonesty, Educator Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (1992) states that in a recent survey sixty-one percent of high school students questioned confessed that they had cheated on an exam within the past year. With regard to civic irresponsibility, sixty percent of high school students admitted that they simply would not be willing to “volunteer to serve their community for a year” (p. 31). Indeed, these statistics indicate students’ disconcern for becoming successful and contributing members of society.
A third explanation for the return of character education has been attributed to a recovery of shared, objectively important values. Lickona (1993) asserts that the recent moral decline has sufficiently motivated Americans to abandon the theories of privatism and relativism that have been dominant since the 1960s. He observes, “We are recovering the wisdom that we do share a basic morality by teaching the young . . . such values as respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, fairness, caring, and civic virtue” (p. 9).
Lickona’s observation is substantiated by a number of researchers that have presented arguments claiming that universal values do indeed exist. Northwestern University Professor Christopher Boehm (1977) states that moral codes consisting of norms, standards, and values can be found in every culture. These moral codes, although unique to their culture, retain certain common threads that are essential for the perpetuation of any community. For example, every society encourages its people to be honest. Without honesty, a community has no trust, and without trust, a community cannot survive. The underlying purpose of the moral system is to keep individual behavior harmonized to the degree that the society can function with reasonable efficiency. As Boehm recognizes, these moral systems share basic values like self-control and humility that are necessary to achieve harmony within every community.
In consideration of America’s pluralistic society, the task of identifying universal values is rather difficult. The United States is unquestionably a multi-cultural nation with differences and conflicting moral standards coexisting within its boundaries. Consequently, the public school system, which mirrors the composition of the public, educates students with moral commitments that vary in both kind and intensity. Arthur Melvin (1977) of Century III Foundation affirms:
Differences in moral standards found among the various racial, ethnic, religious, and political traditions come into sharp focus in the classroom, which is expected to reinforce the teachings of parents and community codes for moral behavior.” (p. 42) This confusion of moral systems represented in the classroom often frustrates teachers and further discourages them from attempting to create any sort of moral community within their classroom. Indeed, this is a major reason why many teachers completely dodge the issue of character education (Stiles, 1977).
However, as Melvin explains, educators should not allow this frustration to discourage them from creating a moral community for their students. Instead, educators should identify values that are predominate in their school and throughout their community. They are likely to find common ground by focusing on those behavioral expectations that have cross-cultural acceptance (Melvin, 1977). These may include respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, fairness, caring, and civic virtue (Lickona, 1993). Teachers can then use their findings as the basis for character education in the classroom (Melvin, 1977).
As Americans drown the ills of relativism and finally allow universal values to surface, character education becomes a more welcomed possibility. In fact, many schools have already integrated character education into their curriculum. West Bloomfield High, located in a suburb of Detroit, has adopted ten “American Values for American Schools” that are to become a basic component of the school’s curriculum. This new form of moral instruction teaches students to accept responsibility for their actions, to respect the authority of parents and teachers, and to make themselves useful to others (Cantor, 1996). Similarly, Jackie Robinson Middle School in New Haven, Connecticut also initiated a values curriculum. Within three years the number of student pregnancies went from sixteen to zero. After Merwin Elementary School in Irwindale, California instituted a character education program, damage due to vandalism was reduced from $25,000 to $500, disciplinary action decreased by eighty percent, and, best of all, academic achievement improved. In a survey of 176 schools that have adopted values curriculum, 77 percent reported a decrease in discipline problems, 68 percent boasted an increase in attendance, and 64 percent showed a decrease in vandalism (Townsend, 1992). Jefferson Center for Character Education (1996) provides additional evidence in support of moral instruction. An independent study of the Center’s programs reports a 25 percent reduction in major discipline problems, a 39 percent drop in minor discipline problems, a 16 percent decline in suspensions, a 40 percent decrease in tardiness, and an 18 percent reduction in unexcused absences. The statistical data overwhelmingly favors character education as a partial solution to the current moral crisis in the United States.
Upon recognizing that character education can effectively curtail behavioral problems, schools unfamiliar with the program should acquaint themselves with what moral instruction entails. First of all, the effectiveness of character education relies heavily upon the teacher. The teacher is responsible for creating a moral community in his/her classroom. This can be done directly by teaching values as subject matter and indirectly by enforcing the moral code established for the class. In as much as the classroom is a mini-system of morality, the teacher should create a specific moral universe within his/her room that functions as a moral system. Educators are expected to explain to the students the complex reasons why moral principles have evolved and, in doing so, strive to develop a “moral literacy” among the students (Stiles, 1977). Teachers must act as caregiver, model, and mentor, treating the students with love and respect, setting a good example, reinforcing positive social behavior, and correcting hurtful actions. Operating within their moral universe, teachers should build a sense of community by encouraging students to respect and care for one another and by allowing each student to have valued membership in, and responsibility to, the group. Teachers should create a democratic classroom environment by involving students in the decision-making process and by assigning them the responsibility of making the classroom a good place to be and learn. Moral reflection through reading, research, and journal writing is another way teachers can help develop the moral character of their students. Indeed, there are a number of ways in which the teacher can involve character education in daily classroom instruction (Lickona, 1993).
Although teachers play an important role in developing students’ moral literacy, parents and schools aren’t exempt from all responsibility. Schools are expected to foster caring beyond the classroom by providing positive role models that inspire altruistic behavior. Schools should also recruit community leaders and parents to serve as partners in character education. Local churches, businesses, government bodies, and media can compliment the school’s efforts by promoting core values throughout the community. Parents, the students’ primary moral teachers, should be reminded of their responsibility to raise children that are “morally literate” (Lickona, 1993). Educator Barbara Kantrowitz states, “A sensitive parent is crucial in encouraging a child’s sense of morality and values” (Kantrowitz, 1991, p. 48). Indeed, the ultimate goal is to help parents raise kind and law-abiding children. As Townsend (1993) acknowledges, this process must begin by teaching values in the schools.
In reviewing the role of character education in schools of the past and of the present, researches look to the future with optimism. Originally, schools of the Early Republic tackled character education directly through discipline and through formal instruction. In contrast, schools of the twentieth century have stepped away from their role as a site for moral instruction. This occurrence can be explained by the popularity of Darwinism, logical positivism, personalism, pluralism, and secularization. Public schools cited these approaches to morality in an effort to justify evading their role as moral educators (Lickona, 1993). The consequences of their irresponsibility, however, have recently surfaced. Students are exhibiting an increasingly blatant disregard for societal values (Crime and Violence in Our Schools, 1996). A moral crisis has resulted, and Americans have responded by reevaluating the role of character education in the public school system. School districts that have reintroduced moral instruction into their curriculum have witnessed encouraging results. Educators and school administrators are optimistic about the role of character education in curtailing the current moral crisis (Townsend, 1992). Psychologist Thomas Lickona (1993) concludes that “as we close out a turbulent century and ready our schools for the next, educating for character is a moral imperative if we care about the future of our society and our children” (p. 11). Remembering the words of Theodore Roosevelt, if Americans do not guide the intellectual and moral development of students, the nation may find itself suffocating within the bounds of a moral vacuum (Lickona, 1993). Therefore, while the precise role of character education in the future remains unknown, experts place great faith in the return of moral instruction and expect that as more schools begin to teach values in the classroom, the current moral turmoil will begin to be resolved.
References
Beach, Waldo (May/June, 1991). Ethical Education in Our Public schools: Crisis and Opportunity. The Clearing House, 64, pp. 313-315.
Boehm, Christopher (1977). The Moral System. In Lindley J. Stiles & Bruce D. Johnson (Ed.), Morality Examined: Guidelines for Teachers (pp. 25-40). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Book Company.
Cantor, George (September 14, 1996). Schools: There Are Values Worth Sharing [Online]. Available: netmail@detnews.com [November, 1997].
Crime and Violence in Our Schools: An Overview of Statistics (February 9, 1996) [Online].
Kantrowitz, Barbara (Summer, 1991). The Good, the Bad, and the Difference. Newsweek, pp. 48-50.
Kohn, Alfie (March, 1991). Caring Kids: The Role of the Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 496-506.
Lickona, Thomas (November, 1993). The Return of Character Education. Educational Leadership, 51, pp. 6-11.
Melvin, Arthur (1977). Cross-Cultural Moral Values. In Lindley J. Stiles & Bruce D. Johnson (Ed.), Morality Examined: Guidelines for Teachers (pp. 41- 56). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Book Company.
Park, Joe and R. William Barron (1977). Can Morality be Taught? In Lindley J. Stiles & Bruce D. Johnson (Ed.), Morality Examined: Guidelines for Teachers (pp. 3- 24). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Book Company.
Slavin, Robert F. (1997). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stiles, Lindley J. and Bruce D. Johnson (Ed.) (1977). Morality Examined: Guidelines for Teachers (pp. x-xiii). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Book Company.
Townsend, Kathleen Kennedy (December, 1992). Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong: The Most Important Lesson Our Schools Don’t Teach. The Washington Monthly, pp. 29-32.
