Jump to content

Character education: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kcornwall (talk | contribs)
489 edits
Sudbury schools' view
Line 78: Line 78:
=== Character education in schools ===
=== Character education in schools ===
[References to summarize<ref name=lack/><ref name=brief-history/>]
[References to summarize<ref name=lack/><ref name=brief-history/>]

====Sudbury schools' view====

The starting point for [[Sudbury school|Sudbury model]] democratic schools' thinking is the apparently revolutionary idea that a child is a person, worthy of full respect as a human being. They assert that these are simple words with devastatingly complex consequences, chief of which is that the child's agenda for its own life is as important as anyone else's agenda -- parents, family, friends or even the community. In these schools, the inner needs of the children are given priority in their education at every point. Thence, students in Sudbury schools enjoy the freedom of education, the freedom of learning, and the freedom to use their time as they wish. Sudbury schools maintain that character derives from [[values]] and values must be [[Experiential learning|learned through experience]] <ref>Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley, ''"'Ethics' is a Course Taught By Life Experience."''</ref><ref>Greenberg, D. (1987), The Sudbury Valley School Experience, ''"Teaching Justice Through Experience."''</ref><ref>Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley, ''"Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned."''</ref>, as Aristotle said: ''"For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them."'' <ref>Bynum, W.F. and Porter, R. (eds) (2005) ''Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations.'' Oxford University Press. 21:9.</ref> They adduce that for this purpose schools must encourage ethical behavior and personal responsibility. In order to achieve these goals Sudbury schools allow students in their education the three great freedoms -- freedom of choice, freedom of action and freedom to bear the results of action -- that constitute personal responsibility.<ref>Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience [http://www.sudval.com/05_underlyingideas.html#09 ''"Back to Basics."''] Retrieved 19/3/09.</ref><ref>Greenberg, D. (1996) [http://www.educationfutures.org/outcomes.htm ''OUTCOMES''] (see with Explorer).</ref>

'''The sources of internal discipline'''

:Sudbury schools claim that popularly-based authority can maintain order more effectively than dictatorial authority for governments and schools alike. They also claim that in Sudbury schools the preservation of public order is easier and more efficient than anywhere else. Primarily because rules and regulations are made by the community as a whole, thence the school atmosphere is one of persuasion and negotiation, rather than confrontation since there is no one to confront. Sudbury schools experience shows that a school that has good, clear laws, fairly and democratically passed by the entire school community, and a good judicial system for enforcing these laws, is a school in which community discipline prevails, and in which an increasingly sophisticated concept of law and order develops, against other schools today, where rules are arbitrary, authority is absolute, punishment is capricious, and due process of law is unknown.

:They emphasize that much more important than the externals of order is the question of the sources of internal discipline: how does a person come to develop the inner strength and character that endows his life with order and coherence, an independent man appropriate to a free republic of co-equal citizens, capable of making decisions within a rational, self-consistent framework -- a person treating and being treated with respect.

:Sudbury schools affirm that the hallmark of the independent man is the ability to bear responsibility and since there is no way of teaching or training another person for self-sufficiency, there is no technique for obtaining or transmitting these traits. Hence, the only way a person becomes responsible for himself is for him to be responsible for himself, with no reservation or qualifications.

:Thence Sudbury schools are structured in such a manner that all the trappings of external support that shore up the weak, all the trappings of external authority that substitute for inner self-direction, all the trappings of external moral pressure that replace the inner moral development and all the well-meaning paraphernalia that enervates and often paralyzes the individual wills of students and teachers alike, are missing. Sudbury schools assert that in these schools the basic building block is the responsible individual, whose sense of life derives from his overcoming with his own strength the great obstacles, errors and temptations that are strewn in his path, and whose existence is given form by his own creative efforts.<ref> The Crisis in American Education &mdash; An Analysis and a Proposal, The Sudbury Valley School (1970), ''Law and Order: Foundations of Discipline''.</ref>


=== Modern scientific methods ===
=== Modern scientific methods ===


Today, scientists use the scientific methods of Personal and Social Psychology<ref>{{cite web |title=What is a Personality/Social Psychology? ("By exploring forces within the person - such as traits, attitudes, and goals - as well as forces within the situation - such as social norms and incentives, personality and social psychologists seek to unravel the mysteries of individual and social life in areas as wide-ranging as prejudice, romantic attraction, persuasion, friendship, helping, aggression, conformity, and group interaction.") |url=http://www.learningforlife.org.uk/research-projects/learning-for-life-research-reports/view/?id=11}}</ref>
Today, scientists use the scientific methods of Personal and Social Psychology<ref>{{cite web |title=What is a Personality/Social Psychology? ("By exploring forces within the person - such as traits, attitudes, and goals - as well as forces within the situation - such as social norms and incentives, personality and social psychologists seek to unravel the mysteries of individual and social life in areas as wide-ranging as prejudice, romantic attraction, persuasion, friendship, helping, aggression, conformity, and group interaction.") |url=http://www.learningforlife.org.uk/research-projects/learning-for-life-research-reports/view/?id=11}}</ref>



== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 17:10, 22 March 2009

Character education is an umbrella term loosely used to describe the teaching of children in a manner that will help them develop variously as moral, civic, good, mannered, behaved, non-bullying, healthy, critical, successful, traditional, compliant and/ or socially-acceptable beings. Concepts that now and in the past have fallen under this term include social and emotional learning, moral reasoning/cognitive development, life skills education, health education, violence prevention, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and conflict resolution and mediation. Many of these are now considered failed programs i.e., "religious education", "moral education", "values education".[1]

Today, there are dozens of character education programs in, and vying for adoption by, schools and businesses.[2] Some are commercial, some non-profit and many are uniquely devised by states, districts and schools, themselves. A common approach of these programs is to provide a list of principles, pillars, values or virtues, which are memorized or around which themed activities are planned.[3] It is commonly claimed that the values included in any particular list are universally recognized. However, lists of core values (e.g., honesty, stewardship, kindness, generosity, courage, freedom, justice, equality, and respect)in between lists are not in agreement nor is there a common or standard means of assessing, implementing or evaluating them. [4]

Terminology

"Character" as it relates to character education is most often used to refer to how 'good' a person is - in other words, a person who exhibits personal qualities which fit with those considered desirable by a society might be considered to have a good character and developing such personal qualities is often then seem as a purpose of education. But there is no precise definition agreed upon among the proponents of character education. Compounding this problem is that there is no scientific definition of character. Because such a concept blends personality and behavioral components, scientists have long since abandoned use of the term, "character" and, instead, use the term "psychological motivators" to measure the behavioral predispositions of individuals. With no clinically defined meaning, there is no way to measure if an individual has a deficit of character, or if a school program can improve it.

The various terms in lists of values - even those which are most frequently included, i.e., "respect" - are overwhelmingly problematic to quantify with no consensus definitions for them either in or out the field of character education.

Absence of common goals

There are few if any common goals among character education programs. The dissensions in the list of values among character education programs, itself, constitutes a major criticism that there is anything to character education that is either fundamental or universally relevant to students or society.[5]

Issues and controversies

There is no evidence that any type of character education is effective.[6]. Research on the subject has yet to turn up one peer-reviewed study demonstrating any scientifically validated need for[7] or result from character education programs. Typically support is attested to by referring to mere "correlations" (e.g., grades, number of disciplinary referrals, subjective opinion, etc).[8][9]

Issues and controversies include:

1) An ideologically-based assumption that "character" is deficient in some or all children[10]

2) Lack of agreement on what constitutes effectiveness [11]

3) Lack of evidence that it does what it claims[8][12]

4) A conflict between what good character is and the way that character education proposes to teach it[13][10]

5) Differing standards in methods and objectives. Differing standards for assessing need and evaluating results. Some attempts have been made.[14]

6) Supportive "studies", which overwhelmingly rely on subjective feedback (usually surveys) from vested participants[15][6]

7) Programs instituted towards ideological and/or religious ends[16][17][18]

8) The pervasive problem of confusing morality with social conformity[19][20][21][3]

In-school programs

There is no common practice in U.S. schools in relation to the formation of pupils' character or values education.[22] This is partly due to the many programs and lack of standards in character education, but also because of how and by whom the programs are executed.

Programs are generally of four varieties[3]: "cheerleading," "praise and reward," "define and drill," and "forced formality." They may be used alone or in combination.

1) Cheerleading involves multicolored posters, banners, and bulletin boards featuring a value or virtue of the month; lively morning public-address announcements; occasional motivational assemblies; and possibly a high-profile event such as a fund-raiser for a good cause.

2) Praise-and-reward approach seeks to make virtue into habit using "positive reinforcement". Elements include "catching students being good" and praising them or giving them chits that can be exchanged for privileges or prizes. In this approach, all too often, the real significance of the students' actions is lost, as the reward or award becomes the primary focus.

3) Define-and-drill calls on students to memorize a list of values and the definition of each. Students' simple memorization of definitions seems to be equated with their development of the far more complex capacity for making moral decisions.

4) Forced-formality focuses on strict, uniform compliance with specific rules of conduct, (i.e., walking in lines, arms at one's sides), or formal forms of address ("yes sir," "no ma'am"), or other procedures deemed to promote order or respect of adults.

"These four approaches aim for quick behavioral results, rather than helping students better understand and commit to the values that are core to our society, or helping them develop the skills for putting those values into action in life's complex situations." [3]

Generally, the most common practitioners of character education in the United States are school counselors, although there is a growing tendency to include other professionals in schools and the wider community. Depending on the program, its means of implementation may be by teachers and/or any other adults (faculty, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, maintenance staff, etc); by storytelling, which can be through books and media; or by embedding into the classroom curriculum. There are many theories about means, but no consensus as to what, if any, approach may be effective.[6]

History

[This section is a work in progress. Please help. Working on references.] It has been said that, "character education is as old as education itself". The attempt to assess and change character extends into prehistory.

Assessing character

Psychic arts

Since very early times, people have tried to access or "read" the pre-disposition (character) of self and others. Being able to predict and even manipulate human behavior, motivations and reactions would bestow obvious advantages. Pre-scientific character assessment techniques have included, among others, anthropometry, astrology, palmistry, metoposcopy, and chiromancy. These approaches have been scientifically discredited although they continue to be widely practiced.

Race character

The concept of inherited "race character" has also long been used to characterize desirable versus undesirable qualities in members of groups as a whole along national, tribal, ethnic, religious and even class lines. Race character has been predominantly used as a justification for the denigration and subsequent persecution of minority groups, most infamously, justifying European persecution of native Americans, the concept of slavery, and the Nazis' persecution of Jews as a group with unfavorable character. Though scientifically discredited, this concept prevails among human societies and fuel conflicts world-wide.

Generational character

Particularly in modern liberal republics, social and economic change is rapid and can result in cognitive stress to older generations when each succeeding generation expands on and exhibits their own modes of expressing the freedoms such societies enjoy. America is a prime example. With few traditions, each generation has exhibited attitudes and behaviors that conservative segments of preceding generations uneasily assimilate. Cries about loss of morals and calls for remediation have been constant in America since before it's founding. (As an aside, it should be expected that living in a free country - which increasingly supports children's rights - this trend will continue a pace.)

Changing character

Philosophical approaches

[Place holder for philosophers, beginning with Aristotle and Confucius]

Religion

In the Western Christian tradition, it is believed that humans are flawed at birth, requiring salvation through religious means: teaching, guidance and supernatural rituals. This has created a situation of a-priori assumption by members of Western cultures that all humans are deficient by nature and that preemptive measures are necessary to develop children into acceptable members of society. [Placeholder for discussion about religious schools, religion in public schools]

Communism

[Place holder for Communist re-education programs]

Psychoanalysis and psychiatric pharmacology

[Place holder for psychoanalysis and psychiatric pharmacology]

Character education in schools

[References to summarize[9][1]]

Sudbury schools' view

The starting point for Sudbury model democratic schools' thinking is the apparently revolutionary idea that a child is a person, worthy of full respect as a human being. They assert that these are simple words with devastatingly complex consequences, chief of which is that the child's agenda for its own life is as important as anyone else's agenda -- parents, family, friends or even the community. In these schools, the inner needs of the children are given priority in their education at every point. Thence, students in Sudbury schools enjoy the freedom of education, the freedom of learning, and the freedom to use their time as they wish. Sudbury schools maintain that character derives from values and values must be learned through experience [23][24][25], as Aristotle said: "For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them." [26] They adduce that for this purpose schools must encourage ethical behavior and personal responsibility. In order to achieve these goals Sudbury schools allow students in their education the three great freedoms -- freedom of choice, freedom of action and freedom to bear the results of action -- that constitute personal responsibility.[27][28]

The sources of internal discipline

Sudbury schools claim that popularly-based authority can maintain order more effectively than dictatorial authority for governments and schools alike. They also claim that in Sudbury schools the preservation of public order is easier and more efficient than anywhere else. Primarily because rules and regulations are made by the community as a whole, thence the school atmosphere is one of persuasion and negotiation, rather than confrontation since there is no one to confront. Sudbury schools experience shows that a school that has good, clear laws, fairly and democratically passed by the entire school community, and a good judicial system for enforcing these laws, is a school in which community discipline prevails, and in which an increasingly sophisticated concept of law and order develops, against other schools today, where rules are arbitrary, authority is absolute, punishment is capricious, and due process of law is unknown.
They emphasize that much more important than the externals of order is the question of the sources of internal discipline: how does a person come to develop the inner strength and character that endows his life with order and coherence, an independent man appropriate to a free republic of co-equal citizens, capable of making decisions within a rational, self-consistent framework -- a person treating and being treated with respect.
Sudbury schools affirm that the hallmark of the independent man is the ability to bear responsibility and since there is no way of teaching or training another person for self-sufficiency, there is no technique for obtaining or transmitting these traits. Hence, the only way a person becomes responsible for himself is for him to be responsible for himself, with no reservation or qualifications.
Thence Sudbury schools are structured in such a manner that all the trappings of external support that shore up the weak, all the trappings of external authority that substitute for inner self-direction, all the trappings of external moral pressure that replace the inner moral development and all the well-meaning paraphernalia that enervates and often paralyzes the individual wills of students and teachers alike, are missing. Sudbury schools assert that in these schools the basic building block is the responsible individual, whose sense of life derives from his overcoming with his own strength the great obstacles, errors and temptations that are strewn in his path, and whose existence is given form by his own creative efforts.[29]

Modern scientific methods

Today, scientists use the scientific methods of Personal and Social Psychology[30]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "A Brief History of Character and Moral Education in the United States". p. 10.
  2. ^ "Character Education Links: Programs and Curricula".
  3. ^ a b c d "What's Right and Wrong In Character Education Today (" ...too many programs that say they are developing character and call themselves "character education" are aimed mostly at promoting good manners and compliance with rules, not at developing students of strong, independent character.")".
  4. ^ "Leading Children Beyond Good and Evil (Includes an astounding list of conflicting "pillars" among competing character education programs.)".
  5. ^ "The Discourse of Character Education ("...the movement lacks either a theoretical perspective or a common core of practice.")".
  6. ^ a b c "Character Education (A 2007 report released under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education found that the vast majority of character education programs have failed to prove their effectiveness.)".
  7. ^ "Character Education After the Bandwagon has Gone?".
  8. ^ a b "What's Wrong with Character Education?".
  9. ^ a b "Moral Education - A Brief History of Moral Education, The Return of Character Education, Current Approaches to Moral Education("Evaluation and assessment in character and moral education is best described as a work in progress. The field is held back by the lack of an accepted battery of reliable instruments, a lack of wide agreement on individual or schoolwide outcomes, and by the short-term nature of most of the existent studies. Complicating these limitations is a larger one: the lack of theoretical agreement of what character is. Human character is one of those overarching entities that is the subject of disciples from philosophy to theology, from psychology to sociology. Further, even within these disciplines there are competing and conflicting theories and understandings of the nature of human character.")".
  10. ^ a b Fabes, Richard A.; et al. (1989). Effects of Rewards on Children's Prosocial Motivation: A Socialization Study ("In a troubling study conducted by Joan Grusec at the University of Toronto, young children who were frequently praised for displays of generosity tended to be slightly less generous on an everyday basis than other children were. Generosity became a means to an end."). Vol. 25. Developmental Psychology. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
  11. ^ "Evaluating character education programs and missing the target: A critique of existing research".
  12. ^ "An Exploratory Study of the Impact of the Character Education Program within the Dade County Public School System ("There was no measurable differences in character building between those students in the program and those not in it.")".
  13. ^ "A Critique of Character Counts! as a Curriculum Model for Explicit Moral Instruction in Public Schools" (PDF).
  14. ^ Character Education Partnership. "Character Education Quality Standards" (PDF).
  15. ^ "Evaluation: How It's Done".
  16. ^ "Review: In the Name of Morality: Character Education and Political Control. Yu, Tianlong. (2004) ("Yu finds unfavorable similarities between the current character education movement in America with his own experience of Chinese cultural education and re-education.")".
  17. ^ "Cult of Character: How the 'secular' Character Training Institute is working to build evangelist Bill Gothard's vision of a First-Century Kingdom of God—one city, one state, one school board, one police force and one mind at a time".
  18. ^ "George W, Bush, National Character Counts Week Proclamation, 2001 (A chilling document wherein the conservative ideologies and politics of militarism, retributive war, churches, patriotism, faith, morality and virtue - as opposed to evil- are all conflated with character education for Character Counts! week)".
  19. ^ "A Critique of Research Evaluating Moral Education Interventions ("The problem of confusing morality with social conformity cannot be ignored. This represents the most serious theoretical flaw in moral education: the way in which "moral" is operationally defined. Students in times of slavery, pogroms, or other prejudice would be emulating community values by participating in cruelty and social injustice. Such acts cannot be considered moral, despite social and political support. We can never assume that our society is free from such injustices, because we may be blinded ourselves by social acceptability. Therefore, true moral education must empower students with the ability to deconstruct social norms in terms of universal values of social justice-- in this way moral education can also gain a powerful ally in the multicultural education movement.")".
  20. ^ "The Character Education Dilemma ("...the culture also inculcated a great variety of contrary values, norms, and customs in the young, such as hatred and intolerance for different ethnicities, faiths, and sexual orientations; it sanctioned - not to say glorified - murder, slavery, torture, and oppression. The social ethos in fact instilled and promoted a two-sided moral code whereby values could be readily converted into antivalues: the virtues of the individual, family, clan, group, or nation - the insiders - were seen as the vices of the other, the one or ones outside it. The same act as performed by me showed courage; by my enemy, cowardice. And so down the line, creating a jungle of contradictions.")".
  21. ^ "Reversing the Perceived Moral Decline in American Schools: A Critical Literature Review of America's Attempt at Character Education (Covers the range of critiques from lack of pre-assessment and no evidence of effectiveness, to the damges of rewarding behavior and flaws in implementation. "The entire character education movement is a knee-jerk reaction of conservatives in America to the economic situation of poor students in school")" (PDF).
  22. ^ "Teachers and Character Education ("There is no common practice in relation to the formation of pupils' character or values education in schools in relation to teacher training.")".
  23. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley, "'Ethics' is a Course Taught By Life Experience."
  24. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987), The Sudbury Valley School Experience, "Teaching Justice Through Experience."
  25. ^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley, "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned."
  26. ^ Bynum, W.F. and Porter, R. (eds) (2005) Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. Oxford University Press. 21:9.
  27. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience "Back to Basics." Retrieved 19/3/09.
  28. ^ Greenberg, D. (1996) OUTCOMES (see with Explorer).
  29. ^ The Crisis in American Education — An Analysis and a Proposal, The Sudbury Valley School (1970), Law and Order: Foundations of Discipline.
  30. ^ "What is a Personality/Social Psychology? ("By exploring forces within the person - such as traits, attitudes, and goals - as well as forces within the situation - such as social norms and incentives, personality and social psychologists seek to unravel the mysteries of individual and social life in areas as wide-ranging as prejudice, romantic attraction, persuasion, friendship, helping, aggression, conformity, and group interaction.")".
Stub icon

This article relating to education is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Character_education&oldid=278968702"