|
Bruce
Morris and Donna
Wells, Editors
Government institutions are bound in tradition and in the
ideals of our democracy. As such, they inherently convey those
ideals and values to citizens. Schools are no different. Educators
transmit such values overtly, through formal programs and
curricula, and indirectly, through established policies, procedures,
practices, and traditions.
Because the 1999 General Assembly passed Senate Bill 817,
requiring each school division to provide character education,
the question for policy-makers is not whether character education
and values can be taught, but rather, how best to transmit
them to Virginia’s students. The challenge is that the best
intentions of policy-makers be effectively implemented in
practice, then fine-tuned, if necessary.
According to the Code of Virginia, the character education
provision is intended to educate students regarding those
core civic values and virtues which are efficacious to civilized
society and are common to the diverse social, cultural, and
religious groups of the Commonwealth. Additionally, the language
of the requirement includes citizenship as one of the basic
character traits that may be taught. Hence, for purposes of
this paper, discussion of character education will include
values education and citizenship.
The resurgence of character education can be traced to three
recent trends (Lickona, 1993). The first is the decline of
the family. Because the family has traditionally been the
primary source of values and character development, family
disruptions that have occurred in the last half of the twentieth
century (increasing rates of divorce, greater numbers of children
born out of wedlock, increasing numbers of teenagers having
babies) have created a moral vacuum for many children. Increases
in family income levels, decreases in the number of children
in families, and increased public school spending have not
prevailed over this vacuum.
Troubling trends in youth behavior are a second cause for
growing interest in character education. More and more we
are concerned with the current state of students’ values.
For example, according to a recent survey conducted by Who’s
Who Among American High School Students, four out of five
high-achieving youngsters said they had cheated at least once.
More significant, 50 percent admitted they do not believe
cheating is wrong.
Additionally, there is a sense that heightened violence in
media, poor role models, a press corps that focus on hostilities,
a decline in the work ethic, the self-centeredness of the
“me” generation, and peer group pressure are adding
to the negative environment affecting all children. Current
rates of teen suicide, abortion, drug use, and pregnancy underscore
these concerns.
Finally, the moral decline in society is forcing an inspiring
movement toward discovering shared community values. The baby
boomers, who became the “me” generation, have found
themselves without the moral compass that grounded their parents.
Their yearning for a shared morality, essential for the survival
of culture, has added to the push for character education
for their children.
No matter what the causes, student behavior reflects the
decline of values. According to Barbara D. Whitehead, (April
1993) “Across the nation, principals report a dramatic
rise in the aggressive, acting-out behavior characteristic
of children, especially boys, who are living in single-parent
families.”
There are two primary issues with differing perspectives.
The first on-going discussion relates to whether values can
be separated from religion.
The most conservative view, often espoused by the religious
leaders, is that morals and values are direct by-products
of religion and must be taught in that context. Reflective
of this conservative view is the parents’ group, Citizens
for Excellence in Education (CEE), which proposes that moral
education be taught in all subject areas. Their argument is
based on the premise that American schools are founded on
Old English Common Law and on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments;
hence school curricula should reflect that ethical content.
Not surprisingly, CEE and similar groups are also opposed
to sex education, outcome-based education and other movements
that reflect current secular and societal values.
Those who are more moderate in their support of character
and values education suggest that students can be taught core
values and morals that do not necessarily reflect one particular
religion or another. Their argument is that, while one’s morals
may be deeply rooted in one of the world’s major religions
and may derive from one’s belief in God, there are universal
core values which are apparent in the secular world, as well
as in most religions. It is these common values which can
be taught through government institutions.
The second significant difference centers on the types of
values to be taught. This argument contrasts the use of “stern”
values, such as discipline, courage, and duty, to “soft”
values such as compassion, self-esteem, and friendliness.
Typically, curricula based on stern values promote the value
of service to the community over needs of the individual.
Soft values, on the other hand, emphasize the need of individuals
for love, self-esteem, and self-actualization.
The earliest schools in this country served as overt transmitters
of the Christian morals of our western European founders,
and the values that reflected our national conscience: independence,
public service, and democratic ideals. The overt teaching
of values in public schools flourished until the 1920s when
two movements converged in public education.
The first was the result of a study conducted by Columbia
University beginning in 1924. For five years, the Institute
of Social and Religious Research at Columbia’s Teachers College
assessed the values and character of 10,000 public school
students. Similar to the results of recent studies of the
DARE program, the researchers found little or no relationship
between the teaching of values by organizations or character
education, and the subsequent behavior of the students. The
findings led many to conclude that character education programs
produced no long-term results.
This growing belief was followed by the emergence and acceptance
of scientific thinking, which promoted fact-based thinking
and reduced the influence of feelings, emotions and values.
The separation of church and state further eroded the prominence
of values education. As the U.S. Supreme Court handed down
numerous decisions supporting individual freedoms under the
First Amendment, educators became increasingly concerned about
overtly promoting values in school curricula.
Whether taught directly or transmitted indirectly, values
are conveyed to our students daily. Still, character education
specialists argue that such education must transmit not only
an intellectual discussion of values, but the emotional and
behavioral aspects, as well (Lickona, 1993). That is, students
should be taught not only what is right, but also to want
to do the right thing and how to do so.
What is right? And what kinds of behaviors produce those
values? Current thinking is that the community (i.e., parents),
rather than educators, should decide. A case in point: in
1993, the Octorara Area (Atglen, Pennsylvania) school board
proposed a policy giving parents the right to review curricula
and withdraw their children from any program not matching
the parents’ beliefs. This sweeping policy, echoing the constant
tug between parental rights and academic freedom to teach,
requires parental consent in any curricula not board-approved.
The U.S. Department of Education recently created a Partnerships
in Character Education Pilot Projects Program and released
$2.5 million in grants to nine states (15 were eligible) to
develop partnerships between local school districts and communities
to advance citizenship and character education programs for
young people.
The partnerships enable states to establish community consensus
on appropriate values, design character programs, develop
curriculum materials, provide teacher training, involve parents
and other community members in the program, and evaluate the
success of each program. Success will be determined by assessing
the reduction of discipline problems, improvement in student
grades, increased participation in extracurricular activities
and strengthened community and family involvement.
The Virginia Department of Education (DOE) received a $1
million grant award to implement one of the Partnerships
in Character Education Pilot Projects in the Commonwealth.
DOE will establish partnerships with Albemarle, Stafford,
and Fairfax County Public Schools to plan, implement, disseminate,
and evaluate a comprehensive K-12 program. Program goals include:
- Planning, implementation and evaluation of a systematic,
yet flexible approach to character education in the pilot
sites,
- Development of Kindergarten-Life skills and moral/ethical
behaviors necessary to be contributing citizens by integration
of character education within the total school,
- Linking of existing local, state, and federal resources
that combine effective educational research and character
development, and
- Maintenance or improvement of student academic achievement
while expanding student understanding of and commitment
to the civic virtues and character traits identified by
the community.
Compounding the issue is the fact that Virginia’s population
is becoming increasingly diverse. This pluralism, at times,
has resulted in a clash of cultures and, sometimes, in differing
values. The challenge for policy-makers is to differentiate
between personal choices of citizens and moral values that
reflect the community.
Once a community has determined which values should be promoted
through the curriculum, additional, related issues need to
be considered. First, character education cannot be implemented
in a vacuum. Rather, everything the school says, does and
promotes should mirror the values and virtues identified by
the community and the behaviors deemed important.
Also, inservice and preservice requirements for teachers
must be considered. Presently, educators receive little training
in character education. How can this best be delivered, especially
in light of the fact that each community can determine its
own curriculum?
Perhaps now, more than ever, educational specialists, as
well as policy-makers, believe that schools need to actively
teach values. As sociologist David Popenoe noted, now that
we have substantiated what elements are necessary to build
strong, independent children, those factors are disappearing
from our culture. Two-parent families, strong role models,
clear-cut limits, and sound churches and schools are the backbone
of character-building for youngsters. As these institutions
have weakened, so has our value system. Something must be
done to fill the void.
The 1999 General Assembly passed Senate Bill 817, amending
§22.1-208.01 of the Code of Virginia requiring that
each local school board establish a character education program
and that the state Board of Education establish criteria for
character education programs. Acceptable character traits
to be taught include:
- Trustworthiness (including honesty, integrity, reliability,
and loyalty)
- Respect (including precepts of the Golden Rule, tolerance,
and courtesy)
- Responsibility (including hard work, economic self-reliance,
accountability, diligence, perseverance, and self-control)
- Fairness (including justice, consequences of bad behavior,
principles of consideration, generosity, and charity)
- Citizenship (including patriotism, the Pledge of Allegiance,
respect for the American flag, concern for the common good,
respect for authority and the law, and community-mindedness)
While classroom instruction may supplement a character education
program, it is the intent of the legislation that such education
be interwoven into the school procedures and environment and
that instruction be primarily through example.
In February 2000, the Board approved the criteria, developed
by a committee of parents, teachers, and administrators, which
will guide school divisions in establishing and evaluating
character education programs. According to the guidelines,
each local character education program shall:
- Be developed in cooperation with students, parents, and
the community at large.
- Specify those character traits to be taught, selecting
from those which are common to diverse social, cultural,
and religious groups.
- Avoid indoctrination of any religious or political belief.
- Be implemented at the elementary and secondary levels.
- Complement the state Standards of Learning, be interwoven
into existing curricula and taught primarily by example,
illustration and participation.
- Provide for relevant professional development and adequate
resources.
- Include a method for program evaluation.
Because Virginia schools are already required to include
character education as a component of the school curriculum,
the natural follow-up question is: “How do we teach them?”
According to noted educator, Howard Kirschenbaum, there are
several means by which values can be transmitted. The first
is through a specific curriculum designed to transmit specific
core values. The second is for educators to demonstrate those
values. Additionally, students can be taught specific skills,
such as conflict resolution, for ethical and moral behavior.
Finally, schools can assist young people in internalizing
values and making right choices and decisions by showing them
how to apply their values to daily behavior. As Virginia’s
initiative is implemented, these assertions and the related
issues will be examined carefully.
Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history
of “Citizenship,
Character Education, and Values.”
Bennett, William, Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great
Moral Stories, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.
Bok, Sissela, Lying: Moral Choices in Public and Private
Life, New York: Vintage Books, 1999.
Kirschenbaum, H. “Teaching Students to be Moral,”
Paper presented to the Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development Annual Conference, March, 1994.
Lickona, T. “The Return of Character Education,”
Educational Leadership, 1993, Vol. 51, No. 3,
Whitehead, Barbara D.. “Dan Quayle Was Right,”
The Atlantic, April 1993, 271:47-84.
Wynne, E. A., and K. Ryan, Reclaiming Our Schools: A Handbook
on Teaching Character, Academics, and Discipline, New
York: Merrill, 1992.
- www.familyeducation.com
- www.naesp.org
- www.nassp.org
- www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests
- www.usnews.com/usnews/issure/moral.htm
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
