|
Focus on Teachers Newsletter
Volume 1, No. 3, August 2002
CONTENTS
Editor’s Musings
In Their Own Words
Article of the Month: The Many Faces of
Character Education
Question of the Month
Teaching Tip of the Month
Web Resources: Character Education
In Closing
Return to Teacher's Mind Home
Editor’s
Musings
First, a note of apology to those of you who received three
copies of the July newsletter announcement in your email. It seems my email
program went into an infinite loop and decided that if one was good, three was
even better. It might still be sending out emails if I hadn't figured out what was
happening. One person commented that, while she appreciated my enthusiasm, one was
really enough. Thanks to you all for being so understanding. I'm really not
"into" spam!
A note
about format. We are changing the format of the newsletter from PDF to HTML to
facilitate bookmarks and links. There are not graphics in the newsletter, so they
can still be printed if you wish. Articles from the newsletters have also been
added to the ARTICLES page on the website.
*****
In
June, I was privileged to attend a “teacher conference” that was much
different from the mainstream. Teaching for a Change, sponsored by several community colleges, held its
twelfth annual conference in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Although targeted at
teachers in two- and four-year colleges, the philosophy of Teaching for a Change was appropriate for
teachers of any grade level or subject. The conference was remarkable in its focus
on the power of teachers to “transform the now” and “create the new.”
Although many sessions offered “tips and tricks”, there were abundant
opportunities for dialogue on what teachers needed, and what visions they held for
the future.
In
a keynote teleconference, Parker Palmer spoke about the violence in our schools—not
the violence of guns or gangs, but the personal violence that arises from an
education system that values knowledge over students, standardized test scores
over individual progress, and uniformity over nurturing the strengths and
abilities of every student. Palmer spoke and answered questions about the need for
“rehumanizing” education and the role that teachers at every level can play in
that process.
As
part of the conference, I was privileged to participate in a three-day “retreat”
entitled “The Heart of the Teacher.” Rather than being “given” teaching
tips and “proven” methods—participants are encouraged to focus on themselves—on
their own development and evolution as teachers. What is perhaps even more
important, participants are acknowledged as human beings on their own quest for
meaning.
Under
the capable but remarkably unobtrusive leadership of Sue Jones, Co-director of the
Center for Formation in the Community college and Elizabeth Betzel, a professor of
Mathematics at Columbus State Community College, we were led through a variety of
exercises in which we were seen, heard, and acknowledged as unique individuals. We
were encouraged to explore our own perspectives of education—and of self. Wow!
What a concept! Would that many of the other professional development
opportunities were similarly evolved.
Perhaps
it is Parker Palmer's insistence that "We teach who we are" that led to
this month's theme. Palmer, author of Courage
to Teach, in conjunction with the Fetzer Institute, instituted a program
called Teacher Formation for K-12 teachers. Palmer believes that only through
self-reflection and awareness can teachers fully and richly participate in the
teacher/student/knowledge relationship. Only by turning education away from it’s
fixation on what’s “out there” and returning to what is within can we find
true meaning for both ourselves and our students. Teacher Formation has now
expanded into community colleges and, hopefully, will eventually reach into every
level of education. If you have the opportunity and interest, check out the
available programs. Regardless of your role in education, consider attending next
year’s Teaching for a Change and the
Heart of the Teacher Retreat.
The Center for
Teacher Formation http://www.teacherformation.org/
The Center for
Formation in the Community College http://www.league.org/league/projects/formation/index.htm#retreats
Homepage for the Teaching for A Change conference: Note:
This is a description of this year’s conference. It will give you an idea of
what the conference is like. Next year’s conference will be in the same
location. http://www.teachingforachange.com/
In Their Own Words
There's
something really eerie going on here. Within a day or two of deciding on the theme
for the month's newsletter, I'll receive one of Louis Schmier's posts. For three
months in a row, Louis's "random thoughts" have addressed that very
topic. So here are Louis's words—this time on "character education."
Louis
considers the metaphor of fire—comparing destructive forest fires of the summer
to the “raging and devastating fire storms of financial corruption within some
great corporations,” and the “devastating fire storms of sexual abuse with the
Catholic Church.” Although he speaks about the role of universities, I think
each of us can recognize similar elements from any level of education. These
paragraphs are excerpted from a longer piece.
“These
fires weren't set and fanned by academic dropouts. They are spiritual and economic
leaders, talented graduates of our colleges and universities and
seminaries. The deeply disturbing revelations about these ravaging clerical
and corporate fires that are shaking the very foundation of our religious and
economic systems show how easy it is for supposedly educated people to come up
with a bunch of very defensive and self-serving excuses, rationalizations, and
explanations for some immoral, unethical, dishonorable, and illegal
acts. Every day we hear of individual or institutional corruption that carry
huge human and dollar costs.”
“Don’t think that we in the Ivory Tower are
so pure of heart that we can look down our noses from the battlements on such
sordidness: prominent professors plagiarizing and engaging in various other forms
of academic dishonesty; academics compromising themselves, often at the
expense of students, in their quest of the holy grail of tenure; university
research scientists playing with results of experiments; coaches fudging resumes;
faculty in cahoots to falsify grades of athletes; presidents kowtowing to alumni
and engaging in face-saving and rationalizing damage control when scandalous
sports programs hit the headlines; and an overwhelming majority of students on our
campuses believing cheating is part of the "game."
“Everyone
is moving to the tune that ‘everyone's doing it, doing it, doing it.’ To
them it's ‘no big deal.’ To them it's a resigned go-along sigh of ‘oh,
well.’ Well, it's not well; it's down the well. It's not a game; it's gamy.
It not a tune; it's a song and dance. And it is a big deal. It's a
Faustean deal with the devil, for our graduates will take…with them into every
facet of their working and personal lives a corrosive cynicism that expects and
accepts and condones bad motives and bad behaviors.
“If
we don't frontally address these issues day-in and day-out in and out of our
classrooms; if we don't inoculate students with a high expectation for themselves
and others to live noble and worthy lives; if we don't assume responsibility of
modeling and instilling virtue— honesty, respect, and integrity—in our students, we will keep on producing
animated scandals waiting to happen, persons without character or with weakened
character, persons unencumbered by scruples, persons with a compass that has no
markings for true north, persons without the will or the courage to stand up and
say no, persons with a willingness to look the other way…”
[Since
1993, Dr. Schmier has shared his “random thoughts” about the human dimension
of education with various listservs. To read more “random thoughts” visit http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/rt/]
Here's
another brief quote from the chairperson of an international company.
“Schools evaluate learning by testing and measuring knowledge. How many books
has the student read? What was his final grade? Were the answers on the exam
correct? The measure of effective teaching is not how much a person knows, but how
well he or she lives.” Mrs. Anu Aga Chairperson, Thermax Industries
Ltd.
If you have read something you would like to share with others or would
like to contribute your own thoughts to this section, send your ideas in the body
of an email to feedback (at) TeachersMind.com.
Article
of the Month
The Many Faces of Character Education
Before
beginning, I want readers to understand my purpose in addressing this issue. Those
of you who have read Teaching in Mind, my article on the Dangers of Dichotomies, or the article from the June newsletter on “right and wrong,”
already know that I support multiple perspectives—alternatives rather than “stances.”
In writing this article, I have provided a number of different viewpoints on
character education. The only “position” I am taking is that each parent, each
teacher, each person involved in the development of young people, has a personal
responsibility for what they teach by reason of who they are and what they believe
and value. Those lessons remain hidden unless we reflect on our own behavior and
what motivates that behavior. The lessons remain “mindless”—and potentially
detrimental to the development of “good” character—until they are brought
into the light of day.
A
second reason for writing the article is to point out the dangers of accepting “glittering
generalities”—truth, justice, and the American Way! Many arguments both for
and against character education are filled with such language. Because it appeals
to our highest ideals, such language sometimes lulls people into unquestioned
acceptance. Virtue, “good” character, respect, and responsibility are part of that language. But so are the compelling anecdotes
used by opponents—stories that tug at the heartstrings and move us to deplore
the practices that produce such evils.
There
is truth in each of these “positions.” Becoming aware of the way we can be
manipulated by language is the first step in training ourselves to seek out
alternative points of view, to tease the relevant information from each
perspective, and to assemble the information into a workable whole. If character
education interests you, I urge you to read the articles and visit the websites
listed in the Web Links section. Gather your own information and draw your own
conclusions.
*****
Concerns
about declining moral values, moral crises, and cultural degeneration have, I am
sure, existed since the earliest societies. Today, those concerns are fed by a
media that chooses to focus the bulk of their attention on the worst that humanity
has to offer—terrorism, pedophilia in those once perceived as models of
morality, corporate greed, and political scandal. It’s easy to believe that the
moral fiber that was once a hallmark of this nation has weakened and torn— that
the damage is irreparable unless we undertake a major reweaving of the values and
virtues that once characterized (at least in some history texts) this nation.
Having
lived for many years in a “major media market” (Chicago), my initial reaction
to the daily newspaper or nightly network news in the town of Missoula, Montana
was “Huh???” Where are the sound bites from politicians? Where are the floods,
famines, muggings, car bombings, and terrorist attacks that were the mainstay of
the major market newspapers and nightly television news? Over time, I grew
accustomed to stories about the work of Habitat for Humanity, the local shelter
for homeless people, and the outpouring of help for families whose homes had
burned or whose loved ones required more medical care than they could afford. I
welcomed stories about local students who were doing significant research on local
environmental issues, and organizing "proms" for senior citizens and
neighborhood volunteer programs.
Certainly,
there are daily stories of drug busts, deaths caused by drunk drivers, and spousal
abuse. But the media in many small communities have chosen to focus the bulk of
their attention on what’s good about humanity, rather than what’s bad. While
you may fault them with their failure to report on the world’s disasters, they
seem content to leave those stories to media outlets that can afford to have
correspondents around the world.
What
is the real America? Are we morally bankrupt? Has our push for more individual
rights and greater personal freedoms taught our children that their wants and
needs are the only things that are important? Or are we in yet another period of
moral and social upheaval similar to those in the 20s, 60s, and other decades? In
hindsight, those periods resulted in huge advances in the rights of “minorities”
such as women and African Americans. They also produced a populace that is more
likely to question the decisions of their governmental representatives.
Some
have suggested that, just as repeated violence on television and computer games
may desensitize us to violence, the media focus on terrorist acts, corporate
greed, and ethically reprehensible behavior may cause our young people to believe
that "everyone" is doing it. What will convince them otherwise?
Whatever
your sentiments, the present push toward “character education” gained momentum
with the 1997 State of the Union address by President Clinton, in which he
elevated “character education” to a national priority for public education.
Many had believed that, in addition to parents, public education was responsible
for the moral and ethical development of society’s young people. Despite the
irony of the source, they now had a powerful ally. Although President Clinton's
only direct recommendation at that time was requiring students to wear uniforms,
governmental focus now gave credence to character education programs. Typing “character
education” into a search engine today rewards one with numerous sites containing
everything from definitions of character education to programs and lesson plans.
And there are as many different approaches and "definitions" as there
are groups producing them!
One
problem is that the basic issues surrounding moral/ethical development have not
disappeared. Many people associate the term “moral” with religion. They are
unwilling to even discuss the possibility of schools ‘teaching’ morals. So
groups shift their vocabulary to values, ethics, or virtues.
Sociologists have described the socialization of children as one of public
education’s primary purposes. It is difficult to understand how socialization
into a particular society can be separated from the morals and ethical values of
that society. Yet there are those who insist that schools have no place “imposing
values” on students. More on that later.
Although
some “character education” programs insist that there are certain “virtues,”
such as wisdom, honesty, justice, respect, responsibility, and courage, that are
universal—that cut across religious and cultural lines—others question whether
such virtues can exist in a country founded on ideas of religious and personal
freedom—a society that has grown steadily more pluralistic in its values and
beliefs.
There
are those who fear that “The current fascination with character education will
serve as political cover for the imposition of a particular cultural agenda, and
return to narrow indoctrinative pedagogy, rather than a flourishing of education
practices and contexts likely to lead to genuine moral growth.” In fact, one character education
program describes their work as follows: “Character education involves making
our students knowledgeable about democratic principles, reflecting on what those
principles mean to our country and its citizens, and developing and practicing
traits necessary for leading humane and civilized lives. In its simplest form,
character education is about instilling caring, civic virtue and citizenship,
honesty, justice and fairness, respect, responsibility, and trustworthiness in our
children.”
On
the surface that sounds very noble. But in practice, whose definition of “democratic
principles” will be used? What does it mean to “instill” civic virtue and
citizenship? Does it mean being obedient, patriotic, unquestionably supportive of
our government? Or something entirely different?
Whose Meaning?
In
Teaching in Mind, I’ve written about
how people often assume that words "mean" the same thing to everyone,
and how failure to begin by defining the terms in which a problem is stated often
results in hopeless disagreement about solutions. For example, Betty Achinstein
recently published a study in which she examined community-building efforts at two
schools. She found that the teachers at one school saw education as the
transmission of knowledge to increase participation in the status quo. Teachers at the other school
believed education is a means for
transforming and improving society. To read a review of her book, visit http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10953
(free registration required).
In
terms of character education, the “values” that each of these schools might
adopt would be very different. Would the first school encourage students to
question authority or to think creatively about how issues might be solved? Would
the second school place the same emphasis on "civic virtue" and
obedience? If public education focuses on “virtues” that maintain the status
quo, where will the leaders of our social movements come from?
What is "good" character?
In
his book, How Children Fail, John Holt said, “Teachers and schools
tend to mistake good behavior for good character. What they prize is docility,
suggestibility; the child who will do what he is told; or even better, the child
who will do what is wanted without even having to be told. They value in most
children what children lease value in themselves. Small wonder that their effort
to build character is such a failure; they don’t know it when they see it.”
Whether
you agree with Holt or not, his statement raises a valid question. How do we
recognize “good character” when we see it? Doesn’t it depend on our personal
or cultural beliefs and values? For those of you who are fans of Star Trek, Worf and the Klingons equate honor
with dying in battle, and the Ferengi would see anyone who could successfully turn
a profit as having sterling character. Apparently, many of our corporate leaders
share that perception. But we needn’t look to aliens for our examples.
Courage is often mentioned as a virtue.
Doesn't it take courage to rob a bank? Or is that something else? In
some of our military academies, students are encouraged to exercise loyalty to their schools by reporting other students who cheat. Yet gang
members use loyalty as their reason for not “squealing” on their friends. Some
cultures perceive “filial piety” and “honor” as primary virtues. In
others, chastity is prized. In the West, that word might “mean” sexual
abstinence. What would it mean to a culture where multiple marriages are not only
accepted, but necessary for survival?
Are
there any “virtues” that all members of society would agree are unchanging,
unambiguous, and universally required for “good” character? Are there any
behaviors that are always in the best interest of the greater good? I suggest that
what we call respect, responsibility,
honesty, justice, wisdom, or any of those words we call virtues, do not exist “out there.” They
exist as constructs in human minds—individual humans minds. They are human “labels
for complex gestalts of experience” and are therefore, influenced by
subjective interpretation.
I
realize that I risk being accused of “situational ethics” when I say that.
Obviously, members of a culture share a "sense" of what it means to be honest,
courageous, wise, and respectful. However, we cannot ignore the
differences because they don’t suit our personal definitions. By attempting to
“teach” or “instill” virtues, encapsulate them into easily digested pills
to cure socially unacceptable behaviors, we remain at risk of adopting a cure that
is too simplistic to allow for all eventualities. How will students know when it
is appropriate to question authority if we demand complete obedience to authority?
How will they recognize injustice if it isn’t one of the examples in the “program”?
Should
we forget about character education until the ‘experts’ sort out what it means
to be a person of “good” character? Shall we go on our merry way until they
decide whether character is a matter of values, morals, or ethics? Whether there
are any “universal” qualities, such as respect, responsibility, cooperation, fairness,
justice, caring, or integrity that schools have the responsibility to
“teach” students?
It's a Done Deal!
The
truth is that teachers are already teaching values. As
Louis suggests in the quote preceding this article, they are already (largely
unconsciously) modeling their own personal values, the values of the school
culture, and the values of the larger society in which they live. Some character
education programs insist that it is wrong to “impose one’s values on
students.” They suggest helping students to identify and clarify their own
values and insist that values can be good, bad, or neutral.
Can educators avoid “imposing their values on students”?
The issue seems a matter of semantics at best. When a school selects a textbook
that “covers” scientific discoveries of Darwin, Newton, and Galileo, with no
mention of equally important discoveries from Egypt, Babylonia, China, or Africa,
aren’t they “imposing their values” on students? When teachers don’t have
time to “cover” everything in the book, they generally choose those concepts they consider more important or with which they feel more comfortable—in other
words, subject that they value more highly for some reason.
Elliot Eisner suggests that what curriculum designers and/or
teachers choose to leave out of the curriculum—the null curriculum—sends a covert message
about what is to be valued. Sound bites and easily testable facts push big ideas
to the background. Big ideas are too complex and have too many different
perspectives to allow for efficient testing. Proven facts are to be valued. Big
ideas are not.
The prevailing Western worldview—that the only valid way of
solving problems of nature and man is science—is so much a part of Western
thought that other options are not even considered. What is worse, the product of scientific discovery (easily
testable again) is stressed, while the human process of scientific thought and discovery is reduced to the Scientific
Method—a series of “steps” that can be memorized and for which check lists
can be produced. Learning about the external world of objects and events is to be
valued. Learning about the inner world of meaning and purpose is not.
Parker Palmer tells the story of a young man in one of his
classes. Palmer had assigned a series of autobiographical essays related to themes
in the text. The student asked if it would be alright for him to use the word “I”
in his themes. “I’m a history major,” he said, “and each time I use 'I' in
a paper, they knock off half a grade.”
Palmer goes on to say, “In this culture, objective facts are
regarded as pure while subjective feelings are suspect and sullied. In this
culture, the self is not a source to be tapped but a danger to be suppressed, not
a potential to be fulfilled but an obstacle to be overcome. In this culture, the
pathology of speech disconnected from self is regarded, and rewarded, as a virtue.
…In a single stroke, we delude our students into believing that bad prose [‘It
is thought…’ rather than ‘I think…’] turns opinions into facts and we
alienate ourselves from our inner life.”
Elliot Eisner argues that the “kind of place school is”—the
environment itself—“may be among the most important lessons a child learns.”
Eisner explains that the design of schools, their sterile furnishings, and
antiseptic quality “speak of efficiency more than they do of comfort…they
express the values we cherish and…reinforce those values. Schools are
educational churches, and our gods, judging from the altars we build, are economy
and efficiency. Hardly a nod is given to the spirit.”
The “kind of place school is” heavily influences the
behavior of both teachers and students. In too many schools, students learn that
their interest in a subject is less important than keeping to a schedule or lesson
plan, and that a consistent and unbending set of rules is more important than
helping an individual student understand the difference between appropriate and
inappropriate behavior. Fundamentally, they learn that they as individuals are
relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. These are the values that are “imposed
on students” in the implicit curriculum.
Can Character be "Taught"?
Values—ethical behavior—character—these are not
qualities that can be applied to students like a shiny new coat of paint. They
cannot be "given" to students. They are complex internal processes that
develop through feedback with the world. Some have even suggested that the only
cardinal virtues are those that involve others. While ethical behavior can
undoubtedly be “learned,” I
think it is worth asking ourselves whether it can be “taught.”
Certainly,
there are times when defining, describing, or discussing ethical behavior is
valuable in helping children clarify their actions and understand more about
themselves and their responsibility to others. But if you select one “virtue”
that you possess that you believe indicates your “good character,” how did you
learn it? How did that “virtue” become incorporated into your behavior? How
can we recreate those conditions for students?
In
a 1997 article entitled “How Not to Teach Values,” Alfie Kohn points out that
that much of how people act reflects the situations in which they find themselves—their
social environments. Competitive events foster aggression among competitors and,
in some circumstances, riots among spectators. People who refuse to make eye
contact with others in the big city will go to the aid of strangers after living
for a time in a small town. Otherwise “moral” adults lose their unwillingness
to inflict pain on others—or even to kill—when placed in a situation where
that action appears to have positive consequences for themselves or others.
If
we hope to influence and aid in the ethical development of students, what better
way than to work toward creating an environment in which ethical behaviors are the
norm, rather than the flavor of the week. Yes, there can be concerted efforts
within a school to work toward that goal, but it requires more than wearing
buttons saying, “I Care” or posting “The Ten Commandments of Acceptable
Behavior” on the cafeteria wall. What it comes down to is a commitment from
every individual to live the “virtues” they purport to value in an ongoing
way. And that begins with “Know thyself—and don’t leave out the warts!”
The ability to peacefully resolve conflicts is often
mentioned as a mark of ‘good’ character. Yes, you can take students through
the stages of conflict resolution—make them aware of alternatives to arguing,
anger, name-calling, or violence—teach them to find an adult to help them. But
the rubber hits the road when you yourself must resolve some conflict within the
classroom. How you do that is a much more profound lesson than any planned
curricular offering.
Think
of a “virtue” that you expect your students to exhibit. Is it a virtue that
you possess? In what ways do you model that virtue for your students—what
behaviors demonstrate how a person who possesses that virtue acts? Many teachers
“demand” respect from their students. What does the word respect mean?
The dictionary definition includes consideration for and courtesy to others. Are there circumstances
where you model disrespect rather than respect for your students? Is your
definition of respect a one-way street?
Please
don’t take my words to an extreme that I do not intend. Yes, there will be times
when punishment, reprimands, or overt discipline may be appropriate—but even
then, lessons are learned from the way the teacher responds. Maintaining respect
for the student while responding appropriately to the behavior requires first, that teachers recognize the difference. And yes,
there are students for whom no amount of “right” behavior will change who and
what they are.
Walking the Talk
Character
education programs that are deemed "successful" succeeded because the
individual teachers lived the lessons they taught—they walked their talk.
Teachers who urged children to care for one another consistently demonstrated
caring in their interactions with the children and other adults. It was more than
an “example”—it was the way those teachers lived—it was part of who they
were as human beings. We teach who we are.
We
are all—students, teachers, administrators, and parents—human. We are all
prone to human emotion and the need to maintain our own psychological equilibrium—sometimes
acting in ways that are counter to our own self-image. Hopefully, each stumble
gives us feedback that helps us make more effective choices the next time around.
Students are no different. However, they are less experienced and often require
even more feedback to "tune" their behavior.
Good
character is not a state—it is an ongoing process in which each of us is
engaged. Our students are just beginning their journey to self-knowledge. Let’s
immerse them in an environment in which they experience virtue in action in
an ongoing way.
Character
education is already an ongoing process in every school. As long as it remains an
unconscious process, as long as we are unaware of the lessons we teach through our
every action, we have little right to criticize students for failing to live up to
some mythical ideal. To mindfully engage in helping students develop ethical
behavior and “good” character, each of us must recognize the difference
between the values we outwardly espouse and those that we live.
If
we expect the same behavior of ourselves that we expect of students, we create the
environment in which that behavior becomes the norm. If we expect students to “stand”
for something, on what issues are we willing to take a stand? If we expect
students to exhibit courage, in what ways are we courageous? If we expect students
to act justly, how just are our demands and decisions? Sounds a bit like the “Golden
Rule,” doesn’t it?
Status quo? Productive change? Or Both?
Educators
presently expend tremendous amounts of time and energy on the execution of
external mandates and government policies. There are those who go so far as to
suggest that "big brother" has manipulated public education solely to
maintain the status quo—to educate obedient citizens who will do what they are
told without question, support whatever actions their leaders take, and provide a
productive workforce to keep the nations economy strong. They suggest that
standards and the emphasis on tests are designed, not to improve the educational
opportunities for all children, but to maintain a stable, but unthreatening, level
of competence.
In
this view, working to help students develop their unique potential— something
that might be assessed by measuring individual progress rather than by comparing
students to a standardized norm—is a threat to the status quo. If young people
believed that they had the ability and power to change society, some insist it
would lead to anarchy. Because it would be politically unpopular to say that in so
many words, those in power offer more benevolent reasons for practices that
effectively eliminate opportunities for a true learner-centered education. And
they support “virtues” that increase the likelihood of maintaining the
status quo.
While
this view may seem to smack of paranoia and conspiracy theory, there are some
points that appear valid. Only recently, we’ve seen heated debates about what it
means to be ‘patriotic.’ People who refuse to support government policy
without question are branded ‘unpatriotic’ by those who insist we must support
our government or risk appearing weak. In their own minds, the questioners are
exhibiting the highest form of patriotism and fully engaging in the democratic
process.
"Fixing" kids? "Fixing"
society? Or Both?
There
are no easy answers to the moral/ethical issues that face our society. But
solutions based on unexamined assumptions may be less valuable than time spent
asking the hard questions. One of those assumptions is that by “fixing the kids,”
we will return to what many remember as being a saner time. But wouldn’t we also
have to “return” to every other factor that influenced those times? Back to
the future? The efforts to “fix kids” does, however, divert attention from “fixing”
the problems of the society—the environment in which those children learn their
most basic lessons.
If
it’s true that our behavior depends largely on the social environment in which
we live, how do we explain the behavior of corporate executives whose “values”
include lining their own pockets at the expense of stockholders? What do we value
more highly that keeps us from labeling that behavior as grand theft and
prosecuting these people to the limit of the law? What values supersede the “virtue”
of honesty? And what lessons do our children learn about “exceptions” to
so-called virtuous behavior?
Is
this truly moral decay or is it a cycle that must reach it’s most repugnant
before the “virtuous” people in society have had enough and there is a rising
tide of dissent that eventually leads to new definitions and demands for ethical
behavior among our economic, political, and religious leaders. Keep in mind that
it was once considered virtuous for rich white plantation owners to provide
housing, clothing, food, and work for poor, “ignorant” members of humanity who
could never have aspired to such lives on their own. It was once considered
virtuous (and in some quarters still is) to convert “heathen savages” and put
them on the “right” path. What happened to change those virtues into evils?
*****
As
I stated at the beginning, I’ve raised these issues, not to bring anyone to a
particular point of view, but to warn against unquestioned acceptance of “glittering
generalities.” Policies couched in “truth, justice, and the American way”
rhetoric discourage dissenters because they sound so inherently “good.”
However, I would encourage everyone involved in the education of our young people—everyone
who is concerned about the kind of world those young people will create—to open
a dialogue, not about what we should be
teaching, but about what we are
teaching. It would be wonderful if everyone would agree to such a dialogue. But
their failure to do so is no excuse for inaction on the part of each individual.
Teachers never know how a single word, a single action, will play out in the
future. One person can and does make a difference.
Question of the Month
What value/virtue/ethical behavior do you believe should be part of
public education? How would you propose that this quality be “taught,” “instilled,”
or otherwise included in the education process? What can you, personally, do to
encourage the development of this behavior?
Teaching Tip of the
Month
One way for teachers to begin reflecting on their own behavior is to
challenge themselves to abide by the same standards they apply to their students.
Here's an example. I once talked with a class of "honors" students about
ridiculing or making fun of others with either verbal “cuts” or non-verbal
behaviors— eye-rolling, moans, or other behaviors that others would interpret as
a “put-down.” They all agreed that they didn’t enjoy being the ‘victim’
of such actions, and we briefly discussed why some people feel the need to make
fun of others. Then I told them that I wouldn’t accept those behaviors in my
class— but as an added incentive for them to think about that type of behavior,
I told them that if they ever saw or heard me doing anything along those lines,
they had my permission to ‘zing’ me right back.
To be honest, this was a reasonably safe offer because “putting down” students
wasn’t part of my behavioral repertoire. So imagine my surprise when a boy
raised his hand several weeks later and really let me have it! At first, I was
shocked, but he quickly followed the "put down" with "you said we
could..." As it turned out, what I had done was joke in a very tongue in
cheek manner with another student—and both of us realized that it was a joke.
But it was a valuable lesson to me about how my behavior might be interpreted by
students. I thanked the student for what, in any other context, would have been
considered blatant disrespect. To me, it was a gift!
While
I wouldn't do it quite that way with second graders, I might surely invite them to
tell when when they thought I was acting "mean." (or some other
age-appropriate term). That could open a discussion about the it "means"
to be mean and the whole concept of "tough love."
If
you demand that students turn in assignments on time as a measure of
responsibility, what responsibility do you have to grade and return those
assignments “on time?” (Or in some cases, to grade them at all!)
If
you demand that students obey "your" rules, to what extent do you obey
the mandates you receive from your own leaders about teaching? If you believe that
what you’ve been ordered to do is not in the best interest of students, do you
do it anyway? If not, are there any circumstances under which students might
reasonably refuse to obey you?
Have
you ever lost your temper with a class? What happens when a student loses his or
her temper?
Students,
regardless of their age, are human beings. It is my belief that they deserve the
same courtesy that we would extend to adults. But I’m also human. If I had a “bad
day” for some reason completely apart from what was happening in the classroom—and
if I took out my frustrations on the class (oh? you never do that?), I took it
upon myself to apologize to them the next day. I saw it as one way to demonstrate
that they needn’t always assume that the behavior of another person was in
response to their own actions. If nothing else, it made me feel less guilty. And I
hope it showed them that I saw them as human beings who I might have inadvertently
injured.
Try
thinking about those “virtues” that you demand of your students— the ones
that make you the most upset when the students act otherwise. Then ask yourself
how you can, through your own behavior, make that virtue a “given” in the
classroom. Just a thought!
Web Resources: Character Education
These are links to articles that
raise questions about the present state of “Character Education.” To prepare
you to study the other sites more carefully, it is suggested that you read these
articles first.
"Character Education After
the Bandwagon Has Gone"
Please do a Google Search on
the name, as its URL sometimes moves.
Paper presented in, L. Nucci
(Chair), Developmental perspectives and approaches to character
education. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, March 1997.
"How Not to Teach Values: A
Critical Look at Character Education" by Alfie Kohn.
http://www.alfiekohn.org/articles.htm#null
The following links lead to websites that offer various information and programs
in character education.
The Character Education
Partnership
http://www.character.org/
Good Character.com
http://www.goodcharacter.com/
Institute for Global
Ethics
http://www.globalethics.org/
The Center for the
Advancement of Ethics and Character (CAEC) at Boston University
http://www.bu.edu/education/caec/files/FAQ.htm
And finally—Conversations on high-stakes testing and standards have been on the
rise since the inauguration of NCLB. Although many educators are becoming
more and more disillusioned, there is still an underlying sense of powerlessness
in many of the messages. So I thought it would be interesting to let people know
what teachers (and some parents) are doing.
http://www.fairtest.org/k-12.htm
In Closing
Because of the length of this month's article, we've omitted the last
few sections for space. Keep in mind that we always welcome comments or questions
and will be happy to publish any appropriate material that you'd care to share
with our readers. Contact us at info@teachersmind.com.
In
planning our workshops, I have realized that I need more information about what
people want and what features are important to them. To this end, I'll be posting
a survey later this month that I hope many of you will take a few minutes to fill
out. I'll send along a notice as soon as the survey is available.
Until next month...
Return to Teachers Mind Home
|