Introduction
For more than 30 years, the United States has experienced significant increases regarding interest in character development initiatives, particularly in schools. As a result, programs such as Rachel’s Challenge, CharacterPLUS, and Character.org,
formerly known as the Character Education Partnership (CEP), have attempted to provide society with implementation strategies and additional materials aimed at cultivating positive character traits in humankind. Berkowitz and Bier (2007) embrace the
importance of incorporating character strategies into daily routines; however, they also express the importance the character education community such as school staff,
researchers, and curriculum developers understanding the whats and hows of character education. In other words, what is character education and its purpose and how does character education accomplish the goals conceived by the character community?
Benninga, Berkowitz, Kuehn, and Smith (2006) implicate character education implementation in the improvement of students’ behavioral and academic performance. While researchers may differ in their definitions of character and character education, the multifaceted benefits for children, schools, and communities are supported. M. Davidson et al. (2008a) declare, “Character education isn’t just about helping kids get along; it is also about teaching them to work hard, develop their talents, and aspire to excellence in
every area of endeavor” (p. 373). The concerted efforts of various adults involved in children’s lives will assist them in developing character-related skills that permeate every facet of their lives.
Included in this chapter is a descriptive history of character education and
concepts that have led to its development since before the twentieth century. In addition, I have included details of my own experience with character development delivered by my father. Lastly, the chapter contains the components of a successful character
education program and its implications for school improvement as described by Thomas Lickona known as that Father of Character Education. No research on character
education implementation and its influence on the development of human beings would be complete without mention of Thomas Lickona and Marvin Berkowitz, who has investigated what works in character education and development (Berkowitz, 2000, 2011b; Bier & Berkowitz, 2005).
What is Character Education?
Berkowitz (2011b) proclaims, “There are many sayings that remind us how we tend to revisit old ideas. ‘Everything old is new again.’ ‘History repeats itself.’ ‘And the seasons, they go round and round . . .’ This is certainly true of character education” (p. 1). Character education is known by varied other names such as moral education, values education, virtues education, and ethics education, to name a few. For the purposes of this research, I will use the term character education which Lickona (2009) reports is grounded in the notion of “moral knowing, moral feeling, and moral action” (p. 69). Character.org (2015) states,
Character education is an educational movement that supports the social, emotional, and ethical development of students. It is the proactive effort by schools, districts, and states to instill in students important core, ethical and performance values such as caring, honesty, diligence, fairness, fortitude,
responsibility, and respect for self and others. Character education provides long- term solutions to moral, ethical, and academic issues that are of growing concern in our society and our schools. (Retrieved January 14, 2016)
M. Davidson et al. (2008a) submit that “Character isn’t just about doing the right thing in an ethical sense; it is also about doing our best work” (p. 373). The Character Education Partnership (CEP, 2009), now known as Character.org, proposes that character education “. . . helps solve behavioral problems and improve academic achievement” (p. 3).
Character education is not only concerned with solving behavioral issues that inevitably occur in schools, but it is also dedicated to facilitating the overall development of the whole child (Matula, 2004). Costley et al. (2012) suggest character education is able to produce a well-rounded child who has a strong moral compass that will develop the child’s mind, attitudes, and subsequent behaviors. Simply put, “Good character education is . . . good education” (CEP, 2009, p. 3).
Benninga et al. (2006) submit that “character education is the responsibility of adults . . . and is the duty of the older generation to form the character of the young through experiences affecting attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors” (p. 448). In essence, the adults involved in a child’s life are the first teachers of how the child should be. This is done through the family unit; however, Coble (2014) asserts that parents are spending less and less time with their children, particularly in religious worship and values teaching. This lack of involvement in the child’s life can lead to the engagement in unhealthy and destructive behaviors that derail the child’s future.
History of Character Education Before the 20th Century
Viewing moral behavior as the route to divinity, early colonists placed great emphasis on transmitting the Bible’s moral precepts accurately to all (Rousmaniere, Dehli, & Smith, 2013; Watz, 2011). Colonial schools emphasized values that were founded on scriptural doctrines. Some of the earliest colonial laws that compelled the establishment of schools had as their goal, not the transmission of academic knowledge, but rather the inculcation of moral values (McClellan, 1999). The Massachusetts School Act from 1647, also known as The Old Deluder Satan Act, states,
It being one chief object of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the
knowledge of the Scriptures . . . so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted . . . and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, . . . It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one . . . to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read . . . And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school . . . (Kelly, 2010, p. 42)
The colonists believed that personal encounters with Scripture ensured individual
salvation and ethical citizenship. As time progressed, the educational system transitioned from one founded in community and religion-based initiatives to one with a more secular hue (Setran, 2003). A question that grew out of this transition in the educational system was whether or not educators would be able to provide the moral teaching that the general public would embrace and accept and would teachers be able to model it effectively (Mulkey, 1997; Sanderse, 2013).
The 1900s–1950s
The inception of the American educational system had at its core the deliberate and intentional moral development of children. William Hutchins (as cited in Field, 2012) devised the Children’s Morality Code which was aimed at teaching a set of core values that included “self-control, kindness, self-reliance, reliability, truth, good workmanship, teamwork, duty, sportsmanship, and good health” (p. 140). These core values were paramount to this code and were especially critical to cultivating obedience and Americanism. American philosopher John Dewey (as cited in Hansen, 2012) professed that a child’s moral character should be cultivated in an atmosphere that is naturally just and social. He equally felt that the school should provide the environment for its part in the child’s moral development. This influential educator believed the central purpose of the school was to develop students morally (Dewey, 2004; Hansen, 2012).
Following colonial America into 20th-century America, there were three
significant periods of interest in moral education—the character education movement of the 1920s and 1930s, the values and moral education movement of the 1970s and 1980s, and, finally, the character education movement of the 1990s (J. Leming, 1997, p. 12). J. Leming (1997) describes the “Roaring Twenties” as a period characterized by flourishing technological advances, rising cultural migration and expansion, and disconcerting social and moral changes. Examples include divorces in the home, corruption in politics, personal gratification without regard for the good of everyone, media negativity, crime, and religious decline (Bouza, 2013). In response to these negative detractors to
education, schools began to incorporate school organizations or clubs into their daily operations. Although student clubs were created to give students an opportunity to practice good moral behavior as anticipated through peer influence, a major research undertaking in the 1920s found that character education programs had little impact on children and that stable character traits did not seem to exist. Through this research, Power, Higgins, and Kohlberg (1989) posited a “death blow” (p. 128) had been dealt to character education. McClellan (1999) cited the opposite, stating character education was simply transformed by the times and many character education school practices, such as homerooms, student clubs, and conduct/citizenship grades on report cards changed due to societal and educational shifts.
The 1950s–2000
Paul Vitz (as cited in Afanasyeva, Boyko, Афанасьєва, & Бойко , 2015) reported that rates of illegitimacy, divorce, unmarried couple households were a few of the
detractors to the positive development of children during this period. A reported 310% increase occurred in the birth rates of unmarried women from 1950 to 1990. In a matter of only 40 years, over 1.1 million babies were born to unwed mothers, which was up from 150,000 initially in early 1990s (Vitz, 1999). Saluter (1992) advised four percent of the adult population was divorced in 1970; however, by 1992 over 11% were divorced and this represented a 266% increase in a short period of time. With over 50% of marriages in the United States alone ending in divorce, over one million children had been subjected to parental splits (Mammen, 2015; Vitz, 1999).
Consequently, the resultant single-parent families from the late 1950s to mid- 1990s cultivated an increase in the number of children living in poverty from 4.3 to 8.6 million. Vitz (1999) argued that this unfortunate phenomenon adversely affects children their entire life which translates to less than desirable actions from the students from drug abuse (Krettenauer, 2006; Reed et al., 2009), suicide (Pena et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2004), promiscuity (Finer, 2010), and self-centeredness (Koolen, Poorthuis, & van Aken, 2012).
This span of time fostered two schools of thought regarding character
development: (a) Kohlberg’s theory of children’s moral reasoning levels and (b) values clarification theory. Kohlberg (as cited in McLeod, 2013) developed the six levels of moral reasoning implied that children could progress through various stages of moral development as described by the following:
Stage 1 in which a child’s behavior is governed by consequences in the form of rewards or punishments
Stage 2 in which a child’s behavior is determined their own personal needs and those of others if there is a benefit to the child i.e. “I’ll scratch your back and you scratch mine.”
Stage 3 in which the child recognizes that good behavior is a benefit to everyone and is mutually agreeable.
Stage 4 in which the child realizes doing the right thing and respecting authority is their duty.
Stage 5 in which the child feels, other than what is governed by the laws of the land, their good behavior is a personal decision guided by their own values and opinions, and
Stage 6 in which the child’s conscience is what governs their behavior in terms of what is appropriate.
Kohlberg felt that children, when given the opportunity to discuss their behavior within a given circumstance, could in fact graduate from one stage of development to another. As such, Kohlberg was more interested in the moral decision-making paths children employed rather than their moral development (Sanderse, 2013); however, implementation of Kohlberg’s theoretical approach in schools presented issues. The subjectivity of the child’s teacher determined the stage at which each child began. In addition, this teacher’s determination could only be consistently applied to each child if they took the time to work with each one and knew the process fully. Another hurdle of this approach rose when parents disagreed with the stage designated for their child by the teacher.
Values clarification theory suggests that values are neither right nor wrong; each individual must decide for himself, based only on the criteria of his own needs and wishes, what is best for him in any given circumstance (Sanderse, 2013). This theory offers a linear approach to determining what a value actually is as described in Mulkey, 1997 as the following:
The child must choose their value freely without the interference of moral indoctrination
The child must choose from alternatives of their value
The child must consider the consequences of their values choice based on the alternatives
The child must cherish the value and hold it in high regard The child must uphold their value choices publicly
The child must act on their values choice, and
The child must make their value choice a consistent part of their life by repeatedly acting in accordance with it.
In short, this theory supported that the values one holds dear should be governed by their own body of personal experiences and nothing else.
According to Brimi (2009), Kilpatrick exposed a significant problem with this theory using an activity based on research reported by Lickona (2009). In the report, a teacher gave low-achieving, eighth-grade students an activity titled, “Twenty Things You Love To Do.” The teacher analyzed the results and found that there were four popular activities amongst these students—drugs, sex, drinking, and skipping school. Kilpatrick (as cited in Brimi, 2009) argued that based on this, “A value is essentially what you like or love to do” (p. 91). Of course this theory would not provide the eighth graders’ teacher any latitude to foster positive decision-making strategies in these students. The Character Education Curriculum (Chicago Foundation for Education, 1985), created to develop responsible citizens in 1968, incorporated lessons for students specific to their grade levels through grade 5. The lessons provided students with age-appropriate scenarios with which they might be confronted. Students were then charged with
describing how they might handle the situation while incorporating critical thinking strategies. Actions, alternatives to their actions, and their corresponding consequences were all investigated while the students interacted with each other in small groups. The best course of action to deal with the scenario was then determined by the students. This process would allow for students to encourage one another to do the socially acceptable action as opposed to the teacher dictating what should be done, thereby cultivating more commitment since the outcome was a joint resolution of the student and their peers.
By 1996, the Character Education Curriculum (CFE, 1985) had been introduced into 60,000 classrooms across the United States. Evidence supporting character
education in America’s schools surfaced as it was reported that students were less likely to fight, steal, and call each other names. Conversely, students were more inclined to think about consequences of their actions and work better together (Mulkey, 1997). Local school districts evaluated the curriculum and reported that 74.3% of respondents would recommend the curriculum to other teachers. Another 65.7% of respondents reported that character education is effective and the use of the curriculum gained steam within the United States into the new millennium. As a result, an influx of other
character education programs ensued such as Building Decision Skills by the Institute of Global Ethics, Character Way by the Ethics Resource Center, and the Community of Caring which is founded on five core character traits of caring, respect, responsibility, trust, and family. The use of these and other programs to incorporate character education in schools are grounded in the notion that there is no such thing as a value-free
Concepts in Character Education
The following will offer a broad perspective of the terminology associated with character and character education. In addition, Iwill provide the definitions of each of these terms consistent with their use for this study.
Character
The derivation of character’s meaning comes from the Greek word for character which was originally used to describe “a mark impressed upon a coin” (Homiak, 2011, n.p.). The etymology of character has been attributed to works produced by Aristotle and Plato and while there is no argument regarding the origination of character’s meaning, there has been inconsistency in what should be regarded as character.
In earlier times, character was regarded as those traits that tend to set one person apart from another. It spoke to the distinction and uniqueness embodied by a human being. Today, one’s individuality tends to merge character with personality (Homiak, 2011). So what are the specific qualities of a person that should be included to determine their character, particularly when one refers to someone as “having good character?” Huitt and Vessels (2003) suggest, “When a person is said to have character, it usually implies they have distinguishing moral qualities, moral virtues, and moral reasoning abilities” (p. 1). Stoppleworth (2001) advises that virtues, values, ethics, and morals are all linked to character; however, there is a difference. The Heartwood Institute (1992) provided a detailed distinctive analysis of these terms:
Virtue is defined as a good or admirable quality or property. Values are concepts and beliefs that direct an individual’s behavior, and when held in common with others, shape a culture’s ideals, customs, and institutions. Morals can be viewed
as both public and private. Public morality refers to a common societal core of universal concepts of beliefs and behaviors; private morality is more closely linked to an individual’s religious or family beliefs. The word ethics refers to standards of moral obligation, which determine the difference between right and wrong; ethics involves a commitment to do what is thought to be right. (p. 26)
Within literature one may find the above-mentioned terms used interchangeably in character education discourse; however, character can be regarded as a seamless unification of each of them.
Character Education
There are many viable reform models aimed at strategic improvement of schools’ climate and culture. Character education is one such model that has been employed in schools all across the United States and abroad. This approach has grown out of the concern of failing academic climates in schools ripe with societal ills such as drugs, gangs, teen pregnancy, and suicide that have continually detracted from good teaching and learning (Rickermann, 2011). Federal No Child Left Behind legislation had at its roots the improvement of student achievement but also betterment of students’ character (Johannessen, 2001). Character education is a broad term used to describe society’s attempt to transmit and instill values from preceding to succeeding generations (Stoppleworth, 2001).
The Josephson Institute (2011) suggests character education is the teaching of common core values called the six pillars which are the following: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. The six pillars of character education describe what it means to cultivate positive virtues or qualities which include
the following virtues of qualities that include the following according to the Josephson Institute (2015):
Integrity, which means that the “ethical person acts according to her beliefs, not according to expediency” (“Integrity,” para. 1).
Diligence, which is the “moral obligation to do one’s best, to be diligent, reliable, careful, prepared and informed” (“Pursuit of Excellence,” para. 2). Accountable, which refers to one’s unwillingness to “shift blame or claim
credit for the work of others. He recognizes the common complicity in the triumph of evil when nothing is done to stop it. He leads by example” (“Accountability,” para. 1).
These virtues and others emanate from continued positive actions and interactions leading to the formation of good habits regardless of the diverse backgrounds from which students come. A. Johnson (2001) explains that the trouble around diversity then is not just that people differ from one another. The trouble is produced by a world organized in ways that encourage people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass. This can be particularly true in schools in which certain students are placed into higher level