Add Comment

Comments (13):

1. Hifi says:

   July 30, 2008 at 6:35 pm

   Another article about character education that propagates the myth of character education.

   I am continually baffled at how character education – which on the surface of it sounds great – can win funding and accolades while never demonstrating evidence of either need or results. Is all that is required for adoption is a slick marketing campaign to the politicians and school boards in order to acquire popular support (complete with entreaties to emotional and fear issues and a healthy dose of language from pop psychology and a wink to Christian religion) and then you are done? Who could object to “character education”, right?

   Research on the subject has yet to turn up one peer-reviewed study demonstrating any scientifically validated need for or result from character education programs. On the other hand, flaws in the “research” showing “correlations” are well documented. There is really no excuse for a reputable study to not have been conducted at this point – especially, when considering that character education has no basis in accepted educational theory in the first place. Such a dearth of validity makes it hard to just give it the benefit of the doubt.

   What’s worse, the actual peer reviewed studies that have been done, show character education programs to be not only ineffectual, but “negatively correlated” with results!

   Today’s character education would seem to fall right in line with a string of similarly flawed and famously failed school programs: “religious education”, “moral education”, “values education”… However, not to be deterred by lack of results, character education programs abound, forging ahead – each trotting out entirely different lists of politically-entangled core values and means for implementing them! Their dissensions from one another’s goals and criticisms of each other is enlightening.

   Certainly, it is unfortunate for the entire field that there is no valid psychological definition of “character”. The term has no clinical meaning; which probably also explains why there can be no way to measure if an individual has a deficit of it, or if a school program can improve it. If there was anything quantifiable, one might be able to judge the benefit of one approach over the other – or any benefit at all.

   It is telling, perhaps, that the one thing these competing programs all agree on is that the end goal is the child or employee’s compliance with authority and conformity with conservative values. Is that how we wish to define the greatness of America’s “national character” these days? What about the spirit of inquiry, independence and innovation that defines the true character of a great nation? On the much-lauded “Magic School Bus” TV show, the class slogan is “Take Chances, Make Mistakes. Get Messy!”, just the opposite of the stated goals on character education lists.

   Sure, on the face of it, who wouldn’t be in favor of something as grand sounding as character education? Yet, slick marketing aside, that is not enough to justify exposing our children to such an unknown, ideologically-driven quantity. As far as the schools go, even if character education could be proven to achieve its conservative aims, public education has no business taking the culture wars to children.

   What should schools be focusing on as root causes, instead? The best academic minds in the business recommend focusing on creating an even playing field by correcting antagonistic factors in the social structure; ensuring a fair, well-funded educational environment, providing solid, verifiable facts; developing the critical thinking skills to separate the “angles” and hype from the truth; and then let students decide for themselves what kind of society they will create for themselves.

   In sum, character education sure sounds good – if only it worked. Isn’t it time for some real investigative reporting into the claims of character education, instead of all the cheerleading?

   For essays and references, please see http://members.cox.net/patriotismforall/character_ed_links.html
   Anthologized in “Taking Sides: Issues in Educational Practice”, 2008 McGraw-Hill/CLS

   –
   “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 most in children what children least value in themselves. small wonder that their effort to build character is such a failure; they don’t know it when they see it.”
   –
   How Children Fail, John Holt
2. Hifi says:

   July 30, 2008 at 6:35 pm

   Another article about character education that propagates the myth of character education.

   I am continually baffled at how character education – which on the surface of it sounds great – can win funding and accolades while never demonstrating evidence of either need or results. Is all that is required for adoption is a slick marketing campaign to the politicians and school boards in order to acquire popular support (complete with entreaties to emotional and fear issues and a healthy dose of language from pop psychology and a wink to Christian religion) and then you are done? Who could object to “character education”, right?

   Research on the subject has yet to turn up one peer-reviewed study demonstrating any scientifically validated need for or result from character education programs. On the other hand, flaws in the “research” showing “correlations” are well documented. There is really no excuse for a reputable study to not have been conducted at this point – especially, when considering that character education has no basis in accepted educational theory in the first place. Such a dearth of validity makes it hard to just give it the benefit of the doubt.

   What’s worse, the actual peer reviewed studies that have been done, show character education programs to be not only ineffectual, but “negatively correlated” with results!

   Today’s character education would seem to fall right in line with a string of similarly flawed and famously failed school programs: “religious education”, “moral education”, “values education”… However, not to be deterred by lack of results, character education programs abound, forging ahead – each trotting out entirely different lists of politically-entangled core values and means for implementing them! Their dissensions from one another’s goals and criticisms of each other is enlightening.

   Certainly, it is unfortunate for the entire field that there is no valid psychological definition of “character”. The term has no clinical meaning; which probably also explains why there can be no way to measure if an individual has a deficit of it, or if a school program can improve it. If there was anything quantifiable, one might be able to judge the benefit of one approach over the other – or any benefit at all.

   It is telling, perhaps, that the one thing these competing programs all agree on is that the end goal is the child or employee’s compliance with authority and conformity with conservative values. Is that how we wish to define the greatness of America’s “national character” these days? What about the spirit of inquiry, independence and innovation that defines the true character of a great nation? On the much-lauded “Magic School Bus” TV show, the class slogan is “Take Chances, Make Mistakes. Get Messy!”, just the opposite of the stated goals on character education lists.

   Sure, on the face of it, who wouldn’t be in favor of something as grand sounding as character education? Yet, slick marketing aside, that is not enough to justify exposing our children to such an unknown, ideologically-driven quantity. As far as the schools go, even if character education could be proven to achieve its conservative aims, public education has no business taking the culture wars to children.

   What should schools be focusing on as root causes, instead? The best academic minds in the business recommend focusing on creating an even playing field by correcting antagonistic factors in the social structure; ensuring a fair, well-funded educational environment, providing solid, verifiable facts; developing the critical thinking skills to separate the “angles” and hype from the truth; and then let students decide for themselves what kind of society they will create for themselves.

   In sum, character education sure sounds good – if only it worked. Isn’t it time for some real investigative reporting into the claims of character education, instead of all the cheerleading?

   For essays and references, please see http://members.cox.net/patriotismforall/character_ed_links.html
   Anthologized in “Taking Sides: Issues in Educational Practice”, 2008 McGraw-Hill/CLS

   –
   “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 most in children what children least value in themselves. small wonder that their effort to build character is such a failure; they don’t know it when they see it.”
   –
   How Children Fail, John Holt
3. Amanda says:

   July 30, 2008 at 7:48 pm

   Clearly character education is not a myth, as suggested by Hifi. It is happening in schools all over the world.
   Although research cannot support the positive benefits of teaching good character and not throwing litter on the ground may not lead directly to a good job, encouraging good behavior in everyone should be on the agenda regardless of politics.
   Families may be the “character factories” but it’s not just children who need reminded to behave courteously.
   Just as participating in traditional family events is not so much about nostalgia as it is about good parenting, so too should talking about good manners and character be more about good community building more than about good education.
4. Nick Gulliford says:

   July 30, 2008 at 9:55 pm

   Richard Reeves, clearly, has not read an earlier book “The Parenting Deficit” [c 1993] by Amitai Etzioni which was published by Demos. It explains the Community Marriage Policies which started in Modesto, California in 1986. However, he says, very sensibly, ‘”traditional” families make the best character factories. Parental authority is important, especially when children are young. Taking part in traditional activities like Sunday lunch is not nostalgia, just good parenting. And of course, anyone concerned with character must be concerned with family breakdown. It is harder to be a good parent alone. Not impossible, of course. But it is a fact that divorce or separation is where individual freedom collides most dramatically with the collective need for our children to be well brought up. It is not obvious how public policy can help parents stay together.’ Well, actually, if you read “The Parenting Deficit” and the research on the [now over 200] Community Marriage Policies ‘It is … obvious how public policy can help parents stay together’! Unfortunately not many politicians have woken up to this fact. Let’s hope Richard Reeves goes back to the Demos library, does a spot of studying, and then has Demos publish a paper on the results of Community Marriage policies!
5. Matthew Kalman says:

   July 31, 2008 at 5:42 pm

   I was very impressed by Richard’s article – and feel that it begins to get beyond the impasse of a Left which usually wants to solely blame problems on external factors (the system, society et al) and a Right that wants to blame internal factors (moral failings, lack of work ethic et al).

   I think I’ll write to Richard directly, if his e-mail’s on the Demos site.

   I hope he doesn’t get too caught up in various polar psychometric traits though (internal locus of control etc) …

   This psychometric stuff can obscure the more revealing findings about adult developmental stages that have emerged from developmental psychology research.

   The general pattern found in this research is a maturation from impulsive/egocentric stages to conventional/ethnocentric, then on to a more achievement-focused and self-authoring stage and finally the more post-conventional/worldcentric stages.

   It’s pretty obvious – to me, at least – that this developmental dynamic in adult maturation is a missing key in Richard’s article, and it will be vital to take this into account in coming up with solutions to the pressing problems he lists in his final paragraph.

   I’d love to come across someone who shares this view…

   Matthew Kalman
   http://integralstrategies.wordpress.com/
6. Eric Kaufmann says:

   August 2, 2008 at 5:49 am

   As a Canadian who has lived in the UK for 15 years, one of the most glaring things I notice is the level of antisocial posturing by the white underclass and even sections of the employed ‘white van’ working classes. This lends a harsher quality to daily life in Britain.

   In Canada, tradesmen generally have a good attitude (while being no less strenuous in defense of their working conditions) while in Britain many harbour a chip on their shoulder and seek to fleece and intimidate their middle class clientele. I have certainly experienced this, though less intensely because I am not a middle class Brit and hence do not provoke the same degree of working-class angst. The irony is that many of the tattooed and shaved head types – a number of whom I play team sports with – are really quite good company. It seems to me that they are not naturally antisocial but are often acting out a class role – but the upshot of this is a more conflict-ridden social environment. This is really quite different to what one experiences in Canada and much of the US (though there is a similar issue there with race).

   I would pin the problem down to the intersection of the British class structure with the social changes of the 1960s (i.e. the shift from deference to defiance, and the concommitant rise of a rebellious youth culture). This blend has led to the staged aggression and antisociableness which is a hallmark of contemporary British street life.

   I’m afraid the country is stuck in a rut. The class system and the cultural changes of the 60s are pretty ingrained, yet the blend of the two makes life a lot less pleasant. I’m afraid that the problem is analogous to the race issue in the US (caused by a similarly toxic blend of racial stratification with the new 60s cultural changes) Forty years of American policy has had no impact on African-American alienation from society, and I fear that British social policy may bump up against the same fate. Let us hope not.
7. Jay Cousins says:

   August 4, 2008 at 5:59 pm

   I think Eric touched upon a vital point here. That human behavior is affected by our internal view of how we are perceived externally (or think we are). ie. the very existence of the idea of a class divide or race divide sets up a context of antagonism even if it doesn’t exist.

   If we feel that we are being judged and not respected by a particular social group then we are automatically predisposed to fulfill that stereotype, even if it is not the perception of the individual in question. The media continues to polarize society and enhance our perceptions of ourselves and those around us, and even if we are aware of such unconscious manipulations it still sets the context under which any interaction must take place.

   That said, i believe that we are only reinforcing another cultural stereotype by attempting to classify character in terms of class. In truth any interaction and the resultant outcome, requires one of mutual respect. If you respect the person you are talking to, then you increase the likelihood of them reciprocating. It wont happen all the time as people are conditioned otherwise, however by slow adoption of such behaviors ourselves we can ensure that we set our own parameters of what is acceptable.

   We send signals all the time, with every word we speak. Whether we say, hi, hello, grunt, or take the time to say, good morning, how are you? and mean it. We instantly set our own tone for conversation and a persons “characteristic” response will vary accordingly.

   http://www.jaycousins.wordpress.com
8. Hammoud Mourey says:

   August 6, 2008 at 3:14 am

   Even if one was not interested enough to go and read Richard Reeves’s essay, he would get the idea that it is cincerned with “…the new thinking on the left that seeks to link character to traditional left-wing concerns of poverty, inequality and life chances.” i.e it is broader and deeper than what Mr. (or Ms.) Hifi thought. It is Sociological not merely psychological, as he/she restricted to “…character education – which on the surface of it sounds great – can win funding and accolades while never demonstrating evidence of either need or results.”
   Hifi demonstrates the controversial sides of character building well and fluently. But is this enough to regard the topic as nonesense only because he/she regards it ‘unscientific’? Shouldn’t he/she tells us first, we ignorants, what the word ’scientific’ means? Apparently this depends on the ’school’ of psychology that denies its own subject, the Self (psyche), and restricts itself to study patterns of behaviour that are outputs of some entity out there. Yet there may be patterns of behaviour that may be called responsible, restrained, or strait (normal or typical). Would he/she refer us to studies that have actually been done, with peer witnesses attesting to them, instead of merely giving us his/her decision and expecting us to comply as a herd of sheep.
   As for scientific integrity, haven’t he/she heard last week of the Anthrax top espert who dispensed his ’subject of study’ here and there only to get more recognition by his ‘peers’?
9. Dave B says:

   August 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm

   I’m surprised the article didn’t mention the Welfare State.

   James Bartholomew’s ‘The Welfare State We’re In’

   http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welfare-State-Were-James-Bartholomew/dp/1842751611/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218546807&sr=1-1

   made a compelling case for social/moral decline in Britain being due in no small part to the creation of the Welfare State.

   It also seems strange that the article fails to mention Mr Duncan-Smith and his work with the Centre for Social Justice.

   http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/

   Unless I missed something, it was Mr Duncan-Smith and the Centre for Social Justice that brought this ‘character’ issue to the top of the national debate.
10. Geoff Robinson says:

    August 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    “The three key ingredients of a good character are: a sense of personal agency; an acceptance of personal responsibility; and effective regulation of one’s own emotions, in particular the ability to resist temptation or at least defer gratification.”

    The greed mongering elites are clearly deficient in at least one of these qualities of ‘good character’. Its not only the ‘deeply excluded’ welfare chavs whose parents fail to live up to the job, but our governors who are character flawed. Mark Achbar’s book and film http://www.thecorporation.com/ demonstrate this fundamental area that Richard overlooks. We need to address the role of greed, ill will and delusion across the whole of society to make headway on character development.
11. Colum McCaffery says:

    September 5, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    “A Question of Character” might prompt socialists to revisit roots and work upwards towards a more credible and appealing view of culture.

    There are at least two failings among socialists. Firstly, the term, “working class”, has been allowed to become meaningless or a synonym for very poor. To be working class was to claim status and pride, e.g. until relatively recently “a working class illiterate” would have been considered an oxymoron.

    Secondly, socialists – in defence of the poor and oppressed – have been drawn to an uncharacteristically liberal view on equality. The high ground of positive liberty has tended to be abandoned in favour of a negative liberty – or even extreme relativism – that tries to cherish everything. It needs to be emphasised that there is not the slightest contradiction between wanting to liberate people from poverty – economic and, yes, cultural – and taking care not to blame them for being poor.

    http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/
12. Character Education says:

    December 5, 2008 at 8:21 am

    I agree with your opinion, in addition to this I feel character education is the main factor on which we should focus to change our values and morals of the society. I think this is the more ignored area of our society due to which we forget our values and transmit these to new generations.
13. Character Education says:

    May 30, 2009 at 6:19 am

    Its really fantastic, you are doing very well, believe me its really good, before reading this i was really worried about our students future, but now i am feeling comfortable that there is someone who is thinking on these aspects, thanks for doing this for us, Character Education is a main fact for everything and you are developing their attitude, their self respect and each and every thing, thanks for all this and best of luck.