The past few decades have seen an increase in negative childhood behavior such as bullying and school violence, causing many to feel that today’s youth do not subscribe to the same moral values and codes of conduct that previous generations have. Traditionally, education in morality and social conduct was primarily done in the home, and children learned from their parents, elders, and neighbors. School was a place merely for academic education, and children were expected to come prepared with a sense of right and wrong. However, there are many people today that feel that public schools are, at least in part, responsible for providing students with education in areas such as morality, ethics, and good citizenship.

Answering the call, numerous character education programs have been created by private organizations, state and local school boards, and corporations that have designed curricula, created lessons, and provide the tools necessary for schools to provide character education to their students. Read on to learn about these character education programs, their benefits and problems, and what they mean for the future of education.

What does character education consist of?

Character education usually consists of some sort of system of values or principles that help students develop their own moral priorities and ideologies.

Eighteen states currently mandate character education in public schools through legislation such as North Carolina’s Student Citizen Act of 2001, which requires local boards of education in the state to develop and implement a character education program in their schools. As the momentum for character education grows, it remains to be seen whether it will become an integral part of the American education system.

What are the arguments for character education?

Advocates of character education argue that these programs teach universal values that create more academically successful students and, in time, more socially productive citizens. Values such as respect, responsibility, integrity, perseverance, justice, courage, and self-discipline are commonly agreed to be desired characteristics in an individual, and character education programs target these core values and teach children to incorporate these values into their everyday lives. Teachers, parents, and students who have worked with character education argue that teaching these values in school produces students with higher academic performance, improved school attendance, reduced violence, fewer disciplinary issues, less substance abuse, and less vandalism.

Reports and polls have shown that around 90 percent of Americans support teaching values such as honesty, democracy, and acceptance in public schools. Additionally, many teachers argue that character education makes students easier to teach. More importantly, advocates argue that character education is necessary in a democratic society to create good, moral citizens. In a society in which the people have power in the political sphere, many argue that it is imperative to have a citizenry with a strong sense of morality and its role in society. Therefore, character education is entirely required to transform the youth of today into the citizenry of tomorrow.

Lastly, many character education programs are reactionary tools used to combat an increase in bullying and school violence. Advocates argue that by teaching universal values, schools can help create a stronger sense of community and a safer learning environment for students.

What are the arguments against character education?

While character education has its advocates, many argue that it presents children with a negative view of humanity and is often used more as a tool for control or political sway than for the nurturing of caring, thoughtful students. Opponents point to a commonality that most character education programs share called the “fix the kids” orientation, which attempts to teach children morality on the basis that all people are inherently bad in nature and must be taught how to live among one another. Many experts argue that this negative view of humanity is harmful to children’s conception of morality and ethics, and that instead these programs should encourage students to reflect upon what causes people to make bad decisions, and how they themselves could make a better decision in that same situation.

Similarly, many of these programs are conducted through the use of extrinsic rewards such as candy or a pizza party for good behavior, which experts say teaches students to do what they are told simply for a reward, and not to behave morally because it is the right thing to do. In addition to criticizing the methods by which character education programs work, many opponents also criticize their underlying foundations and purpose. While these programs teach “universal values,” opponents point out that there is still bias upon deciding just which universal values to teach to children.

Many argue that these programs have political undercurrents, often teaching children traditional, conservative values that lean toward the political right. In the end, opponents say, these programs are designed to create malleable, robotic students who do not question authority and will grow up to become benign citizens uninterested in questioning or changing the current power structures. These findings were corroborated in a 2010 study conducted by The Institute of Education Sciences that found the benefits of character education to be negligible. In a study of 84 school districts around the country, researchers found that there was no difference in academic improvement between schools with character education programs and those without. Opponents argue that this federal report provides statistical evidence to their claims that character education is used merely as a form of crowd control and does not make students inherently more moral. Instead, many would prefer to implement programs that promote thoughtful reflection on social issues and inter-personal communication in order to teach students concepts such as empathy, critical thinking, and understanding.

Conclusion

It’s important that we teach our children to be responsible and good citizens, but for a long time we’ve been questioning how exactly to do that. Some people argue that it’s a matter best taken on by parents and communities, while others think that schools can play an important role. Don’t be surprised if character education shows up on your child’s curriculum soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S Department of Education: Efficacy of Schoolwide Programs to Promote Social and Character Development and Reduce Problem Behavior in Elementary School Children

Additional

NC Public Schools: Character Education

Atlantic: The Benefits of Character Education

National Character Education Center: Character Education Should Be Taught

The Genius in Children: Should Schools Teach Values or is That the Parents’ Responsibility?

Alfie Kohn: How Not to Teach Values: A Critical Look at Character Education

Education Week: Character Education Found to Fall Short in a Federal Study

Boston Review: Whose Character? Why Character Education is Inherently Flawed

Patriotism For All: The Problem With Character Education

The New York Times: Should Character Be Taught? Students Weigh In

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: A Common Goal

Red Orbit: Character Education in America’s Public Schools

Education Week: Should We Teach “Character” In Schools? If So, How?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Character Education on the Public School Agenda appeared first on Law Street.

Shame on me. I only just stumbled upon the paper published in the Journal of Legal Education by University of Michigan law professor Sherman J. Clark last month, arguing that one of the perks of law school is that it helps each student “to thrive, to live a full and satisfying and meaningful life.” Through the Socratic method of lecturing, by training students to look at legal issues from the viewpoints of both parties in each case, by forcing them to confront the reality of uncertainty in both legal doctrines and empirical knowledge, and by teaching students certain ethics, law school helps students “explore the range of possible ways in which one might find meaning in or give meaning to life.”

I agree with Professor Sherman’s basic point, but I would have made the case for it rather differently. An otherwise well-written piece is riddled with highfalutin’, mealymouthed abstractions like, “Thinking well about what people care about and what things mean to them calls upon us to imagine more broadly what might matter and what it is possible for things to mean.” Upon closer inspection, these passages actually do seem to mean something, but they’ll probably strike the average prospective law school student as pretentious gobbledygook.

Nonetheless, I do find that my legal education comes in handy, and not only in, say, knowing my constitutional rights in case I get hassled by the police or knowing that oral contracts are legally binding, too. Mind you, I actually learned that last tidbit on TV when I was a child:

I think that doctrinal and practical legal knowledge proves useful in philosophical contexts, such as in discussions about what is the morally right thing to do in a particular situation. Certainly, the ability to navigate these often treacherous waters — the better to inform one’s ethical choices— is a skill that can help people to live life more meaningfully.

For example, among the basic doctrines that all first-year law students learn are the four elements of a negligence tort. In order to sue someone who’s harmed you through careless behavior, you, the plaintiff, have to prove that the defendant had a “duty of care” — i.e. that the defendant was legally required to take steps to avoid harming others. You also have to prove that the defendant breached that legal duty; that you suffered some form of harm that the law can correct; and that the defendant’s carelessness caused that harm. In later conversations and arguments with my fellow politics and philosophy geeks, the knowledge of those elements has served me in good stead. It’s a very philosophically sound way for the legal system to provide redress for people’s private grievances against each other.

Consider, for example, the duty of care requirement. It makes sense for the courts to require a plaintiff to establish that the defendant had such a responsibility before even proceeding with the lawsuit. Not every situation in life in which your behavior could affect others adversely should require you to spend resources guarding against such harm. Some situations in which people can get hurt are unforeseeable to everyone involved; sometimes it’s not within the alleged wrongdoer’s power to prevent them; sometimes the wrongdoer’s carelessness was only one factor that helped do the damage. The breach of duty criterion makes sense, too; if you’ve done everything the law requires you to do to avoiding hurting anyone, and someone gets hurt anyway, you arguably shouldn’t be liable. Similarly, if you’ve breached your duty of care, but there was miraculously no harm done, or if some harm occurred, but it isn’t clear that your carelessness actually made it happen, then the government shouldn’t force you to compensate the defendant.

The same can be said for the doctrine of “consideration,” which helps determine whether a contract will hold up in court. It basically means that courts can generally enforce agreements that involve some exchange of favors or benefits. Each party to the deal has to give up something of value to the other(s), be it money, products, services or what have you, or the court may not provide satisfaction in the event that one party doesn’t hold up his/her end. This general rule makes sense in light of nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle,” which essentially holds that the government should only restrict personal freedom when it’s necessary to prevent individuals from harming others. In the contractual context, if I make a deal with you that doesn’t require me to sacrifice anything to you in order for you to fulfill your obligations, you probably won’t make me any worse off if you break the agreement. In that case, the government has no business forcing you to pay me back.

These underpinnings of legal doctrines can be helpful in larger philosophical exchanges. In arguments over when government intervention can and cannot be justified, I often refer to certain aspects of tort law to bolster my position that Mill’s harm principle, as I understand it, is a better general rule than the more dogmatically libertarian non-aggression principle. Aggression, as I understand it, involves inflicting harm on others on purpose, whereas negligence entails mere carelessness rather than intentional harm. Yet people can do a world of damage to each other without going out of their way in order to do it. In my view, government has a role to play in trying to prevent negligent as well as deliberate harm.

It’s not only legal rules and doctrines that can serve useful purposes outside of a purely legal context. The nitty-gritty realities of legal practice offer their own useful insights to non-lawyers. My 1L Civil Procedure professor had the whole class read the novel A Civil Action, about a 1980s toxic tort lawsuit in Massachusetts gone tragically awry. One point that the novel drove home for me was the fact that personal-injury lawyers like the protagonist in the book are not charity workers. They’re profit-seeking businesspeople who earn their bread and butter by suing defendants with deep pockets, ones who can actually afford to cough up large sums of money in damages. This issue came up in a recent Facebook discussion, when I threw cold water on an intriguing proposal to abolish criminal law and leave the righting of interpersonal wrongs to civil courts. I pointed out that many heinous acts are perpetrated by low-income people whom ambulance chasers are not exactly in a hurry to sue. And anyway, what restitution could even willing lawyers hope to extract from poor defendants?

Of course, it’s no secret that legal knowledge and training can be helpful in any number of obvious public policy-related ways; Professor Sherman seems to have had a different set of advantages in mind. Nonetheless, although lawyers aren’t exactly known to the general public for being great philosophers, legal education does teach certain ways of thinking that should be appealing to anyone seeking to live a rational as well as a moral life.

Featured image courtesy of [Pedro Szekely via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Law School and the Unexamined Life appeared first on Law Street.