How_Not_to_Teach_Values_A_Critical_Look_at_Character_Education….pdf

1、How Not to Teach ValuesA Critical Look at Character Educationby Alfie KohnPhi Delta Kappan,Feburay 1997.p 429-439.Copyright Alfie Kohn,1997Teachers and schools tend to mistake good behavior for good character.What theyprize is docility,suggestibility;the child who will do what he is told;or even bet

2、ter,thechild who will do what is wanted without even having to be told.They value mostchildren what children least value in themselves.Small wonder that their effort to buildcharacter is such a failure;they dont know it when they see it.-John HoltHow Children FailWere you to stand somewhere in the c

3、ontinental United States,and announce,Im goingto Hawaii,it would be understood that you were heading for those islands in the Pacificthat collectively constitute the 50th state.Were you to stand in Honolulu and make thesame statement,however,you would probably be talking about one specific island in

4、 thechain-namely,the big one to your southeast.The word Hawaii would seem to have twomeanings,a broad one and a narrow one;we depend on context to tell them apart.The phrase character education also has two meanings.In the broad sense,it refers toalmost anything that schools might try to provide out

5、side of academics,especially whenthe purpose is to help children grow into good people.In the narrow sense,it denotes aparticular style of moral training,one that reflects particular values as well as particularassumptions about the nature of children and how they learn.Unfortunately,the two meaning

6、s of the term have become blurred,with the narrowversion of character education dominating the field to the point that it is frequentlymistaken for the broader concept.Thus educators who are keen to support childrenssocial and moral development may turn,by default,to a program with a certain set ofm

7、ethods and a specific agenda that,on reflection,they might very well findobjectionable.My purpose in this article is to subject these programs to careful scrutiny and,in sodoing,to highlight the possibility that there are other ways to achieve our broaderobjectives.I address myself not so much to th

8、ose readers who are avid proponents ofcharacter education(in the narrow sense)but to those who simply want to help childrenbecome decent human beings and may not have thought carefully about what they arebeing offered.Let me get straight to the point.What goes by the name of character education nowa

9、daysis,for the most part,a collection of exhortations and extrinsic inducements designed tomake children work harder and do what theyre told.Even when other values are alsopromoted-caring or fairness,say-the preferred method of instruction is tantamount toindoctrination.The point is to drill student

10、s in specific behaviors rather than to engagethem in deep,critical reflection about certain ways of being.This is the impression onegets from reading articles and books by contemporary proponents of character educationas well as the curriculum materials sold by the leading national programs.The impr

11、essionis only strengthened by visiting schools that have been signaled out for their commitmentto character education.To with:A huge,multiethnic elementary school in Southern California uses a framework createdby the Jefferson Center for Character Education.Classes that the principal declareswell be

12、haved are awarded Bonus Bucks,which can eventually be redeemed for an icecream party.On an enormous wall near the cafeteria,professionally painted Peanutscharacters instruct children:Never talk in line.A visitor is led to a fifth-gradeclassroom to observe an exemplary lesson on the current character

13、 education topic.Theteacher is telling students to write down the name of the person they regard as thetoughest worker in school.The teacher then asks them,How many of you are going tobe tough workers?(Hands go up.)Can you be a tough worker at home,too?(Yes.)A small,almost entirely African American

14、school in Chicago uses a framework createdby the Character Education Institute.Periodic motivational assemblies are used to givechildren a good pep talk,as the principal puts it,and to reinforce the values thatdetermine who will be picked as Student of the Month.Rule number one posted on thewall of

15、the kindergarten room is We will obey the teachers.Today,students in thisclass are listening to the story of Lazy Lion,who orders each of the other animals tobuild him a house,only to find each effort unacceptable.At the end,the teacher driveshome the lesson:Did you ever hear Lion say thank you:(No.

16、)Did you ever hear Lionsay please?(No.)Its good to always say.what?(Please.)The reason for using thesewords,she points out,is that by doing so we are more likely to get what we want.A charter school near Boston has been established specifically to offer an intensive,homegrown character education cur

17、riculum to its overwhelmingly white,middle-classstudent body.At weekly public ceremonies,certain children receive a leaf that will behung in the Forest of Virtue.The virtues themselves are not open to debate,theheadmaster insists,since moral precepts in his view enjoy the same status asmathematical

18、truths.In a first-grade classroom,a teacher is observing that its veryhard to be obedient when you want something.I want you to ask yourself,Can I have it-and why not?She proceeds to ask the students,What kinds of things showobedience?and,after collecting a few suggestions,announces that shes not go

19、ing tocall on anyone else now.We could go on forever,but we have to have a moment ofsilence and then a spelling test.Some of the most popular schoolwide strategies for improving students character seemdubious on their face.When President Clinton mentioned the importance of charactereducation in his

20、1996 State of the Union address,the only specific practice herecommended was requiring students to wear uniforms.The premises here are first,thatchildrens character can be improved by forcing them to dress alike,and second,that ifadults object to students clothing,the best solution is not to invite

21、them to reflecttogether about how this problem might be solved,but instead to compel them all to wearthe same thing.A second strategy,also consistent with the dominant philosophy of character education,is an exercise that might be called If Its Tuesday,This Must Be Honesty.Here,onevalue after anothe

22、r is targeted,with each assigned its own day,week,or month.Thisseriatim approach is unlikely to result in a lasting commitment to any of these values,much less a feeling for how they may be related.Nevertheless,such programs are takenvery seriously by some of the same people who are quick to dismiss

23、 other educationalprograms,such as those intended to promote self-esteem,as silly and ineffective.Then there is the strategy of offering students rewards when they are caught beinggood,an approach favored by rightwing religious groups 1and orthodox behaviorists butalso by leaders of-and curriculum s

24、uppliers for-the character education movement.2Because of its popularity and because a sizable body of psychological evidence germaneto the topic is available,it is worth lingering on this particular practice for a moment.In general terms,what the evidence suggests is this:the more we reward people

25、for doingsomething,the more likely they are to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get thereward.Extrinsic motivation,in other words,is not only quite different from intrinsicmotivation but actually tends to erode it.3This effect has been demonstrated under manydifferent circumstances and wi

26、th respect to many different attitudes and behaviors.Mostrelevant to character education is a series of studies showing that individuals who havebeen rewarded for doing something nice become less likely to think of themselves ascaring as helpful people and more likely to attribute their behavior to

27、the reward.Extrinsic incentives can,by undermining self-perceived altruism,decrease intrinsicmotivation to help others,one group of researchers concluded on the basis of severalstudies.A persons kindness,it seems,cannot be bought.4The same applies to apersons sense of responsibility,fairness,perseve

28、rance,and so on.The lesson a childlearns from Skinnerian tactics is that the point of being good is to get rewards.Nowonder researchers have found that children who are frequently rewarded-or,in anotherstudy,children who receive positive reinforcement for caring,sharing,and helping-areless likely th

29、an other children to keep doing those things.5In short,it makes no sense to dangle goodies in front of children for being virtuous.Buteven worse than rewards are awards-certificates,plaques,trophies,and other tokens ofrecognition whose numbers have been artificially limited so only a few can get the

30、m.When some children are singled out as winners,the central message that every childlearns is this:Other people are potential obstacles to my success.6Thus the likely resultof making students beat out their peers for the distinction of being the most virtuous isnot only less intrinsic commitment to

31、virtue but also a disruption of relationships and,ironically,of the experience of community that is so vital to the development ofchildrens character.Unhappily,the problems with character education(in the narrow sense,which is how Illbe using the term unless otherwise indicated)are not restricted to

32、 such strategies asenforcing sartorial uniformity,scheduling a value of the week,or offering students adoggie biscuit for being good.More deeply troubling are the fundamental assumptions,both explicit and implicit,that inform character education programs.Let us consider fivebasic questions that migh

33、t be asked of any such program:At what level are problemsaddressed?What is the underlying theory of human nature?What is the ultimate goal?Which values are promoted?And finally,How is learning thought to take place?1.At What level are problems addressed?One of the major purveyors of materials inthis

34、 field,the Jefferson Center for Character Education in Pasadena,California,hasproduced a video that begins with some arresting images-quite literally.Young peopleare shown being led away in handcuffs,the point being that crime can be explained onthe basis of an erosion of American core values,as the

35、 narrator intones ominously.Theidea that social problems can be explained by the fact that traditional virtues are nolonger taken seriously is offered by many proponents of character education as though itwere just plain common sense.But if people steal or rape or kill solely because they possess ba

36、d values-that is,becauseof their personal characteristics-the implication is that political and economic realitiesare irrelevant and need to be addressed.Never mind staggering levels of unemploymentin the inner cities or a system in which more and more of the nations wealth isconcentrated in fewer a

37、nd fewer hands;just place the blame on individuals whosecharacters are deficient.A key tent of the Character Counts!Coalition,which bills itselfas a nonpartisan umbrella group devoid of any political agenda,is the highly debatableproposition that negative social influences can be and usually are ove

38、rcome by theexercise of free will and character.7What is presented as common sense is,in fact,conservative ideology.Lets put politics aside,tough.If a program proceeds by trying to fix the kids-as doalmost all brands of character education-it ignores the accumulated evidence from thefield of social

39、psychology demonstrating that much of how we act and who we arereflects the situations in which we find ourselves.Virtually all the landmark studies inthis discipline have been variations on this them.Set up children in an extended teamcompetition at summer camp and you will elicit unprecedented lev

40、els of aggression.Assign adults to roles of prisoners or guards in a mock jail,and they will start to becometheir roles.Move people to a small town,and they will be more likely to rescue a strangerin need.In fact,so common is the tendency to attribute to an individuals personality orcharacter what i

41、s actually a function of the social environment that social psychologistshave dubbed this the fundamental attribution error.A similar lesson comes to us from the movement concerned with Total QualityManagement associated with the ideas of the late W.Edward Deming.At the heart ofDemings teaching is t

42、he notion that the system of an organization largely determinesthe results.The problems experienced in a corporation,therefore,are almost always dueto system flaws rather than a lack of effort or ability on the part of individuals in thatorganization.Thus,if we are troubled by the way students are a

43、cting,Deming,along withmost social psychologists,would presumably have us transform the structure of theclassroom rather than try to remake the students themselves-precisely the opposite of thecharacter education approach.2.What is the view of human nature?Character educations fix-the-kids orientati

44、onfollows logically from the belief that kids need fixing.Indeed,the movement seems to bedriven by a stunningly dark view of children-and,for that matter,of people in general.Acomprehensive approach to character education is based on a somewhat dim view ofhuman nature,acknowledges William Kilpatrick

45、,whose book Why Johnny Cant TellRight from Wrong contains such assertions as:Most behavior problems are the result ofsheer willfulness on the part of children.8Despite-or more likely because of-statements like that,Kilpatrick has frequently beeninvited to speak at character education conferences.9Bu

46、t that shouldnt be surprising inlight of how many prominent proponents of character education share his views.EdwardWynne says his own work is grounded in a tradition of thought that takes a somewhatpessimistic view of human nature.10 The idea of character development sees childrenas self-centered,i

47、n the opinion of Kevin Ryan,who directs the Center for theAdvancement of Ethics and Character at Boston University as well as heading up thecharacter education network of the Association of Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.11 Yet another writer approvingly traces the whole field back to the ble

48、akworld view of Thomas Hobbes:it is an obvious assumption of character education,writes Louis Goldman,that people lack the instinct to work together.Without laws tocompel us to get along,our natural egoism would lead us into a condition of warre oneagainst another.12 This sentiment is echoed by F.Wa

49、shington Jarvis,headmaster of theRoxbury Latin School in Boston,one of Ryans favorite examples of what charactereducation should look like in practice.Jarvis sees human nature as mean,nasty,brutish,selfish,and capable of great cruelty and meanness.We have to hold a mirror up to thestudents and say,T

50、his is who you are.Stop it.13 Even when proponents of charactereducation dont express such sentiments explicitly,they give themselves away by framingtheir mission as a campaign for self-control.Amitai Etzioni,for example,does not merelyinclude this attribute on a list of good character traits,he def