Whether or not Socrates actually uttered this lament, it is a constant refrain heard from adults about the youth of the day, throughout the ages. Certainly in the recent past, the likes of Elvis Presley’s hips, the Hippie movement, John Lennon’s “Jesus” reference, heavy metal music, and Britney Spears (say no more…please) are all symbols of a youth culture in “decline”. Is this actually true? If so, is that decline worse today than it has ever been? And if so, what should we, as a society, do about it? And finally, if we should do anything about it, what role does the public school, as educators of youth, play?
It is difficult to say in absolute terms that the character of today’s youth is in anyway in a worse state than it has been at any other time in history. Certainly today’s youth challenge the mores and folkways established by their forebears. This behaviour, I would suggest, is no different than it has been within the context of previous generations. That is, the specifics of today’s youth culture may be unique but the general propensity toward this behaviour is not.
This state of affairs, however, does not mean that there should not be an attempt at providing guidance, models, and an understanding of what it is to be of good character; a good person; to possess and act on a set of values. The issue is, whose definition of “good” shall be used?
The idea that a set of universal truths, values, or conceptions of the good exists is problematic. Certainly the exemplars of this idea of universality (i.e., Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hobbes) each posit something that approaches universality, but nuances in emphasis and definition persist. This problematic seems to suggest that one cannot distill a universal truth and that a relativist approach to character and morality is therefore necessary. If this is the case, the culture bound nature of relativist thought makes adaptation to a multi-cultural society troublesome.
The Catholic school system in Ontario seems to have an advantage in defining and executing a role in character education. By virtue of their constitutional ability to deliver a faith-based curriculum, they have the ability to deliver direct instruction on character, virtue, values, and the like. As well, they have the ability to weave these ideas into content areas of instruction. The result, in its best case, is the creation of a “culture” within the school that is consistent with these ideas. The public school system in Ontario has a much more difficult time defining and executing its role in character education because of their secular mandate.
The resultant response by public schools (admittedly in some Catholic schools too, but arguably less so) has been consistent with today’s societal response to almost any conundrum – commodification and medicalization. That is, student behavioural issues are medicalized (i.e., ADHD, LD) and the remaining character issues are commodified. In an attempt consistent with other public institutions, public schools adopt the prevalent business models in response to pedagogical issues as they undertake the “business of education”. Most common is the attempt to incent students to good character (among other things) with extrinsic rewards systems. This approach has created consultants who sell these systems. School boards are attracted to these approaches because of their ease of implementation. Further, these approaches give teachers something tangible to point to when discussing their interventions with parents. They are easy to count and therefore give numbers to administrators with which to convince their public constituents that they are in fact doing something.
These approaches, I would suggest, are wrong-headed. First, extrinsic reward systems (regardless of application) almost always result in short term changes but rarely in long term maintenance of those changes. Second, characterizing values and good character as something discrete that can be taught in a 36 minute lesson and then evaluated is, on its face, absurd.
Although I don’t think character education can or should be taught as a discrete subject in public schools, nor do I think a school can or should attempt to incent some approximation of good character behaviour, I do think there is a role for the public school in building good character in its students.
The model, I would suggest, is the Catholic school system. That is, the proper goal of the public school ought to be the creation of a culture of virtue and character. The distillation and adoption of some approximation of the exemplars discussed earlier ( as imperfect as they may be) in the way the school is administered and the way expectations of both students and staff are articulated may be useful. The key here is the staff – the classroom teachers. The manner of lesson planning, class discussions, and their own modeling is a much more efficable approach to character development than the examples highlighted earlier.
But what if school is the only place that good character appears to be important? I would suggest that the public school is a “prime mover” in the society. That is, within the society, public schools can and do influence the qualitative nature and course of that society. As such, schools must concern themselves with the character and values of their students. They do this by building the capacity for critical thought; the exposure to different conceptions of the good; creating problem-solving ability; discussing the vagaries of today and the constants over time. Character and values are woven into this activity. This occurs whether the school intends to do so or not; this occurs because classroom teachers are human and bring to the classroom their own conceptions of the good; their own character and values. The challenge is to ensure that these classroom teachers are “intentional teachers”. That is, teachers who purposefully create lessons and learning opportunities for their students which enable human flourishing and build capacity for true autonomy.
Ultimately, the notion of character education in public schools should be dealt with in the same way as patriotism. That is, as part of human flourishing and autonomy, the public school must undertake to present different conceptions of the good; what it is to be of good character; what considerations underpin the idea of a value system; what it is to be virtuous. In doing this, the public school builds the capacity in each student to choose what they consider to be “right”. This capacity to discern what is right will serve them well in their lives as they confront situations not contemplated in their “Good Character 101” class.
