Scholarly debate on moral development and character formation extends at least as far back as Aristotle's Nichomacean Ethics and Socrates' Meno and continues through to modern times (Nucci, 1989). In the last several hundred years, character education has been seen as a primary function of educational institutions. For example, John Locke, 17th century English philosopher, advocated education as education for character development. This theme was continued in the 19th century by English philosophers John Stuart Mill (e.g., "development of character is a solution to social problems and a worthy educational ideal," Miller & Kim, 1988) and Herbert Spencer (e.g., "education has for its object the formation of character," Purpel & Ryan, 1976). American education has had a focus on character development from its inception. The American philosopher, John Dewey, an influential philosopher and educator of the early 20th century, saw moral education as central to the school's mission (Dewey, 1934).Character Education in the United States
However, since the 1930's American education has increasingly turned away from character education as a primary focus (Power, Higgens & Kohlberg, 1989). This is in spite of the fact that both educators and the public believe character education to be an important aspect of schooling. Spears' (1973) survey of members of Phi Delta Kappa (an education honorary society) on goals of education showed the following ranking of the goals of public schools:
- develop skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening;
- develop pride in work and feeling of self-worth; and
- develop good character and self-respect.
- moral responsibility and sound ethical and moral behavior;
- capacity for discipline;
- a moral and ethical sense of the values, goals, and processes of a free society;
- standards of personal character and ideas.
Since the 1960's teacher education has downplayed the teacher's role as a transmitter of social and personal values and emphasized other areas such teaching techniques, strategies, models, and skills (e.g., Nucci, 1986a). More and more the vision of a good teacher is as the good technician, the skilled craftsman, who has acquired those behavioral skills and strategies that the "effective teacher" research claims are related to achievement. However, the fact that "effective" is defined as the students' scores on standardized tests of basic skills, but without reference to higher-order intellectual processes or concern about the students' morals, is of concern to many parents and educators. Educational psychology, rather than philosophy and religion, has become the basis of teacher training (Ryan, 1989). In most cases, educational psychology focuses on the individual, separated from the social context. Additionally, modern education has been heavily influenced by the behavioral approach, which has proved adept at developing instructional methods that impact achievement as measured by standardized tests. In the opinion of most researchers in the area of character and moral development (e.g., Lickona, 1991; Nucci, 1989), additional emphasis must be placed on the philosophical "why" of education in addition to the technical "how."
The two educational goals most desired by both the public and educators--academic competence and character development--are not mutually exclusive, but complementary (Wynne & Walberg, 1985). Competence allows character to be manifested in highest forms and vice versa. For example, Stallings (1978) found a positive impact of attempts to improve student achievement on independence, task persistence, cooperation, and question-asking. Etzioni (1984) and Ginsburg and Hanson (1986) reported that students who were self-disciplined or more religious, hard working, or valued learning scored higher on achievement tests. Kagan (1981) and Wynne and Walberg (1985) argue that good character ought to be the more primary focus as it is a goal in reach of more children than is high academic achievement and can result in less alienation from the school.
The relative lack of interest in character education in the last three decades has begun to change (Lickona, 1990). In 1987, the National School Boards Association proposed to the United States Department of Education a project, "Building Character in the Public Schools," designed to enhance character development in the schools through involvement of more than 15,000 local school boards in this country. The project had two overall goals:
- to heighten national awareness of the importance of character development programs in local public schools to the continued success and stability of American society; and
- to encourage the establishment and improvement of character development programs in public elementary and secondary schools.
- what is good character;
- what causes or prevents it;
- how can it be measured so that efforts at improvement can have corrective feedback;and
- how can it best be developed?
In terms of what influences character development, Campbell and Bond (1982) propose the following as major factors in the moral development and behavior of youth in contemporary America:
- heredity
- early childhood experience
- modeling by important adults and older youth
- peer influence
- the general physical and social environment
- the communications media
- what is taught in the schools and other institutions
- specific situations and roles that elicit corresponding behavior.
The measurement of character has proven difficult since character, by definition, involves behavior, but character is often defined in terms of traits (i.e., honesty, integrity, etc.). Some possible measures suggested by Campbell and Bond (1982) are:
- student discipline;
- student suicide rates;
- crimes: assault, burglary, homicides;
- pregnancy rates of teenage girls; and
- prosocial activities.
