advertisement
On GameFAQs: Grand Theft Auto IV (PS3) cheats & more!
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
Thomson / Gale

Rethinking character education: challenging the conventional wisdom about camp and kids: a substantial number of people believe that camps can do more than provide an opportunity to have fun: they can also promote children's social and moral growth

Camping Magazine,  Sept-Oct, 2003  by Alfie Kohn

This explains the growing interest among camp professionals in the movement known as character education. In its broad sense, that label refers to almost anything we might do to help kids become good people. To appreciate the value of this mission, we don't need to rattle off statistics about drugs, violence, and teenage pregnancy. Just watch how many children learn at a tender age not to be tender--or who assume that being successful means looking out for Number One.

Most Popular Articles in Sports
The first family: Archie, Peyton and Eli are incredibly famous, immensely ...
The growing gap: driving distances are skyrocketing on the PGA Tour. So why ...
Which pistol caliber for self defense? Four different people come to four ...
Drag racing - National Hot Rod Association
The world's most popular .22: the Marlin Model 60 just keeps on ticking
More »
advertisement

Needless to say, parents have the primary responsibility in the area of values. But, historically, parents haven't been asked, nor should they be asked, to do it alone. Schools and camps, among other institutions, have a role to play. Put it this way: If parents are raising kids to be compassionate, responsible, ethical people that makes our jobs a lot easier. If parents are not raising their kids along those lines, that makes our jobs a lot more important.

Of course, all camps teach values whether or not they have adopted a specific program to that end. The rules (and who makes them), the programs, the culture, and climate--all send messages about what matters even if they are sent unintentionally and received unconsciously. There is no such thing as a value-flee camp. To support character education in the broad sense just means we will think about those values explicitly.

But the term character education is also used in a narrow sense, to refer to a particular style of moral training, one that reflects particular values as well as particular assumptions about the nature of children and how people learn. It's important to avoid confusing the two meanings, because it's entirely possible that some people who support the general idea of character education may find themselves turning default in programs or organizations with a specific agenda--an agenda that, upon reflection, they might very well find objectionable.

To avoid this trap, we need to look hard at particulars. What we don't need are cliches about the importance of good values, the sort of vapid rhetoric calculated to please everyone. The question is not whether we think kids should be helped to grow as human beings. Ofcourse we do. The question is what we intend to do about it, and--more to the point--whether it's possible that specific elements of mainstream character education programs, or even certain aspects of our camps, might be undermining our own long-term objectives for children Might there be a disconnect between our goals and our practices? If so, we'd have to summon the courage to reconsider some deep-rooted ways of doing things in order to live up to our own stated ideals.

Consider four key elements of an approach to character education that you may believe are worth endorsing, but which, if taken seriously, might raise unsettling questions about the status quo of the camp environment.

Assume the Best about Kids

Many of the reading theorists of character education take a rather dim view of children--and of human nature. The author of one popular book on the subject asserts that "most behavior problems are the result of sheer 'willfulness' on the part of children"--a statement of stunning cynicism. Another educator cited for his work in character education sees human nature as "mean, nasty, brutish, selfish, and capable of great cruelty and meanness. We have to hold a mirror up to the students and say, 'This is who you are. Stop it.'"

Happily, research from several disciplines converges to cast doubt on this sour view of human beings, and on the view that children have to be forcibly civilized, with virtues essentially shoved down their throats. That doesn't mean we're left with a starry-eyed romanticism. It does mean, as I once argued in a book called The Brighter Side of Human Nature, that there's good reason to believe that it is as natural for children to help as to hurt. If much of what goes by the name of character education grows out of a dark set of beliefs about people--especially very short people--then we need to evaluate these programs in light of their underlying assumptions.

Look at Structures, not Just Individual Character

A key tenet of the Character Counts! coalition is that "negative social influences can and usually are overcome by the exercise of free will and character." This is presented as common sense, but it is in my opinion conservative ideology.

In fact, almost all brands of character education implicitly assume we need to "fix the kids": the problem lies with individuals, who need to be taught good values. In reality, though, much of how we act and who we are reflect the situations in which we find ourselves. Move calm, courteous people to Boston (where I live) and soon they will be driving like maniacs, indeed, a mountain of evidence from the field of social psychology confirms the same principle. In one famous experiment, for example, ordinary adults assigned to the roles of prisoners or guards in a mock jail soon began to grow into their roles, becoming disturbingly helpless or sadistic, respectively.