Chapter 2
The Great Debate over
Character Education in the West
 |
| 1858-1919 |
"To educate a person in mind and not in morals
is to educate a menace to society."
—Theodore Roosevelt
Most rational and reasonable persons would agree with Roosevelt's self-evident and straightforward assumption. The problem, of course, is that "considerable controversy swirls around the meaning of moral or character education, and the appropriate forms of practice that ... constitute this area of education." (1)
%20copy.jpeg)
Broadly speaking, this debate is partitioned as a dichotomy of two general cultural and political camps, with traditional conservatives on the right, and secular progressives on the left.
Obviously, the overall conversation is far more complex and nuanced than this basic binary presentation. Nevertheless, for the sake of our purposes in this textbook, it may suffice to focus on these two broad and general camps as a means of highlighting the problem and then contrasting it with our proposed solution, which involves an effective balance—or Golden Mean—between the more extreme elements of these opposing sides.
The Need for Character Education
A variety of research conducted from the 1960s to the present has confirmed a growing mountain of anecdotal and statistical evidence suggestive of a decline of moral behavior in both adults and teenagers in the United States and beyond. Increased adolescent recalcitrance and even criminality among American (and other Western) youth are indicative of troubling trends involving high rates of behaviors such as bullying and violence, stealing and cheating, peer cruelty, preoccupation with sex in thought and action—with the undesirable consequences of unwanted teen pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases [STDs] sometimes resulting therefrom—inappropriate language, self-destructive acts, disrespect and disregard for authority, heightened selfishness, and a general sense of diminished civic or social responsibility. (2)
Such societal ills—and many others, such as domestic abuse and the dissolution of the family, poverty, sex and violence in the media, drug and alcohol use and abuse—all contribute to the heaping pile of societal ills which British and American character education proponents usually present to establish a need for moral instruction in schools. (3)
Dr. Benjamin Spock, of "Dr. Spock" fame, has said that: "schools and educators can play a powerful role second only to the influence of parents in forming children's attitudes and values. Yet, to a great extent our schools are failing us." (4)
Many—and perhaps most—people would agree with Dr. Spock's assessment to one degree or another. The big question is not whether character education should be provided; the big question is what to teach and how to teach it. (5)
Some experts (6) abstain from the dour vernacular employed by Spock, yet still emphasize a growing consensus surrounding citizen's perceptions of the responsibility schools have to play a role in the character education and moral development of students in general. Thus, the problem is rarely a lack of support for the concept, generally speaking, but rather in finding common ground regarding the whats and the how-tos.
In the words of character education scholars, Larry Nucci and Darcia Narvaez:
"There is a widespread agreement that schools should contribute to students' moral development and character formation. ... This apparent support for moral education, however, masks the considerable controversy that swirls around the meaning of moral or character education, and the appropriate forms of practice that would constitute this area of education. Some of what is being promoted as moral or character education has little research support, and amounts to no more than slick marketing of the personal intuitions of program founders." (7)
As previously mentioned, socio-cultural perspectives on the nature of moral decay in America and the West are largely divided between left- and right-wing cultural and political factions.
For example, traditional conservatives often consider postmodern America to be a place where traditional family and religious values have been abandoned, leaving the country in a state of moral disarray. Secular progressives, on the other hand, perceive moral decay to be a natural by-product of the rapid contemporary social transitioning of modern life. The left does not see this transitioning as all bad, since some age-old systemic mores involving issues such as race and gender have gradually evolved in the direction of greater equality over time. (8)
Despite these differing perspectives on the left and right, there does seem to be one point of agreement, and that is that social interaction and relationship building are essential ingredients in the moral growth of students. (9). In other words, the character development of the individual is, in-part, the responsibility of the collective—and vice versa. Thus, there exists a general assent that we will all be more successful if we work together cooperatively and synergistically toward mutually shared values and goals. This point of agreement has the potential to serve as a foundational grounding point of common beliefs in an ongoing effort to build bridges of understanding rather than fomenting and augmenting further division.
It is in this spirit of optimism that we at Freedom Focused seek to bring together both left and right factions in a good-faith attempt to build upon this common ground by embracing a balanced alternative—even the GOLDEN MEAN of Self-Action Leadership.
Character Education Defined
Character Education (CE), also referred to as Moral Education (10), is a broad term that resists a single definition. (11) As such, several will be provided herein.
Thomas Lickona, defines character education in classical Aristotelian terms as: "the deliberate effort to cultivate virtue." (12) William Edgington further classifies "virtue" as "core values on which a society depends to persevere." (13)
The trouble, of course, is finding a consensus on exactly which "virtues" should be included on a list of "core values." There are many lists out there, most of which share thematic similarities. A classical example of such a list is the Boy Scout Law, which influenced me personally when I was a young man between the ages of 11 and 18. (14)
Marvin Berkowitz describes character as: "an individual's set of psychological characteristics that affect that person's ability and inclination to function morally ... and is comprised of those characteristics that lead a person to do the right thing or not to do the right thing." (15) Alan Lockwood adds that: "Character education is defined as any school-instituted program, designed in cooperation with other community institutions, to shape directly and systematically the behaviour of young people by influencing explicitly the non-relativistic values believed directly to bring about that behaviour." (16)
The term Character Education stands at the forefront of contemporary pedagogical vernacular attempting to describe a host of other sub-topics related to the teaching and "foster[ing] of good values and character traits in young people." Some other terms used in connection with Character Education include: "moral education, moral development, moral reasoning, values education, values clarification, ethics, etc." (17)
Thomas Lickona's Aristotelian approach (18), which harmonizes well with many SAL principles and practices, hypothesizes that certain applicable moral truths exist, are objective, and are animated by specific virtues. He classifies virtues as: "objectively good human qualities such as wisdom, honesty, kindness, and self-discipline." (19) According to Lickona, such virtues "are intrinsically good ... don't change ... always will be virtues ... [and] transcend time and culture." (20) He further asserts that the degree to which we acquire and develop virtues will translate into the strength of our individual character.
History of Character Education in the West
According to James Arthur, "Character education has deep roots in the American public school system." (21). Thomas Lickona adds:
"Moral education is not a new idea. It is, in fact, as old as education itself. Down through history, in countries all over the world, education has had two great goals: to help young people become smart and to help them become good. [And] we know that smart and good are not the same [thing]." (22)
Character education in the form of "transmitting values to children" (23) has always existed in Western schools throughout Europe and the Americas. Early anecdotes of Puritan (and other, similar) groups in British colonial America instituting a strict values-based curriculum with the Holy Bible serving as a primary text is iconic from both an educational and historic standpoint. (24) The Colonial Period was not just influenced by religion; it was based upon it's pedagogical premises and spiritual influences. (25)
Moreover, even secular minded leaders were apt to support character education initiatives. For example, Thomas Jefferson—although more of a deist and theist than a traditional Christian—wrote a legislative bill supporting student instruction in moral principles. And Benjamin Franklin—cut out of a similar spiritual cloth as Jefferson—proposed an outlined curriculum involving the study of ethics. These religious- and ethical-oriented traditions of character education which can be traced back to Plymouth and Jamestown continued largely unchanged into the early 20th century. (26) Indeed, "schools in the early days of the republic tackled character head on." (27)
19th century public schools thoroughly adopted character education through a combination of curriculum, discipline standards, and the modeling of character by teachers. A concrete example of this character-centric curriculum was the widespread use of McGuffy Readers, first appearing in 1836 and eventually selling more than 100 million (28) copies. (29)
In the tradition of using literature to teach and promote character education, (30) "McGuffy used stories, inspirational poems, stirring exhortations, and heroic tales in his Readers. As children practiced their school lessons, they also learned the importance of honesty, hard work, self-discipline, responsibility, respect, caring, and citizenship." (31)
Before the dawning of the 20th century, and particularly before the outbreak of World War II, there was often an inextricable link between character education and a student's formal schooling. Being familiar with the Bible was often considered a mandatory qualification of 19th century educators (32) and, by extension, 18th and 17th century pedagogues as well.
Character education in the 20th century—and especially the second half of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st—has been a different matter, consistently taking a back seat (if it gets any seat at all) to traditional academics and progressive platforms. "Notable trends [influencing this shift include the] increasing urbanization of society, [the] increasing affluence of American society, and increasing religious heterogeneity." (33)
Scientific advancements, including Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's theory of relativity further impacted society's evolving paradigms on both religion and character education. As Thomas Lickona explains:
"Darwinism said that biological life was the product of evolution; that view led people to see other things, including morality, as evolving rather than fixed and certain. ... [and] Einstein's theory of relativity, though intended to explain only the behavior of physical matter, affected thinking about moral behavior as well. When it comes to right and wrong, many people began to think, 'It's all relative to your point of view.'" (34)
For better or for worse, Darwin's work was especially impactful, and initially this impact was viewed as being for the worse. To wit: In a 1907 book of award-winning essays from the State of California, the first prize essayist (35) out of more than 300 applicants wrote the following:
"The doctrine of evolution has given us a new mental framework on which to construct our view of life and the world. ... The result is a divided responsibility and a 'stratified conscience.' Many a business man has one conscience or moral idea for his home and church, another for his club, and quite another for the 'company and his business.' ... These radical changes ... so greatly affecting the child, demand a correlation and integration of the moral forces, and a reorganization of the school upon a more social, and hence consciously ethical, basis." (36)
Then, in the 1920s, Hugh Hartschorne and Mark May conducted a now well-known study that suggested the traditionally perceived link between a student's character and the formal character education he or she received was more tenuous than previously assumed. Many members of the academic intelligentsia were open to this study's reported findings at the time, (37) although contemporary scholars have been more critical, questioning the study's validity on multiple fronts. (38)
While Hartschorne and May's study undermined some traditional character education and moral paradigms and mores, it certainly did not eradicate them. (39) Thus, character education continued to ride the wave of momentum it had enjoyed from the earliest days of Colonial America on up through the 1950s.
Then, in the 1960s, Louis Raths of Columbia University published Values and Teaching, wherein he introduced the concept of values clarification, which "contained no requirement to evaluate one's values against a standard, no suggestion that some values might be better or worse than others." This further influenced a growing movement of moral relativity. (40) Rath's aim of values clarification was to provide an opportunity for young people to figure out for themselves what their values would be without interference from an external source, such as an authority figure. (41)
Other intellectual developments and cultural movements, such as logical positivism and personalism, which came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, led to a further estrangement of traditional character education initiatives from public schools in America. The former valued logical analysis above visceral intuition. The latter celebrated an extreme form of individualism.
In the words of Thomas Lickona:
"Personalism celebrated the worth, dignity, and autonomy of the individual person, including the subjective self or inner life of the person. It emphasized rights more than responsibility, freedom more than commitment. It led people to focus on expressing and fulfilling themselves as free individuals rather than on fulfilling their obligations as members of the groups such as family, church, community, or country." (42)
Dorothy Prestwich confirms that character education in the United States did indeed experience a setback and decline during the 1960s and 1970s. However, she concurrently acknowledged a comeback since the 1980s.
In 2004, she wrote:
"Character education in American schools is experiencing a revival. ... The rise in violent crime and a general feeling by the public that American children suffered a crisis in morals led to a resurgence of character education programs across the nation, with most states either mandating or supporting such education." (43)
Character education has been mandated in the State of Georgia, USA, since 1991. I had an opportunity to observe character education legislation in-action while working as a substitute teacher in the Peach State. I first came into contact with such a program while serving as a volunteer guest character education speaker at Lassiter High School in Marietta, Georgia during fall semester of the 2003-2004 school year. I observed it further at Kincaid Elementary School in the spring of 2009, as I detail in chapter five of this book (BOOK the SEVENTH).
Academic Roots of Character Education
While early American character education was rooted more deeply in religion and spirituality (i.e. the Bible), contemporary character education is anchored more secularly in philosophy and psychology. Academic circles—much like cultural and political factions—tend to be similarly divided between traditional conservative (right) and secular progressive (left) ideologies and approaches.
Robert Hall refers to these two approaches as the "Hard Line Approach" and the "Soft Line Approach," (44) the former aligning with traditional conservative perspectives and the latter mirroring secular progressive views.
As an academic, Hall points out pros and cons of both camps. For example, he credits hard liners for maintaining principles and values upheld by our historical forbears. On the other hand, he credits soft liners for helping students develop a capacity for independent reasoning in the moral realm.
While he criticizes hard liners for their propensity toward indoctrination techniques, he similarly inveighs soft liners for their "unwillingness to take a stand." (45)
Hall's proposed solution to bridging this ideological divide is to find "The Middle Way," where "a creative tension" between the two extremes is created to form a desirable third alternative. (46)
This section examines these two approaches in a context of their academic roots. A later section will dissect critiques lobbied by both sides of the character education "aisle." It will then mirror Hall's "Middle Way" by posturing SAL as a potentially ideal candidate for this elusive and highly desirable balance, or pedagogical Golden Mean.
According to Hall, the Hard Line Approach aligns with what scholars refer to as "virtue theory" or "virtue ethics," (47) which holds that "character formation and morality [are] centered on the cultivation of virtues." (48). This virtue-centric philosophy harmonizes with Aristotelian pedagogic approaches, which are more didactic in their delivery, more absolute in their postulates and premises, and highly focused on outcomes or results.
Soft Liners, on the other hand, align themselves more closely with a Socratic (or Platonic) method, which is more dialectic in its delivery, more situational in its foci, and more process-focused and oriented.
Soft Liners further align themselves with what scholars call the cognitive development approach, (49) based on the work of Jean Piaget (50) and the developmental-socialization approach (51), developed by Lawrence Kohlberg (52) and hewn forth from the general constructs of Piaget's work. (53) This alternative viewpoint holds "that morality is ultimately a function of judgments made in context." (54)
Broadly speaking, Hard Liners are primarily interested in the results of character education, whereas Soft Liners are more focused on the processes involved. The former focuses more on ends while the latter focuses more on means.
Hard Line virtue theories have developed from the theoretical frameworks of both ancient and enlightenment philosophers Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, respectively. (55) In more modern times, the social scientist Émile Durkheim, (56) and the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, (57) have further influenced the field.
Soft Line pedagogical paradigms are more closely aligned with the ancient dialectic processes of Socrates and Plato, (58) the enlightenment philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau, (59) the modern theories of the psychologist Jean Piaget, (60) the work of educational reformer John Dewey, (61) and the postmodern theoretical frameworks of Lawrence Kohlberg. (62)
As the above names evince, character education in the West has significant roots in both philosophy and psychology, which we will now dive into a little deeper.
Philosophy
 |
| Character Education has roots in ancient Greek philosophy. |
The "Gap," or "Great Divide" that has led to the "Great Debate" over character education in the West has its roots in the supposed classical divergence of Aristotelian didacticism from Platonic / Socratic dialectics. The former's teleological based approach (65) values answers and results above processes, thus affirming the essential role of explicit instruction and concrete habituation in moral matters (66). The latter's dialectic approach is more question and process-oriented, acknowledging the concomitant moral complexity and ambiguity of the journey.
 |
| Plato teaching a young Aristotle |
It's worth noting here that striking this dichotomy too stringently would be over-simplifying the essence of Socratic and Platonic vs. Aristotelian thought. In truth, all three recognized the importance of both processes and results in matters of moral education and development. These three august Greek thinkers were, after all, greatly influenced by each other—with Plato being a student and follower of Socrates and then later serving as Aristotle's teacher. While they opted to focus on different methods, they ultimately shared similar purposes and goals wherein moral education was concerned. In other words, all three mutually held "the pursuit of moral virtue ... [as] the main aim of moral life, if not the main goal of the soul." (67)
Perhaps the most accurate and productive way of describing their philosophical differences would be to posture their seeming divergence as separate sides of the same coin, both of which are ultimately in harmony and unity with the other side. While it may be convenient for contemporary scholars to highlight and underscore their differences as a means of fortifying their own ideological arguments and positions, it seems to us at Freedom Focused as much ado about nothing—and counterproductive to the ultimate aims of these ancient philosophers.
Bottom line: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have all placed great value on the cultivation of classical virtues such as: "courage, generosity, honesty, and loyalty" and Plato (and Socrates) did not disagree with Aristotle "that character must be actively cultivated in the young." (68) Likewise, Aristotle recognized and valued the cognitive component of moral reasoning as a necessary element of behavioral habituation.
 |
| Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778 |
Aristotle's approach to character education went largely unchallenged until the onset of Jean Jacque Rousseau's humanism in the 18th century. (71) Rousseau's philosophy challenged the commonly held paradigm in Western Christianity of a fallen man who must be redeemed. He took an inimical view: that man was innately just and would remain so if left unpolluted from vice-laden society. This perspective led him to question and challenge Aristotle's age-old model of explicit instruction aimed at habituation in moral matters. (72) Thus began a gradual divergence, which, in intervening centuries has widened into the great divide and debate extant today.
Psychology
In the realm of social psychology, character and moral education is rooted in development psychology, (73) cognitive development (74), and the theories and methods of Hard Line sociologist Emile Durkheim (75) and Soft Line psychologist Jean Piaget (76).
Piaget's cognitive development approach differed from Durkheim's cultural socialization approach in the same basic ways that Socrates' and Plato's dialectics differed from Aristotle's virtue habituation didactics.
Piaget's process focuses more on the cognitive development of the individual, who then retains primary control for one's own moral development along with one's peers through discussions, group interactions, and other related activities. In such settings, adult instructors play a secondary role in the pedagogical process.
Durkheim's process, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of explicitly teaching moral values and character virtues in more controlled environments where instructors (parents, teachers, administrators, coaches, mentors, etc.) play a primary pedagogical role and then explicitly reward behaviors that positively reflect the instruction.
Piaget's cognitive development approach, like Socrates' and Plato's dialectics is more process oriented, while Durkehim's cultural socialization approach is more content based and results-oriented. Both of these pedagogical methods can be found in contemporary approaches to character education. (77)
Piaget further describes two (2) different approaches to morality: heteronomous and autonomous. The former views moral behavior as a by-product of obedience to rules and policies prescribed by a given moral authority. The latter views moral behavior as an outgrowth of an individual's desire and intention to do right out of respect for other people. (78)
Lawrence Kohlberg's contributions to the field followed on the heels of Piaget's work, and was influenced thereby. His interest in moral education stems in part from his personal reflections (as a Jewish American) on the Holocaust. While serving as a U.S. Merchant Marine in Europe at the end of World War II, Kohlberg met survivors of Hitler's barbarous cruelty. These experiences had a profound impact upon him and greatly influenced his thinking about a host of different issues, including character education. (79)
Kohlberg is perhaps best known for developing the Six Development Stages of Justice Reasoning, a hierarchal model of gradual moral developmental progression. This model of moral reasoning indicates that human beings may progress upward through various stages of maturity with regards to their capacity for moral reasoning and development. His Six Stages model "illustrates the potential evolution of moral reasoning toward greater complexity and adequacy. Moral stages, for Kohlberg, were not simply moral ideals, ideal types, or virtual models of reasoning, but actual cognitive-development stages in the evolving structure of the social-moral brain." (80).
In the field of developmental psychology (81), Augusto Blasi's influential work on moral self identity (82) creates parallels between character education and Self-Action Leadership by "integrat[ing] self and identity with moral rationality and responsibility." (83) In doing so, he "has returned long-forgotten concepts to the vocabulary of modern psychology, including desire, will, volition; and added new concepts, such as self-appropriation and wholeheartedness." (84) Blasi has addressed other subjects in the field, including the moral personality, (85) the intentional self, (86) moral character, (87) and development of the moral will (88).
Character Education Concerns
Consider the following anecdote shared by a couple of character education scholars."At a recent gathering of principals, vice principals, and experienced teachers we asked the following three questions: 'Are schools in the business of moral education?' (all hands raised). 'Should schools be in the business of moral education?' (all hands raised). 'Are your schools asking questions about the what and how of moral education?' (no hands raised)." (90)
This story aptly illustrates the quasi-consensus that exists among educators regarding the self-evident need for character education—while concurrently highlighting the challenges that remain in ensuring its practical delivery in schools and classrooms.
Because there is such a wide spectrum of opinions and disagreements about the whats and hows of character education implementation (91) the need to bridge the gap has never been greater. How can folks like Alan Pardeon rectify character education concerns, like those illustrated in the following quote: (92)
"A lot of teachers [and administrators] are scared of this area. They're afraid of taking on vested interest groups. They worry about the legal aspects. Can somebody take them to court if they don't like the way the teacher is teaching values? Whose values should they teach? And where does God come in? Will you have some people on your neck if you mention God and other people on your neck if you don't?" (93)
Through my personal experiences as a classroom teacher, I can relate with some of these sentiments. Living in a highly litigious world where an extreme diversity of viewpoints must coexist can make the terrain rugged and often gives way to misunderstandings. As such, I approached character education in my own classroom with caution. The last thing I wanted was to get in trouble for simply trying to cultivate good character in my students by promoting classical virtues and teaching personal leadership.
 |
| Ralph Waldo Emerson 1803-1882 |
"Civilization depends upon morality."
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
In her book, Character Education (94), Holly Salls offers a fitting and tender tribute to her mother, as follows: "To my mother, who taught me to love truth, goodness, and beauty without the help of any theories at all." (95)
These words of Salls doubtlessly resonate with many; they certainly do with me and my colleagues at Freedom Focused. A deep-seated visceral sense that character really does count and morality really does matter is by no means an aberrant, foreign, fringe, or radical viewpoint.
Such a view is really just a self-evident statement of common sense—further validated by the heart-throbbing corroborations of conscience.
Indeed, education in the moral realm remains an arena of inquiry removed from the strictly hard and empirical sciences. It is—and always will be—a matter of the heart and conscience as much as it is a matter of the mind. Moreover, because the subject deals so squarely with human decision-making, conduct, and values—the basis of all human action and interaction—it is understandable that different persons will have strong (and differing) perspectives, opinions, and feelings on the subject. Perhaps this explains why, despite the lack of an intellectual and institutional consensus on the whats and hows of character education implementation, a quasi-consensus surrounding its need and importance remains alive and well. (96)
Thus, we are left with a PARADOX: a quasi-consensus exists that character education should be taught; yet, we have anything but a consensus on the whats and hows of character education's actual implementation.
As a preface to officially posturing the Self-Action Leadership philosophy, theory, and model as a bona fide balance and Golden Mean capable of bridging our two salient and divergent viewpoints on character education, let's seek to better understand the ideological differences between these two polarized camps (secular progressive vs. traditional conservative).
Two Divergent Viewpoints and a THIRD Alternative
It is no secret that the United State of America—and to a lesser extent the rest of the West—has been deeply divided between left and right wing cultural and political factions for much of the 21st century. These factions run deep and negatively impact everything from elections and policymaking to education and personal relationships.
On the one hand we have the secular progressive camp, also referred to as Soft Liners. (97)
On the other hand we have the traditional conservative camp, also referred to as Hard Liners. (98)
Consider just a few of the concerns levied from each side of this great divide and debate...
Soft Liners in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worry about religion (specifically Christianity) returning to state-run schools in the guise of character education. On the opposite extreme, we find Christians, already angered by the increased secularization of school environments, who are likewise wary of public schools trying to inculcate values that clearly clash with what is being taught in Christian churches and homes. (99)
Back in the 1990s, Hard Liners Kevin Ryan and William Fitzpatrick were pessimistic about any kind of realistic conjugal relationship developing between public schools and explicit character education initiatives. They list multiculturalism, criticism from outside the schools, and political correctness as just a few of the obstacles facing the implementation of character education initiatives in public schools. With a tone of crestfallen disconsolation, they opined: "It's time to face up to [the] fact [that] character education in public schools doesn't have a prayer." (100)
As you can imagine, these concerns from the 1990s have only increased in more recent decades!
Let's now take a closer look at the two sides of the great debate and divide.
Secular Progressive
Lawrence Kohlberg once referred to virtue theory in the traditional conservative bent as consisting of little more than a simplistic "bag of virtues." (101)
Robert Nash (102) agrees. His more pointed and specific disapprobation was summarized by James Arthur as follows: "Nash believes that most models of character education are deeply and seriously flawed, authoritarian in approach, too nostalgic, pre-modern in understanding of the virtues, aligned to reactionary politics, anti-intellectual, anti-democratic, and above all dangerous." (103)
In his esoteric Dimensions of Moral Education, (104) Robert E. Carter wrote a critique of Kohlberg's work wherein Kohlberg himself authored the foreword. Carter, a self-labeled metaphorical ophthalmologist diagnoses the "critically philosophical" (105) as being intellectually myopic, which, according to Carter, is a rationally desirable and philosophically noble state of being—unlike the potentially dangerous position occupied by some Aristotelian traditionalists who are more apt to claim 20/20 vision on the subject of character education.
Carter extols the virtues of "intellectual myopia"—the inability to clearly see the absolute truth of a matter— and "philosophic humility" (106)—a recognition and acknowledgment of this fact—in an effort to expose the naïveté of those with absolutist positions on the subject of character education and moral instruction. He further suggests that achieving 20/20 vision with regards to moral absolutes and it accompanying character education curriculum is, if not impossible, then highly unlikely. As he puts it: "If you must settle for less, then the excitement and pride come from seeing less poorly, less confusedly, and therefore less prejudicially. Education's greatest achievement is myopia, and philosophy is myopia's chief trustee." (107)
Traditional Conservative
While not necessarily a traditional conservative himself, Albert Einstein once stated that:
"A positive aspiration and effort for an ethical-moral configuration of our common life is of overriding importance. Here no science can save us. I believe, indeed, that overemphasis on purely intellectual altitude, often directed solely to the practical and factual, in our education has led directly to the impairment of ethical values." (108)
Herein lies the core difference between secular progressives and traditional conservatives on the subject of character education. While the former camp favors a purely human-based academic approach, the latter prefers to focus on traditional virtues that are usually rooted in religion, spirituality, and other metaphysical elements, such as the visceral operations of conscience.
Traditionalist Christina Sommers (109) highlights a key element of the secular progressive agenda in character education and then critiques it as follows:
"Progressive educators who follow Rousseau are at pains to preserve the child's autonomy. They frown on old-fashioned moralizing, preaching, and threats of punishment, regard such methods as coercive, and believe instead that children should discover for themselves, by their own rational faculties, which actions are moral. [However], the purpose of moral education is not to preserve our children's autonomy, but to develop the character they will rely on as adults. As Aristotle persuasively argues, children who have been helped to develop good moral habits will find it easier to become autonomous adults. Conversely, children who have been left to their own devices will founder." (110)
Irving Kristol (111) echoes the voice of Sommers and other traditionalists, while being more blunt in his critiques.
According to Kristol, because secular progressives are more interested in the process than the final result, they are "unwilling to establish defining limits to the idea of a moral person." (112) He goes on to label debates over whats and hows "interesting" and "odd," (113) and compares it to a gardening manual that explains how to grow things but opts not to comment on whether a rose is more desirable than weeds or garbage.
"Different gardeners have different ideas, of course; but there is a limit to this variety. The idea of a garden does not, for instance, include an expanse of weeds or poison ivy, and no gardener would ever confuse a garden with a garbage dump. ... We are, as it were, gardeners with all the latest implements and technology, but without an idea of a garden." (114)
Kristol goes on to harangue the philosophy of Rousseau by accusing the "religion" of liberal humanism (secular progressivism) of placing more "faith" in human nature's capacity to naturally become "flowers" instead of "poison ivy" or "weeds" than in the far more predictable processes of nature itself. (115)
Kristol further argues that the moral neutrality of some institutions "robs" those institutions of their "popular legitimacy" over time, (116) and that efforts to subvert such developments often lead to public pandering based on "popular agitation," and "the passing fancy of intellectual fashion." (117). While this approach may protect and buy time for those in power, it does not solve the fundamental problems of causation—and may ultimately undermine the viability and/or existence of the very institution one is trying to protect and perpetuate. (118)
According to Kristol, with "rights" come "responsibilities," but when it comes to the responsiveness of institutions, they too often fail to strike any real blows at the "root" of the problem—despite incessantly "hacking at the branches." (119) In the process, they will sometimes enact measures unrelated to the problem in hopes of quelling the cries of the discontent while simultaneously distracting them from the true source of that discontent. And though approval ratings may go up along the way, their "moral legitimacy" is compromised. (120)
In his defense of the traditional conservative approach, Kristol introduces the subject of moral authority to the discussion. (121) In so doing, he stresses that when an educator fails to clearly identify his or her moral intentions (the results or ends one is aiming to achieve), or when that educator is not clear on the moral direction they seek to direct the students they serve, such a state of moral groundlessness inevitably undermines "legitimate authority." (122)
Summing up, Kristol shares some strong words with all educators and would-be educators, as follows:
"Ours is indeed a bewildered age. ... Who is going to answer the questions about the meaning of our individual and collective lives? ... I would say this: If you have no sense of moral authority, if you have no sovereign ideas about moral purpose, you ought not to be educators. There are many technocratic professions in which, for all practical purposes, the knowledge of means suffices, but education is not one of them. An educator who cannot give at least a tentative minimally coherent reply to the question, "Education for what?" and who cannot at least point to the kinds of persons a good education is supposed to produce, is simply in the wrong line of work." (123)
Problems Arise with Either Extreme
Taken to extreme, problems arise with either of the two ideological camps chronicled in this chapter.
As a general rule, Freedom Focused eschews extreme or radical sides or corners of any issue, including character education.
The problem with the extreme right is that human beings have no authority to arbitrarily decree what is and is not absolute. Absolute truth is not man-made; nor is it debatable or negotiable. Moreover, it cannot be capriciously altered by human inclinations, voted into power by popular demand, or otherwise commandeered by executive, legislative, judicial, administrative, or pedagogical fiat. A universal law can only be recognized and acknowledged as being thus by the logical application of available scientific knowledge and the careful observation of consistently discernible consequences over time.
In addition, clear separations between church and state are an absolute prerequisite to public educational offerings. The right must consistently honor this separation.
The problem on the extreme left is that if there is no such thing as a real right and a real wrong, then no one—including the secular progressive intelligentsia—can logically make any moral claims whatsoever. Thus, any postmodernist who claims to stand on the "moral high ground" is a hypocrite—in denial of one's own premise that there is no absolute truth. And since postmodernists (ironically) often have plenty to say about what is "right" and "wrong," they are often hypocrites.
If there is no absolute truth, then there is no moral high ground. The moral high ground only exists to be claimed if absolute truth exists to prop it up in the first place.
Bottom Line: Postmodernists can't have it both ways. Either there is no right and wrong and therefore no morality, leaving everybody to pursue a laissez-aller, "anything goes" culture of chaos; or else there really is a real right and wrong and we possess the existential liberty and rational and visceral capacity and potential to accurately make distinctions of kind and degree among a full spectrum of right (good) and wrong (bad) decisions, which are defined by demonstrable and discernible consequences that play out predictably and consistently over time.
According to the postmodernist Soft Liner, Robert Carter, the purpose of philosophy is to continually "search for better and more adequate answers." (124) However, how is one supposed to know what is "better" or "worse" if they are not measuring it against a presumed absolute standard? How can one make deviational or peripheral judgments if there is no fixed point of comparison?
A GOLDEN Meeting in the Middle
In forming this new and hopefully unified "tent" or "camp," both sides may be required to leave some of their cherished traditions at the door in a good-faith effort to join forces and embrace a superior THIRD alternative.
And what is this inspired THIRD alternative?
At Freedom Focused, we believe the answer lies in the Self-Action Leadership philosophy, theory, and model.
Why does SAL qualify as a legitimate THIRD alternative to this age old debate and divide?
Because it abandons the weaknesses of both former parties while maintaining their strengths.
For example, in true Hard Line fashion, SAL accedes certain absolutes in the form of True Principles rooted in Universal Laws. We have no choice but to do so. If you are unwilling to take a stand on anything, then you will forever remain rudderless and bereft of a foundation. You will also lack a clear standard upon which to make peripheral judgments.
On the other hand, SAL remains fiercely secular, eschewing any formal connections with any given religious dogma. As in the case of our accession of absolutes, our hands are likewise tied in this regard.
We have no other choice but to embrace the Soft Line track of secularism.
Why?
Because the point and purpose of SAL is not to tell you WHAT is right and wrong. The point of SAL is to tell you that right and wrong are real—and provide you with an education in True Principles rooted in Universal Laws in an honest and good-faith effort to empower your capacity to then wisely choose between right and wrong in an independent and informed manner with the balanced aid of both intellectual rationalism and the visceral promptings of conscience.
SAL is the scholarly animation and personification of Hall's proposed "Middle Way." (125) It is Aristotle's answer to the 21st century conundrum our planet is currently confronting—concurrently favored and tempered by the wise inquiry and dialectic processes of Plato and Socrates.
To say that Self-Action Leadership is the answer to this perplexing debate that is at least 2400 years old and has so deeply divided the Western world in modern times is an audacious claim, to say the very least. Yet, that is precisely what we are saying, and we proclaim it confidently, optimistically, and unapologetically.
Does this bold proclamation make our work perfect?
Certainly not!
Can it still be improved?
Without a doubt!
Will we continue to hone our message and efforts for the rest of our careers and lives?
Unquestionably!
But, in the meantime, we put forth this carefully thought-out, thoroughly researched, conscientiously constructed, and historically imbued philosophy, theory, and model as a proposed pedagogical panacea to the manifold moral ills and character crucibles that currently plague the Western world and beyond.
Will this proposed panacea produce a comprehensive cure to all the world's ailments and ills?
Certainly not.
After all, even TRUTH—in all of its absoluteness, beauty, perfection, and purity—cannot eradicate human agency; nor would we ever want it to. For without agency—without liberty—there can be no true FREEDOM.
And are we not, after all, Freedom Focused—to the end?
YES... we are!
Not even SAL can prevent the ills and ailments that arise through agency. Nevertheless, for those who learn about, sincerely internalize, diligently practice, and then indefatigably pursue SAL over time, positive and productive results are absolutely inevitable.
How do we know that this is true?
Because we have thoroughly tested it out over long periods of time in the laborious and lobotomous laboratories of our own lives and careers.
And it quite simply works.
The time has come to present an authentic answer to the perplexing questions surrounding character education in both ancient and modern times.
Just as importantly, the time has come to bridge the cultural, ideological, pedogogical, and political divides that have so plagued our nations in the West—and put an end to the divisive, partisan, unintellectual, and—quite frankly—puerile behavior spawned by hateful identity politics and ideological tribalism.
The time has come to UNITE—not around cultural identities, racial tribes, party lines, or theological creeds—but in a sensible, secular, and united accession of certain absolutes; even in True Principles rooted in Universal Laws, which, when clearly comprehended and consistently honored, predictably invite the individual and collective peace, prosperity, and social cohesion that all too often seems like an Impossible Dream.
Yet, we are courageous—and perhaps crazy—enough to keep dreaming that DREAM...
To dream the impossible dream,
To fight the unbeatable foe,
To bear with unbearable sorrow,
To run where the brave dare not go.
To right the unrightable wrong,
To love pure and chaste from afar,
To try when your arms are too weary,
To reach the unreachable star.
This is my quest,
To follow that star,
No matter how hopeless,
No matter how far,
To fight for the right,
Without question or pause,
To be willing to march into hell
For a heavenly cause.
And I know if I'll only be true
To this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest.
And the world will be better for this,
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star! (126)
"The people who are crazy enough to think they
can change the world are the ones who actually do."
—Steve Jobs
We invite ALL within the sound of our voices (or within the sight of these words) to join us in this effort to unite around what is REAL and what is TRUE. In so doing, we echo the words of one man who knows more about unifying a populace than anyone else in the history of Western Civilization.
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." (127)
—Abraham Lincoln
- As a leader, educator, student, or individual citizen, are you currently contributing to division or unity in the world, nation, state, community, organization, school, church, and home in which you live? How do you know?
- What could you personally do in your personal life, family, school, organization, community, state, nation, or world to promote greater unity based on True Principles rooted in Universal Laws?
- What might you do to encourage, support, or take part in character education initiative at a local school or community event where you live?
—Dr. JJ
Author's Note: This is the 494th Blog Post Published by Freedom Focused LLC since November 2013 and the 281st consecutive weekly blog published since August 31, 2020.
Click HERE for a compete listing of the other 493 FF Blog Articles
Click HERE for a complete listing of Freedom Focused SAL QUOTES
Click HERE for a complete listing of Freedom Focused SAL POEMS
Click HERE to access the FULL TEXT of Dr. JJ's Psalms of Life: A Poetry Collection
.........................
Tune in NEXT Wednesday for another article on a Self-Action Leadership related topic.
If you liked this blog post, please share it with your family, friends, colleagues, and students—and encourage them to bookmark this blog to access a new FREE article every Wednesday.
Lickona, T. (1998). "Character Education: Seven Crucial Issues." Action in Teacher Education. Volume 20. Issue 4. Pages 77-84.
19. Lickona, T. (1998). "Character Education: Seven Crucial Issues." Action in Teacher Education. Volume 20. Issue 4. Pages 77-84. Page 77.
20. Ibid.
21. Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 86.
22. Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How our Schools can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam. Page 6.
23. Edgington, W. (2002). "To Promote Character Education, Use Literature for Children and Adolescents." The Social Studies. Volume 93. Issue 3. Pages 113-116. Page 113.
24. Salls, H.S. (2007). Character Education: Transforming Values into Virtue. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
McClellan, E.B. (1999). Moral Education in America: Schools and the Shaping of Character from Colonial Times to the Present. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25. Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge.
26. Greenawalt, II., Charles E. (1996). "Character Education in America." Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Harrisburg, PA. Pages 1-12.
27. Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How our Schools can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam. Pages 6-7.
28. Wikipedia estimates a minimum of 120 million copies of McGuffy Reader’s were sold between 1836 and 1960. Their online article states that the readers “are still used today in some private schools and in homeschooling. ... (and that) since 1961 they have continued to sell at a rate of some 30,000 copies a year. No other textbook bearing a single person's name has come close to that mark.” URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffey_Readers.
29. Greenawalt, II., Charles E. (1996). "Character Education in America." Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Harrisburg, PA. Pages 1-12.
30. Edgington, W. (2002). "To Promote Character Education, Use Literature for Children and Adolescents." The Social Studies. Volume 93. Issue 3. Pages 113-116.
31. Greenawalt, II., Charles E. (1996). "Character Education in America." Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Harrisburg, PA. Pages 1-12. Page 3.
32. Jones, E., Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (1998) "Character Education & Teacher Education: How are Prospective Teachers Being Prepared to Foster Good Character in Students?" Action in Teacher Education. Volume 20. Issue 4. Pages 11-28.
33. Greenawalt, II., Charles E. (1996). "Character Education in America." Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Harrisburg, PA. Pages 1-12. Page 3.
34. Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How our Schools can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam. Page 7.
See also: Rugh, C.E. (1907). No title. In C.R. Brown, D.S. Jordan & F.B. Dresslar (Editors). Moral Training in the Public Schools: The California Prize Essays. Pages 3-52. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company.
35. One of the judges of this essay contest was David Starr Jordan, former President of Indiana University and President of Stanford University at the time of the contest.
36. Rugh, C.E. (1907). No title. In C.R. Brown, D.S. Jordan & F.B. Dresslar (Editors), Moral Training in the Public Schools: The California Prize Essays. Pages 3-52. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company. Pages 3, 4, and 7.
37. Greenawalt, II., Charles E. (1996). "Character Education in America." Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Harrisburg, PA. Pages 1-12.
38. Ibid.
Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge.
39. Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge.
40. Greenawalt, II., Charles E. (1996). "Character Education in America." Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Harrisburg, PA. Pages 1-12. Page 4.
41. Prestwich, D.L. (2004). "Character Education in America’s Schools." School Community Journal. Volume 14. Issue 1. Pages 139-150.
42. Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How our Schools can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam. Page 9. Attributed to Father George F. McLean, secretary of the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.
43. Prestwich, D.L. (2004). "Character Education in America’s Schools." School Community Journal. Volume 14. Issue 1. Pages 139-150. Page 139.
44. Hall, R.T. (1979). Moral Education: A Handbook for Teachers: Insights and Practical Strategies for Helping Adolescents to Become More Caring, Thoughtful, and Responsible Persons. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press. Pages 6, 11.
45. Ibid. Page 11.
46. Ibid. Page 14.
47. Carr, D. (2008). "Character Education as the Cultivation of Virtue." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 99-116. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 100.
48. Nucci, L.P., & Narvaez, D. (Editors). 2008. Handbook of Moral and Character Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 2.
49. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 55.
50. Piaget, J. (1947). The Psychology of Intelligence. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1970). "Piaget's Theory." In P.H. Mussen (Editor). Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
51. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 57.
52. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Volume 1). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Volume 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
53. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New York, NY: Routledge.
54. Nucci, L.P., & Narvaez, D. (Editors). (2008). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 2.
55. Aristotle. The Nichomachean Ethics.
Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
56. Durkheim, E. (1925). Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Application of the Sociology of Education. New York, NY: Free Press.
57. Salls, H.S. (2007). Character Education: Transforming Values into Virtue.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
58. Carter, R.E. (1984). Dimensions of Moral Education. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Wren, T. (2008). "Philosophical Moorings." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 11-29. New York, NY: Routledge.
59. Sommers, C.H. (2002). "How Moral Education is Finding its Way Back into America's Schools." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 23-41. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
60. Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York, NY: Free Press.
61. Salls, H. S. (2007). Character Education: Transforming Values into Virtue. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
62. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New York, NY: Routledge.
63. Wren, T. (2008). "Philosophical Moorings." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 11-29. New York, NY: Routledge.
64. Ibid. Page 11.
64. Wren, T. (2008). "Philosophical Moorings." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 11-29. New York, NY: Routledge.
65. Ibid.
Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and
America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr, D. (2008). "Character Education as the Cultivation of Virtue." In L.P. Nucci &
D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 99-116). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Carter, R.E. (1984). Dimensions of Moral Education. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Sommers, C.H. (2002). "How Moral Education is Finding its Way Back into America's Schools." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 23-
41. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
66. Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Dducation in Britain and America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr, D. (2008). "Character Education as the Cultivation of Virtue." In L.P. Nucci &
D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 99-116. New
York, NY: Routledge.
67. Carr, D. (2008). "Character Education as the Cultivation of Virtue." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 99-116. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 101.
68. Arthur, J. (2008). "Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and America." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 81.
69. Wren, T. (2008). "Philosophical Moorings." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 11-29. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 18.
70. Ibid. Page 20.
71. Sommers, C.H. (2002). "How Moral Education is Finding its Way Back into America's Schools." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 23-41. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
72. Ibid.
73. Lapsley, D.K. (2008). "Moral Self-Identity as the Aim of Education." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 30-52. New York, NY: Routledge.
74. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci &
D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New
York, NY: Routledge.
75. Durkheim, E. (1925). Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Application of the Sociology of Education. New York, NY: Free Press.
76. Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York, NY: Free Press.
77. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New York, NY: Routledge.
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid.
80. Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). "Moral Education in the Cognitive Development Tradition: Lawrence Kohlberg's Revolutionary Ideas." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 53-79. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 59.
81. Lapsley, D. K. (2008). "Moral Self-Identity as the Aim of Education." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 30-52. New York, NY: Routledge.
82. Blasi, A. (1984). "Moral Identity: Its Role in Moral Functioning." In W.M. Kurtines & J.J. Gewirtz (Editors). Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development. Pages 128- 139. New York, NY: Wiley.
83. Lapsley, D. K. (2008). "Moral Self-Identity as the Aim of Education." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 30-52. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 37.
84. Ibid. Pages 37-38.
85. Blasi, A. (1984). "Moral Identity: Its Role in Moral Functioning." In W.M. Kurtines & J.J. Gewirtz (Editors). Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development. Pages 128- 139. New York, NY: Wiley.
Blasi, A. (1985). "The Moral Personality: Reflections for Social Science and Education." In M.W. Berkowitz & F. Oser (Editors). Moral Education: Theory and Application. Pages 433-443. New York, NY: Wiley.
86. Blasi, A. (2004). "Neither Personality nor Cognition: An Alternative Approach to the Nature of the Self." In C. Lightfoot, C. Lalonde & M. Chandler (Editors). Changing Conceptions of Psychological Life. Pages 3-26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blasi, A. (2005). "Moral Character: A Psychological Approach." In D.K. Lapsley & F.C. Power (Editors). Character Psychology and Character Education. Pages 18-35. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
87. Blasi, A. (2005). "Moral Character: A Psychological Approach." In D.K. Lapsley & F.C. Power (Editors). Character Psychology and Character Education. Pages 18-35. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
88. Blasi, A. (2005). "Moral Character: A Psychological Approach." In D.K. Lapsley & F.C. Power (Editors). Character Psychology and Character Education. Pages 18-35. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
89. Emerson, R.W. (1888). Society and Solitude. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin. Google Books version. Page 27.
90. Goodman, J.F., & Lesnick, H. (2004). Moral Education: A Teacher-Centered Approach. Boston, MA: Pearson. Page xi.
91. Nucci, L.P., & Narvaez, D. (Editors). (2008). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
92. Alan Pardoen was Dean of the State University of New York in Potsdam at the time he stated this quote.
See: Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How our Schools can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam. Page 4.
93. Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How our Schools can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam. Page 37.
94. Salls, H.S. (2007). Character Education: Transforming Values into Virtue. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
95. Ibid. Dedication page.
96. Nucci, L.P., & Narvaez, D. (Editors). (2008). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
97. Hall, R.T. (1979). Moral Education: A Handbook for Teachers: Insights and Practical Strategies for Helping Adolescents to Become More Caring, Thoughtful, and Responsible Persons. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press.
98. Ibid.
99. Ryan, K., & Kilpatrick, W. (1996). "Two Views: Is Character Education Hopeless?" The American Enterprise. Volume 7. Issue 5. Pages 19-20. URL: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Volume007_Issue005.pdf?x85095
100. Ibid. Page 20.
101. Carr, D. (2008). "Character Education as the Cultivation of Virtue." In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 99-116. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 100.
102. Nash, R. J. (1997). Answering the Virtuecrats: A Moral Conversation on Character Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
103. Arthur, J. (2008). Traditional Approaches to Character Education in Britain and America. In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Editors). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Pages 80-98. New York, NY: Routledge. Page 89.
104. Carter, R.E. (1984). Dimensions of Moral Education. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
105. Ibid. Page 3.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid. Page 4.
108. Einstein, A. (1982). Ideas and Opinions. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Google Books version. Page 53.
109. Sommers, C. H. (2002). "How Moral Education is Finding its Way Back into America's Schools." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 23-41. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
110. Ibid. Page 34.
111. Kristol, I. (2002). "Moral and Ethical Development in a Democratic Society." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 173-182. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
112. Ibid. Page 174.
113. Ibid.
114. Ibid.
115. Ibid.
116. Ibid. Page 175.
117. Ibid. Page 176.
118. Kristol, I. (2002). "Moral and Ethical Development in a Democratic Society." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 173-182. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
119. Thoreau, H.D. (2001). Walden or Life in the Woods. New York, NY: MetroBooks.
120. Kristol, I. (2002). "Moral and Ethical Development in a Democratic Society." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 173-182. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.. Page 179.
121. Covey, S.R. (2004). The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New York, NY: Free Press.
122. Kristol, I. (2002). "Moral and Ethical Development in a Democratic Society." In W. Damon (Editor). Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Pages 173-182. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.. Page 181.
123. Ibid. Pages 181-182.
124. Carter, R.E. (1984). Dimensions of Moral Education. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Page 9.
125. Hall, R.T. (1979). Moral Education: A Handbook for Teachers: Insights and Practical Strategies for Helping Adolescents to Become More Caring, Thoughtful, and Responsible Persons. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press.
126. From the Broadway Musical: Man of La Mancha. Music by Mitch Leigh. Lyrics by Joe Darion.
127. Lincoln, A. (1865). Last paragraph of his Second Inaugural Address. Delivered at Washington, D.C., USA on March 4, 1865.
