By: Seth Fitzsimmons
As the fabric of American society unravels and reports of school and societal violence increase, a renewed emphasis on character education (CE) is sweeping public schools. What implication, if any, does this have for Lutheran schools? With biblical teachings at the center of its curriculum, Lutheran schools may be positioned to capitalize on the CE wave.
Since the founding of the American school system, virtue, character, and morality were pillars of American schools (Haynes 2009). Beginning in the 1950’s CE was phased out of American public schools because of a beginning fear that teaching morals, virtue, and character might be equated as religious (Skaggs & Bodenhorn, 2006). However, since the 1990s character education has been receiving increased attention due to the violent crimes happening in schools from Columbine to the present (Prestwich, 2004). Interestingly, because of this violence in schools and because of other issues, between 1993 and 2009, 36 states passed laws mandating or recommending some aspect of CE in schools (Hanson, Dietsch, Zheng 2012).
CE studies show no statistical significance of CE’s impact on student academic achievement and mixed significance on student actions (behaviors) and student thoughts (perceptions). Lutheran schools, by their biblically-based nature, possess many of the characteristics that are supported by research for successful implementation of effective CE programs. This puts the WELS school in an advantageous position regarding CE compared to American public schools.
A core value in Lutheran schools is that teachers present all academic subjects built upon or “in light of” God’s Word. In other words, all Lutheran school teachers aim to point students back to varying truths found in Scripture. This philosophy is commonly stated in many Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod (WELS) school handbooks. Undergraduate courses at Martin Luther College (MLC), the WELS teacher training institute, seek to train future teachers in the ability to connect instruction in any academic subject back to God’s Word. CE ideas are no different. This core value of MLC, and all of its undergraduate instruction, positions WELS schools to be in an advantageous position compared to American public schools due to this unity of purpose and common ground built upon the Bible.
Though studies show mixed results for public school character education programs, those with positive results have qualities that many Lutheran schools similarly possess. Multiple studies support that elementary teachers and schools had the highest perceived levels of CE program effectiveness (Ledford 2011, Skaggs & Bodenhorn 2006). Skaggs & Bodenhorn (2006) surmise this is because many CE programs are primarily developed for elementary settings. 2013-2014 WELS school statistics demonstrate that 81% of the 29,980 WELS K-12 WELS school enrollment is in the elementary grades.
Researchers identify certain “performance indicators” as evidence of character behaviors for measuring the effectiveness of a CE program (Lickona, Schaps, & Lewis, 2010; Prestwich, 2004; Skaggs & Bodenhorn, 2006). The “11 Principles” of Lickona et al. (2010) provide a framework for schools to use, including further specific benchmarks, which contain “key indicators” of student performance/behaviors, inside of these principles.
Key indicators of effective CE programs include (a) full-staff commitment (Hanson et al. 2012), (b) community and staff support with a high degree of implementation (Skaggs & Bodenhorn 2006), (c) undergraduate programs preparing educators of character (Prestwick 2004), (d) teachers who view themselves as the school’s crucial factor in the development ofstudent character (Milson & Mehlig 2002), (e) prominent display, frequent reference to, and public recognition of core CE values by teachers (Prestwick 2004), (f) significant emphasis on decisions made in the digital realm (Ohler 2011), and (g) consistent utilization of service learning opportunities (Damon 2010).
Most importantly, family buy-in is important. CE programs that do not include parents as playing a pivotal role in students’ development have no lasting impact (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005). Parent partnership is vital to any CE program’s success in all schools, including Lutheran ones. Berkowitz & Bier (2005) found CE programs may consider parents as “recipients,” “partners,” or “clients,” but of those three, the second category of “partners” is the desired approach. Lutheran schools view parents as partners. In fact, many WELS schools state the partnership idea directly in their mission statements. WELS schools traditionally regard their role as assisting parents in raising their children. By nature of making the decision to enroll their child in the WELS school, parents are asking the school to be a partner with them in their role of creating a lasting impact on their child’s Christian character and life.
Conclusions and Future Study
Research does not support using character education programs to increase student achievement, and research shows mixed results of CE’s impact on school climate, student actions (behaviors), and student thoughts (perceptions). Prestwick (2004) showed this “mixed result” is because, in part, there is little consensus nationwide of how to approach the task of CE in public schools. With so many worldviews and paradigms held by their constituents, public schools are unable to find common ground of virtue, character, and morality. As stated above, Lutheran schools do not have this lack of consensus. God’s Word is the single source for the approach to training up Christian character in students in Lutheran schools. This centrality of focus in Lutheran schools, that God’s Word is the guide and source of all learning in all subject areas, positions Lutheran schools in general, and WELS schools specifically, to have significant impact on the outcome of student behavior—character, virtue, and morality—through the effective use of Lutheran religious instruction.
Seth Fitzsimmons (MLC ’09) is the 7th-8th teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Norfolk, Nebraska, and an MLC graduate student.
References
Berkowitz, M.W., & Bier, M.C. (September 2005). Character Education: Parents as Partners. Educational Leadership, volume 63 (1). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept05/vol63/num01/Character-Education@-Parents-as-Partners.aspx
Commission on Lutheran Schools (2014). WELS School Statistics 2013-2014. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://connect.wels.net/AOM/schools/General%20Documents/ Stats%20-%20snapshot%20collection/Stats%202013.pdf
Damon, W. (February 2010). The Bridge to Character. Educational Leadership, volume 67 (5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/The-Bridge-to-Character.aspx
Hanson, T., Dietsch, B., & Zheng, H., (2012). Lesson in Character Impact Evaluation Final Report.Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530370.pdf
Haynes, C.C., (May 2009). Schools of Conscience. Educational Leadership, volume 66 (8). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational leadership/may09/vol66/num08/Schools-of-Conscience.aspx
Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2010) “11 Principles of Effective Character Education –A Framework for School Success”. Character Education Partnership. Retrieved from www.character.org
Milson, A.J. (2003). Sense of Efficacy for the Formation of Students’ Character, Journal of Educational Research. 1(2), 89-106. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-808931081.html
Milson, A. J., & Mehlig, L. M. (2002). Elementary school teachers’ sense of efficacy for character education. Journal of Educational Research, 96,(1), 47-54. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27542411uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104433128117
Ohler, J. (February 2011). Character Education for the Digital Age. Educational Leadership, volume 68 (5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/Character-Education-for-the-Digital-Age.aspx
Prestwick, D.L., (2004). Character Education in America’s Schools. School Community Journal. 14(1),139-150. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794833.pdf
Skaggs, G., & Bodenhorn, N., (2006). Relationships Between Implementing Character Education, Student Behavior, and Student Achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics. 8(1), 82-114. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ753972.pdf
US Department of Education (2007) “What Works Clearninghouse Topic Report – Character Education”. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497054 .
Seth,
You present one of the strengths of our Lutheran Schools.
My comment is in regards to your last statement in the Conclusions and Future Study, “through the effective use of Lutheran religious instruction.” What a statement/mouthful that really is!
First, could you define your use of the word “effective” or is that what you are suggesting should be the future study?
Second, you could also get many answers when discussing what Lutheran means. Does Lutheran imply WELS?
Finally, does instruction mean we are teaching this in a class or using teachable moments as instruction?
The questions are not intended to call you out. I really appreciate your thoughts and premise. The questions are intended to continue discussion in support of your work.
Thank you for your work, Seth.
Hi Pete,
Good questions, brother. My definition of “effective” would be a CE program inside of our schools that is preplanned, written down, carried out according to that plan, and then continually analyzed for possible improvements. I think that most of our schools would not have this type of Christian CE program, aside from the goals that relate to Christian character that we might have inside of our religion curriculum guides.
One suggestion that I would have for future study, and I’m considering this for a masters thesis, is – what is the level of competency that MLC graduates have for teaching CE in their upcoming roles. The research suggests that an undergrad focus on CE improves teacher efficacy. I would believe that our MLC graduates would have a higher level of efficacy compared to public school teacher education graduates because of the biblical foundation that all of our WELS schools and MLC are based upon.
To your second questions – Lutheran means WELS.
And finally, the last question was, “does instruction mean we are teaching this in a class or using teachable moments as instruction?” To me, this is a both/and situation. We both have structured time built into our daily classroom schedules for studying and applying God’s Word and we seek to keep our teaching eyes open for any and all “teachable moments” that happen in front of us where we teachers have the chance to help the children see how they’re able to live for Jesus. Whether that means demonstrating the fruits of the Spirit, forgiving a classmate, confronting a classmate’s sin, etc., excellent Christian teachers are constantly understanding their position of helping our students and fellow teachers to live for Jesus more and more – until we get to see him face to face in glory.
A study on CE readiness would be very interesting.
Thanks for your comments.
Amen, brother!! It’s so interesting taking parents on tours of our school and asking them what brought them to us. While the answers vary, one of those answers is, “I just would like to protect my child “from the crazy things that are out there”. I wonder if that mindset of conservative protection (and in some cases Christian protection) is more of a Midwestern / Nebraska thing or if our schools in more liberal areas see and hear the same things?
Seth, I appreciated your thoughts and comments on this current issue. Going back to 2001 after the terrorist attacks on the east coast, people everywhere (whether they were “church-going” or not) turned to look for something that had an unchanging and unwavering message. Where did many go? Churches or places of worship to “find God” or at least engage in prayer of some type.
The truth is that our colleagues in the public sector really have a muzzle over their mouth when it comes to any REAL character education. That’s because fads will come and go… so will various trends and theories about this next great thing and that other next greatest thing in education.
Our WELS schools have a long tradition of being built upon the rock of God’s Word and incorporating it into all of the activities (not just a course or lecture here and there on CE) of a normal school day. That solid foundation which is built on the truth and an unwavering one at that is the only thing that can truly motivate (and only through the Gospel) students to change and do the right things for the right reasons.
We should cherish that legacy of our schools and proudly continue to offer our students the only true character education that ever produces results… Scripture based sanctified living training for our Savior, Jesus Christ!