By: Seth Fitzsimmons<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Since the founding of the American school system, virtue, character, and morality were pillars of American schools (Haynes 2009). Beginning in the 1950\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n
CE studies show no statistical significance of CE\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
A core value in Lutheran schools is that teachers present all academic subjects built upon or \u201cin light of\u201d God\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Researchers identify certain \u201cperformance indicators\u201d as evidence of character behaviors for measuring the effectiveness of a CE program (Lickona, Schaps, & Lewis, 2010; Prestwich, 2004; Skaggs & Bodenhorn, 2006). The \u201c11 Principles\u201d of Lickona et al. (2010) provide a framework for schools to use, including further specific benchmarks, which contain \u201ckey indicators\u201d of student performance\/behaviors, inside of these principles.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n
Most importantly, family buy-in is important. CE programs that do not include parents as playing a pivotal role in students\u2019 development have no lasting impact (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005). Parent partnership is vital to any CE program\u2019s success in all schools, including Lutheran ones. Berkowitz & Bier (2005) found CE programs may consider parents as \u201crecipients,\u201d \u201cpartners,\u201d or \u201cclients,\u201d but of those three, the second category of \u201cpartners\u201d 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\u2019s Christian character and life.<\/p>\n
Conclusions and Future Study<\/strong><\/p>\n Research does not support using character education programs to increase student achievement, and research shows mixed results of CE\u2019s impact on school climate, student actions (behaviors), and student thoughts (perceptions). Prestwick (2004) showed this \u201cmixed result\u201d 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2014character, virtue, and morality\u2014through the effective use of Lutheran religious instruction.<\/p>\n Seth Fitzsimmons\u00a0(MLC ’09) is the 7th<\/sup>-8th<\/sup>\u00a0teacher at St. Paul’s\u00a0Lutheran School in Norfolk, Nebraska, and an\u00a0MLC graduate student.<\/i><\/p>\n References<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n Hanson, T., Dietsch, B., & Zheng, H., (2012). Lesson in Character Impact Evaluation Final Report.Retrieved from http:\/\/files.eric.ed.gov\/fulltext\/ED530370.pdf<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2010) \u201c11 Principles of Effective Character Education \u2013A Framework for School Success\u201d. Character Education Partnership. Retrieved from www.character.org<\/p>\n Milson, A.J. (2003). Sense of Efficacy for the Formation of Students\u2019 Character, Journal of Educational Research. 1(2), 89-106. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.highbeam.com\/doc\/1P3-808931081.html<\/p>\n Milson, A. J., & Mehlig, L. M. (2002). Elementary school teachers\u2019 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<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n Prestwick, D.L., (2004). Character Education in America\u2019s Schools. School Community Journal. 14(1),139-150. Retrieved from http:\/\/files.eric.ed.gov\/fulltext\/EJ794833.pdf<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n US Department of Education (2007) \u201cWhat Works Clearninghouse Topic Report \u2013 Character Education\u201d. Retrieved from http:\/\/eric.ed.gov\/?id=ED497054 .<\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>