Friday, August 24

Final thoughts ... for now


There are many divisions on teaching ethics and character in school. Many struggle to define what it means to teach ethics and character, how it should be done, if it should be done and whose standard to use.
Linus Wright, in his 13th and final point of “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century,” calls for character education.
Intentionally teach core values of respect, responsibility, honesty, self-discipline and citizenship.  
I don’t intend, in this blog post, to get into the definition of teaching ethics and character. What I will say is this. It’s essential for a classroom to function for children to learn respect (in dealing with teachers, peers, administrators), responsibility (homework, belongings, grades, learning), honesty (no, the dog didn’t really eat my homework) and self-discipline (my parents weren’t home last night to make me do my homework). How could a classroom function without these qualities? Citizenship is an excellent practice (even if it evokes thoughts of the 1950s) because it teaches students to look beyond themselves to something bigger – a sense of unity and commitment to each other, to other community members, to the nation and world as a whole (and plays in well with all of the aforementioned character traits).
On this level, I don’t disagree with, and even applaud, character education. What I will say next, I haven’t always agreed with. But recently, I’ve changed my mind. Anything beyond this basic ethics education might be too far. Teachers are to teach students about academics. If a teacher takes the role of ethical trainer, he or she is removing that role from the home, teaching state-approved ethics material (which should raise red flags) and, possibly, influencing students to think more like him and her, as far as ethics go. And while a teacher might see this as a good thing (who doesn’t want others to think like they do), parents certainly won’t agree with this, unless the teacher happens to have the same values and ideals. It’s not the teacher’s job. As mentioned, teachers are to teach academics, and only as much ethics as is necessary to successfully run a classroom.
            Speaking of running a classroom (and moving on to a different subject), Wright’s 12th point (and the last one I’ve yet to cover of those that I chose to) states this: 
12. Require each school district to undergo an external evaluation every five years to determine effectiveness of operation. Criteria for the evaluation and the personnel conducting such an exercise would be approved by the Texas Education Agency.

As far as Linus Wright’s 12th point goes, there isn’t much use looking at its many aspects because the crux of it is flawed. Until you change the Texas Education Agency, any external evaluation, every five years or every year, is going to be based on high-stakes standardized testing. That’s how the TEA handles its schools, deciding which ones should be closed and which ones should deserve more funding. As long as the TEA continues to run schools like a business that bases its decisions on flawed results, what will this five-year evaluation accomplish? Administrators and teachers will continue to stress over test results they can’t entirely control and that don’t reflect true learning or how well a teacher teaches. Student achievement and learning will continue to decline as drop out rates continue to rise. Wright suggests some good points, but until some of those things (and some other things) are corrected, this evaluation is, essentially, a moot point. What will it take for his idea to be a valid point?

Thanks for sticking with me over the summer as I’ve looked at Wright’s plan. Now that the fall is sneaking up on us, I’ll be looking at a variety of subjects, including ethics teaching, in a less structured way. Hope to hear from you. 

No comments: