Educating for Character and Democracy:
A Practical Introduction
Paper prepared for Participaccion Ciudadana, Bogota, Colombia, September, 1998
Marvin W. Berkowitz, Ph.D.
Marquette University
W. Schroeder Complex 454, Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee WI 53201-1881M.Berkowitz@marquette.edu
There is currently great interest around the world in both character education (values education, moral education, etc.) and education for democracy (citizenship education, democratic education, etc.). Whereas character education tends to be more widely acclaimed, education for democracy is of particular interest in countries which are newly democratic or are attempting to increase or bolster their democratic nature. Fortunately, there are currently many such countries in both hemispheres. Before I address the more practical aspects of how to implement and assess such educational forms, I need to more explicitly define them and examine the relation between character education (CE) and education for democracy (EFD).
Defining Character Education and Education for Democracy
Unfortunately this field is rife with problems of language and terminology. Terms vary both between cultures and historically within cultures. So what a term may connote in one place and time may be quite different than what it connotes in another place or time. In the US alone during the 20th century, the favored rubric shifted from "character education" to "values education" to "moral education" and back presently to "character education." Character education and moral education often have negative connotations in other cultures, conjuring up images of authoritarian religious sermons about eternal salvation and damnation. I will use the term character education simply because it is currently the term of preference in the US. By character education I mean any form of intentional education aimed at promoting the growth of moral functioning; i.e., to increase an individual’s capacity to function as an effective moral agent. The specific aim of CE may be an increase in the ability to reason about right and wrong, an increase in the motivation to do pro-social work or engage in pro-social behaviors, an increase in knowledge about right and wrong, etc. Or it may focus on a combination of these and other related aims.
Education for democracy is any form of intentional education aimed at instilling the skills and knowledge necessary to function effectively in, and thereby contribute to, the democratic process. At the most mundane level this includes literacy to allow one to be aware of issues and processes of the democratic process. At a somewhat more direct level, it entails teaching about the democratic process. More fundamentally, however, EFD includes the fostering of the development of the citizen or future citizen, so they may be able to understand, evaluate, and advocate for the citizenry, the state, and the democratic process.
It is this last aspect, fostering civic development, that underscores the considerable overlap between CE and EFD. Benjamin Franklin stated that "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom" and Theodore Roosevelt claimed that "educating a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." When Alexis de Tocqueville came to explore American character to find out how this great experiment in democracy was working, he observed that "America is great because she is good; but if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." Thomas Lickona, a foremost character educator, has argued that
Educating for virtue is especially crucial in a democracy in which people govern themselves. A democratic people, the American founders believed, must grasp and be committed to democracy’s moral foundation: respect for the rights of others, concern for the common good, voluntary compliance with law, and participation in the public life. (In Mosher et al., 1994)
Furthermore, Lawrence Kohlberg has argued that a democratically run school is the ideal context for moral education, just as John Dewey argued that a democratically run school is essential for educating for citizenship. Kohlberg’s Just Community Schools are based in part upon the structure of a direct democracy, which is justified by the argument that participation in collaborative egalitarian governance is a rich context for the development of moral maturity. Marvin Beckerman and Timothy O’Rourke argue that EFD has the
potential for character-building, for promoting basic democratic values, and for developing patterns of responsible citizenship behavior. Well-designed programs...can enhance the social, psychological and intellectual development of youth and help them to become informed, engaged, and effective citizens. (1996, p. 25).
Verba and colleagues, in a study of political participation (Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics), conclude that it is the "hands-on training" in US schools, rather than "teaching about" democracy that promotes political participation.
So we can see that EFD promotes character development and requires elements of CE. It is also true that good citizenship requires good character. Whereas some experts focus on the practice of democracy as the central ingredient in preparation for citizenship, Patricia White, in her book Civic Virtues and Public Schooling: Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society, argues that it is the character of the citizenry that truly defines a democracy. Indeed, many experts believe that left to nature, humans would be ultimately hedonistic. If humans are to develop democratic (or any moral form of) character, then society must intervene and foster it.
When government and law urge me to support the common good, the may find an ally in my reason and my soul, but they must expect resistance from my body and my senses... Civic virtue requires that we govern some or our strongest feelings and desires. In that sense, Aristotle argued, to rule free men–and hence, to be a citizen of a democracy–one must first learn how to be ruled. (Wilson C. McWilliams, 1980, p. 84)
Regardless of how pessimistic one is about human nature, it is clear that moral character is part of democratic functioning. Thomas Jefferson argued that democracy depends upon the cultivation of "public-spiritedness" which will not flourish spontaneously, but must be educated.
Not only is character routinely included in models of citizenship, but citizenship is often included in models of character. The Josephson Instititue for Ethics’ Youth Summit meeting of 30 experts in youth character in 1992 identified six core character traits that were assumed to be universal goals of CE. The sixth of these was "civic virtue and citizenship."
Clearly there are many intimate links between CE and EFD. But the overlap between CE and EFD is not complete. There are some important differences as well, to which we now turn. First of all, the goals are different. For CE, character is the end. For EFD, character is a means toward the end, which is effective citizenship in a democratic society. Second, character development is only one of the targets of EFD. EFD, to be comprehensive and effective, must also target practical skills such as literacy and knowledge of the structure of government and the legal processes of democratic law-making. Third, CE may choose as a option to include participation in democratic education as a means toward the end of character development (most CE initiatives do not choose this option), whereas it has been argued that EFD must include democratic participation as part of its curriculum to provide practical experience in what is the end goal of EFD; i.e., democratic competency. As Mosher, Kenny and Garrod lamented in their 1994 book Preparing for Citizenship: Teaching Youth to Live Democratically, "Students have been taught about democracy, but they have not been permitted to practice democracy."
Whereas I will include non-character aspects of EFD in this paper, the primary focus will be on the overlap between EFD and CE; hence the primary emphasis will be on the character-specific aspects of EFD.
Goals of Educating for Democracy
Ultimately, as we have already suggested, the goal of EFD is to produce future effective citizens of the democratic state. But what exactly comprises such a citizen? In addition to the "bedrock" democratic values such as justice, tolerance, and personal autonomy that undergird the democratic enterprise, Patricia White identifies seven traits or dispositions of democratic character: hope and confidence; courage; self-respect and self-esteem; friendship; trust; honesty; decency. She goes so far as to argue that it is the values of the democratic institutions and the dispositions of its citizens, and not the democratic procedures or "machinery," that comprise a democracy. In a separate analysis, David Sehr differentiates between private democracy and public democracy. It is the latter, he argues in his book Education for Public Democracy, which is the legitimate conceptualization of democracy. Public democracy requires active commitment to and participation in the public arena and rests upon five characteristics of the democratic citizen: an ethic of care and responsibility; respect for the equal right of everyone to the conditions necessary for their development; appreciation of the importance of the public; critical/analytical social perspective; capacities necessary for participation in public democracy (e.g., verbal analytical skills, habits of active listening, self-confidence, cooperation, etc.). In essence, democracy rests on the character of both its institutions (including its schools) and its citizens.
This thought was best articulated by the great American philosopher John Dewey:
Government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated...A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.
Dewey further felt that the way students experience their schools is central to the way they will learn to experience and relate to their broader social contexts when they are adults. Or as John Minkler of the Bonner Center for Character Education and Citizenship in Fresno (CA) has stated, "While factual knowledge is essential, it is not enough. Schools have a profound obligation to reorganize curriculum and instruction to teach the knowledge, participation skills, and civic values that students need to become responsible citizens." Thomas Jefferson, one of the principle architects of the great American experiment in democracy, reinforced the last element indirectly in his appeal for public education when he argued that "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption, and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." He perceived education to be a partial but vital piece of the antidote to this human failing. In a similar vein, Jefferson’s contemporary, James Madison, argued that "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
So we can see that EFD requires at least four central elements. First, there is certainly need for learning about democracy and the role of citizens in a democratic state. Second, there is the need to experience or practice democracy. Third, there is the need for more general education as a foundation for the capacities of democratic participation. And, fourth, there is the need for the development of character. Hence government quells our selfish nature and education makes us both governable and governors.
Implementing Education for Democracy
If we identify those four elements of EFD (foundational capacities, knowledge about democracy, practice at democracy, moral character), then this allows us to begin to explore how these outcomes can best be achieved through education. Each will be explored in turn, but it is the last, character, which will receive the greatest emphasis here.
Foundational capacities for democratic functioning
Lawrence Kohlberg has argued that the right to an education in the US is really the right to read the founding documents of our democratic republic. Literacy becomes necessary for optimal functioning as a citizen in a democracy. This is one example of a foundational capacity for democratic functioning. As noted above, David Sehr lists other such capacities:
"(a) Analysis of written, spoken and image language
(b) Clear oral and written expression of one’s ideas
(c) Habits of active listening as a key to communication
(d) Facility in working collaboratively with others
(e) Knowledge of constitutional rights and political processes
(f) Knowledge of the complexities and interconnections of major public issues to each other and to issues in the past
(g) Self-confidence, self-reliance, and ability to act independently (within context of the community)
(h) Ability to learn more about any issue that arises"
I have included items (e) and (f) in the category of democratic knowledge (see below) and others of these capacities may be better construed as aspects of character, e.g., item (g). Nonetheless it should be clear that there are certain skills of communication and social cooperation, among others, that schools need to instil in students in order to successfully accomplish the central goals of EFD.
Skill-building such as this is a fundamental goal of education in general and should not be difficult to implement, nor will it be examined in detail here. It may require some less traditional forms of education to foster specifically democratic skills. Such forms may be service learning, cooperative learning, etc., which embody the communicative and cooperative competencies required for citizenship in a democracy.
Educating for democratic knowledge
This is probably the simplest of the four goals of EFD, as it is most centrally what educators know how to do; i.e., the transmission of knowledge. Of course this assumes that the educators are professionally familiar with the knowledge domain (one would not want a science teacher who has no training in science, for example). This is a bit trickier in newly democratized nations. One of the typical constraints on implementing EFD in such cultures is that the socializing agents (parents, teachers, etc.) have little familiarity with democracy. They don’t know what the practices and institutions of a democracy are, nor can they articulate their nuances or justifications. Hence, educating for democratic knowledge may presuppose professional training of educators and altering the curriculum of students studying to be teachers.
In addition to this is the problem of motivation. Do citizens who have not previously experienced a democracy value the new democracy? If they are not committed to its value and future success, then they may be fairly ineffective in teaching about democracy. Obviously this qualification is not limited to this element. As has long been known, teachers who do not value what they are teaching are unlikely to teach it effectively. But the problem of how to "sell" democracy to educators is well beyond the scope of this paper.
Practicing Democracy
I have already demonstrated that most experts agree that one cannot produce democratic character and skills without allowing for the practice of such skills. As Beckerman and O’Rourke argue "social studies teachers have long recognized that civics is no less a laboratory science than, say, chemistry or biology" (1996, p. 26). Unfortunately, schools have historically not been places where students can legitimately exercise their democratic rights of self-governance. Schools have been authoritarian and hierarchical in structure. Hence, advocates of EFD tend to argue for alterations in the traditional structure of schools. On the more extreme end are experts like Kohlberg, who has designed the Just Community Schools to function as direct democracies. Similarly Berman and Mosher have argued for increasing the democratic nature of schools, in Berman’s case to instill social responsibility and activism and for Mosher to prepare future citizens in a democracy. Others rely on somewhat less direct means, such as the role-playing curriculum for younger children Educating for Citizenship or the limited weekly open forum used for 10-11 year old children at the Heath School in Brookline Massachussetts.
John Dewey strongly argued that experience lies at the core of education. Mosher, Kenny and Garrod pick up that theme in their detailed articulation of the value of participation in democratic processes as central to preparing future citizens in adolescence. For this to work, however, educators need to embrace the philosophical justifications for such a form of education and to confront their own fears and misgivings about doing so. Educators often either fear that giving up control will lead to anarchy and chaos, or that they are somehow violating their professional obligations to "run" schools by allowing students to take some control for the functioning of the classroom or school.
First, there are degrees of doing so. Some programs merely use periodic open discussions of school issues. Others run the school as a complete direct democracy, with one vote per "citizen" whether they be a teacher or a student. Some teachers clearly delineate the domains that are open to student decision-making and those that are not. Indeed, even Kohlberg’s Just Community approach has been successfully implemented in prisons, where limits are clearly placed on the domains that are under inmate control (e.g., inmates cannot vote themselves parole).
Secondly, when students are given control of their schools they are less likely to be alienated from them and therefore more likely to take responsibility for them. When one has a say in forming legislation, then one is more likely to respect and obey that legislation. Hence schools with democratic aspects do not become anarchies, just as democratic nations do not become anarchies.
Building Democratic Character
This fourth and final piece of the puzzle is the most complex. This is partly so because it invokes all of the complexities and controversies in the field of character education. Some experts differentiate between moral character and non-moral character; others do not. Some view character as holistic and others see it as a list of disparate traits. Some believe that character is formed before school begins (in the family); others believe school can be a significant force in shaping character. Most disagree as to what comprises character. And most disagree to some degree as to how to foster character development, however it is defined. Therefore it is important to understand that what will be argued here is decidedly biased. It is this author’s perspective on character education and its relation to EFD.
There is little doubt, either today or at the very roots of democracy, that the character of a nation’s citizens will determine the nature of its democracy. We have already described some of the character traits that experts have identified as central to democratic functioning. Patricia White cited hope and confidence, courage, self-respect and self-esteem, friendship, trust, honesty, and decency. The Josephson Institute of Ethics elaborates its sixth "pillar of character" civic virtue and citizenship as comprised of six elements: recognition of and living up to social obligations; participation in democratic process; law abidance; protection of the environment; community service; doing one’s share. However one defines the character components of democratic citizenship, it is clear that EFD must consider how to foster those aspects of character.
Character educators are unfortunately in great disagreement as to how to foster character development in schools. Some rely on teaching and lecturing. Others rely on active experimentation. Some use specific curricula, others do not. Some alter the governance structure of traditional schools. Etc. We will argue here, from an admittedly biased perspective, that (1) character is a complex set of psychological attributes and (2) character education requires a pervasive and differentiated set of educational initiatives.
Elsewhere I have described a model of character that I refer to as the "moral anatomy." Essentially it argues that there are seven interrelated parts of the moral person (person with moral character): moral behavior; moral values; moral personality; moral reasoning; moral affect; moral identity; meta-moral characteristics. I will not elaborate on this model here but invoke it simply to reinforce the idea that being a good person is not a unitary phenomenon and certainly not a simple one.
This leads to my second point, that character education is complex and multi-faceted. Promoting moral reasoning requires educational components that challenge one’s existing moral reasoning capacities. Such components may be the periodic classroom discussion of moral problems or the experience of having to collectively solve real problems in the classroom, school, or community. Promoting moral values relies more heavily on role-modeling and reinforcement as well as guided introspection. Nurturing moral behavior relies on role-modeling and learning, but is also derivative of all the other components of the moral anatomy; i.e., a student with moral values, personality, reason, etc. is more likely to engage in moral behavior.
There are two possible approaches to designing character education for democratic functioning. The first is generic. Simply implement a successful character education program and assume that good character will support democratic functioning. The second is targeted. Identify those character attributes that are considered essential to democratic functioning and implement an intervention designed specifically to promote their development. It may seem at face value that the "targeted" option is decidedly preferable; however, there are three reasons for the preferability of the "generic" option. First, there is disagreement on what comprises specifically democratic character as can be seen from the examples offered above. Second, the "science" of character education is too new to be able to validly identify which character education components produce which character development outcomes; thus greatly reducing the likelihood of accurate "targeting." Third, many of the character traits associated with democratic functioning tend to be outcomes of many generic character education initiatives. For example, the Child Development Project, frequently cited as a model CE program, reports increased spontaneous prosocial behavior, democratic values, and social competence in students, all of which are identified by others as aspects of democratic character.
What then is generic character education? I will describe six facets of CE. First it relies on the climate of the school. Recent studies of the Child Development Project suggest that schools where the perception of a sense of community in the school increases are also schools that promote social competency, critical thinking, democratic values, prosocial motivation, and reduced violence and substance use. Kohlberg argued for the formation of communities of justice and caring in schools. At the minimum, how people treat each other in the school is critical to the effectiveness of character education. This clearly includes how students treat each other and how teachers treat students, but also must include how teachers treat each other, how other staff and administrators treat each other and how they treat teachers and students, etc.
This leads naturally to a second dimension of effective character education; i.e., role modeling. Educators cannot effectively promote character if they do not practice what they preach. Just as a parent will not effectively reduce their child’s aggressive behavior if they spank the child while chastising them for hurting another child or if they get in fights with other adults, a teacher will not instill good character if they do not themselves manifest good character. A dishonest teacher will not effectively promote honesty in students, for example. Also, identifying other role models in the local community is a popular addendum to character education programs (e.g., the Giraffe program).
Students also need to develop the capacity for ethical reflection and analysis. They need to develop mature moral reasoning capacities. Furthermore, it is difficult to enter into and contribute to civic debate in a democracy without such capacities. It has been well-demonstrated that guided peer discussions of moral issues and problems and participation in democratic governance promote the development of such capacities.
Exposure to moral ideas and examples is also central. Formal curricula are often very useful here, and are often targeted to specific character outcomes; e.g., courage, honesty, responsible sexuality, etc. Even where such curricula are not available, however, the traditional curriculum is rife with adaptable examples. Every history or social studies or civics curriculum is full of examples of desirable and undesirable character traits. Literature is also a rich source of such examples. Teachers can readily develop their own curricula from such existing sources.
Because parents are the primary influences on the development of character, it is important to include them in any comprehensive character education initiative. The Child Development Project has found it valuable to include families in the curriculum. They have developed extensive curricula to be taken home and completed with family members. As noted earlier, parents may in a newly democratized nation may not have the inclinations and/or skills to aid in EFD. Then training of parents may be necessary before including them in the EFD initiative.
Just as practice at democracy is critical for EFD, practice at being moral is critical for CE. In the US, a currently very popular form of this is service learning, which although quite variable in implementation, is basically using community service as a means of learning about educational content. For example, if students are studying environmental conservation in science class, then a service learning component would be to have them either join an existing conservation initiative in the local community or start their own initiative aimed at a real existing local environmental problem. Cooperative learning is another form of CE practice. Whereas schools, at least in the US, tend to be very competitive, recent advances in education have tried to promote team learning and small group cooperative projects and classroom exercises. Such activities tend to require cooperation, sharing, altruism, effective communication, etc.
In summary, then, a generic CE initiative would include the following key elements: promotion of a moral atmosphere in the school and/or classroom; role modeling of good character by school members and community members; guided peer discussions of moral issues and/or participation in school or classroom governance; learning about character through the curriculum; inclusion of families, especially parents, in the CE initiative; practical experience in moral behavior. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine each of these in more detail, excellent examples of each are available (see attached bibliography).
Assessing Education for Democracy
Assessment is both one of the historically more neglected and currently more popular topics in CE. The Character Education Partnership has a new task force on assessment which has produced a primer and is currently producing an anthology and review of assessments and instruments. The Bonner Center for Character Education and Citizenship recently convened a Character Education Assessment Forum in Fresno, California. Despite this recent flurry of activities, the state of assessment technology in character education is very underdeveloped. Hence, I will present a general model for assessing EFD after first presenting some general tips on assessing CE.
In A Primer for Evaluating a Character Education Initiative, published by the Character Education Partnership, I introduce 12 questions that one should ask and answer before beginning a character education assessment project. Those questions are:
"Do you really know what program evaluation is?
Are you willing and able to commit the time, energy, and material resources necessary for the evaluation?
Why do you want to evaluate the initiative?
Can you live with disconfirmation?
Who will be the audience for your evaluation results?
Who will do the evaluation?
What do you want to assess?
How long do you expect your initiative to take to have a significant effect on students?
What types of data will you collect?
What types of measurement instruments can you use?
Have you proceeded ethically and prudently?"
In the primer each of these questions is elaborated and discussed in some detail. Clearly, these issues apply as well to other educational initiatives, including non-character aspects of EFD. It is advisable to plan evaluation in advance of an initiative, if possible, and to budget resources for the evaluation. It is also advisable to contract with an outside evaluation expert, again if feasible.
In assessing a specifically EFD initiative, we can return to the four elements discussed already: foundational capacities, knowledge about democracy, practice at democracy, democratic character. Each of these will be assessed somewhat differently, so a sound evaluation will depend in part on which of these four elements are focal aspects of the initiative to be evaluated. I will therefore address each of these elements in turn.
Assessing foundational capacities will depend upon which foundational capacities are targeted. Literacy and verbal skills certainly can be assessed with standardized instruments that are quite prevalent in education. In fact, in many settings, these data are already being collected for other purposes. Social competencies and communication skills may require observation of behavior and coding schemes, but there are some more objective measures available as well. If possible, baseline measures should be taken before the EFD initiative begins and matched comparison groups who do not receive the EFD initiative should be assessed simultaneously. These suggestions apply to each of the other three elements as well, although less centrally to the practice of democracy.
Knowledge about democracy is the simplest element to assess, as it is what educators typically assess; i.e., acquired knowledge and understanding resulting from the educational experience. A recent evaluation of a Boy Scouts of America CE curriculum entitled "Learning for Life" offers an excellent model of assessing the acquisition of CE-based teaching. Similarly, John Minkler of the Bonner Center has outlined a more comprehensive assessment model for EFD that includes suggestions for assessing knowledge about democracy.
A slightly different approach is suggested for assessing practice at democratic functioning. First, this requires both process and outcome evaluation (see the CEP Primer for an introduction to these types of evaluation). Because participation in democratic practices is part of the intervention, it is important to establish whether students actually participated. This may include simple presence during democratic functions (e.g., town meetings, judicial hearings, etc.) which can be accomplished with simple attendance records. Or it may include analyses of the amount of participation at a given function (e.g., how often one spoke during the meeting) which will likely require more demanding analyses of transcripts or other recordings of meetings. These are examples of process evaluation. Outcome evaluation, which we have been discussing predominantly in this paper, looks at the effects of the initiative rather than the implementation of the initiative, as process evaluation does. To assess the outcome of participation, it is likely necessary to evaluate how well one participates rather than how much one participates. This would necessitate either analyses of transcripts or other recordings of democratic functions or analyses of role playing of democratic functions.
The assessment of democratic character is more complex than the other three elements, largely because the aspects of character in general or specifically democratic character more specifically are so controversial and variable. As I stated in the CEP Primer, "it is critical to identify which character components you are trying to address in your initiative so that you can choose the evaluation procedures and instruments that are most relevant to your approach." Ask yourself "If your initiative should prove successful, what effects do you expect it to have?". For instance, one Child Development Project evaluation identified two aspects of each of six outcome domains: school-related (e.g., academic motivation); intellectual (e.g., critical thinking skills); social (e.g., social competence); personal (e.g., self-esteem); ethical (e.g., democratic values); prevention (e.g., reduced drug and alcohol use). Not all of these are aspects of character and certainly not all are relevant to EFD, but they exemplify the need to elaborate reasonably anticipated outcomes of a particular initiative. A more relevant model is offered by John Minkler who identifies six civic values (liberty, justice, social responsibility, respect, trustworthiness, unity) plus civic responsibility as anticipated character outcomes of an EFD initiative. As noted earlier, character can be any or all of the seven parts of the moral anatomy. Hence one may need to measure values, which can be assessed fairly easily with written attitude type scales. Or one may need to observe ethical (or unethical) behavior. Sometimes such behaviors are archival (school records of student infractions, for example) or may need to be assessed directly. If one is interested in moral reasoning, then various written and interview methods are available. Personality scales may be used to measure moral personality, although accuracy of self-reporting may be a problem (for example, in measuring honesty). Obviously, it is prudent to begin with a consideration of what the initiative is likely to affect, and then to find valid ways of assessing those anticipated outcomes.
It should be clear that a useful assessment needs to be well-planned and well-executed. Furthermore, its structure and content will depend upon the resources available as well as the specific nature of the EFD initiative to be assessed.
First Steps: Getting Started
Now that I have introduced the differences and relations between CE and EFD, have described the elements of EFD, and have discussed some aspects of evaluating EFD, it is time to step back for a moment and consider how to get started in designing and implementing an EFD initiative. Admittedly, this discussion will be general, because it is always best to work with a consultant to customize your initiative to fit your context. Nonetheless, some general suggestions may be helpful for those beginning or considering such an initiative.
Step 1: Identify Resources
I want to reiterate what I just stated; i.e., optimally one would work with a consultant (1) whose expertise is in EFD and (2) whose orientation is to customize the initiative’s design to fit your needs, wishes, and circumstances. This may not always be possible, due to financial or other constraints, but where it is possible, it is highly recommended. Such a consultant can assist you in identifying your goals, both in terms of structure or process and in terms of specific outcomes. The consultant can help you avoid common mistakes and therefore increase accuracy and efficiency. Etc. You may wish to wait upon hiring a consultant until after Step 2. However, there are additional resources that should be identified before embarking on implementation. The ease of finding such resources electronically is particularly helpful in places that don’t have direct access to expertise. A few such World Wide Web sites are listed in the bibliography. Financial resources, staff, etc. are other types of resources that should be in place early in the process.
Step 2: Collaborate
Identify the stake-holders in the endeavor. For an EFD initiative they certainly include the educators, students, and parents of those students, but likely they also include community leaders, clergy, politicians, business owners, and others in the local community. Then invite them to be partners in the conceptualization, justification, and design of the initiative. This serves multiple purposes. It tends to prevent opposition by sharing control. It brings in multiple perspectives. It creates a pool of potential advocates and collaborators. Perhaps most importantly, it is democratic. It would not only be counterproductive but also hypocritical to create an EFD program through authoritarian means. Proceeding democratically models democracy and reinforces the justification for the initiative in the first place. This strategy should not apply merely at the planning phase. It should continue during implementation and assessment as well. For example, when training staff, other stakeholders as well as staff and administrators should be involved, whether in planning the training or actually participating in the training.
Step 3: Dream...Realistically
Think big but be realistic. Now this may sound like an impossibility or a contradiction. Not necessarily. If one truly wants to produce good citizens, then a trivial intervention is likely to produce trivial results. Shaping people is not readily or superficially accomplished. Too many CE and EFD initiatives aim to change a few attitudes, for example, through a half dozen or a dozen 45 minute lessons. This is unlikely to make a great impact either on those students or on their republic. However, one should not design an initiative on such a grand scale that it becomes unrealistic and impractical. It must be implementable in the real world, for which it is intended.
Step 4: Enlist Support
Be sure to enlist the support of key players. Begin with the school administrator (headmaster, head teacher, principal, etc.). This is a critical piece. If the school administrator is skeptical about the initiative or simply does not understand the justification and philosophy of EFD, then the implementation is either unlikely to ever occur or likely to fail when attempted. Again, the enlistment of the school administrator should actually be part of Step 2. But the enlistment of support of others may be delayed until now. However, their representatives are likely already part of the collaborative planning team; e.g., a few teachers or parents may be on the planning team, but the rest of the teachers and parents may not be approached until this fourth step. Keep in mind that the sequencing of these steps is fairly flexible.
Step 5: Plan, Plan, and then Plan Some More
Plan well. Think out your conceptualization, your goals, your rationale, your design, your resources, your time and task plan, etc. before beginning. This should continue the collaborative democratic process you have already begun. Be sure to include your assessment plans in this process, as they will likely affect the nature of the implementation. Action research models, which are now being advocated by many CE experts, include continuous feedback loops between implementation and assessment, for example (see discussion in the CEP Primer).
Step 6: Training
Be sure to include appropriate and adequate training. Preferably all stakeholders, or at least their representatives, should participate in training when and where it is feasible and appropriate. Often, CE and EFD initiatives fail because the staff do not have the skills and knowledge required for competent implementation. Training may simply be a matter of introduction and orientation to the initiative, but more likely will include some skill-building. A consultant again may be invaluable in either providing training or identifying training resources. Training may be sequential and varied for different groups. It is frequently advisable to train school administrators first as part of Step 4 or even Step 2 to enlist their enthusiastic and informed support. The actual implementing staff need not be trained until Step 6 however.
In summary, be sure to identify resources and build consensus among stakeholders early in the planning process. If a consultant or consultants can be identified and enlisted, that too should occur early in the process. Make sure the planning is collaborative and democratic. Then be sure to plan well, think big but realistically, and train participants as necessary.
Conclusion
I have argued that EFD is necessary for creating or nurturing a democratic society. EFD has four elements (instilling foundational capacities, teaching knowledge about democracy, providing opportunities for practice at democracy, developing democratic character) and is closely related to character education, but is not identical with it. Furthermore, I have highlighted the complexity of both EFD and CE and argued for a multi-faceted approach to each, including planned and scientific assessments of both the process of EFD and its expected outcomes. Finally, I have offered a preliminary model of six steps in attempting to begin an EFD initiative. My comments are meant merely to start a dialogue and suggest some points of discussion. Each situation is partially unique and requires customization of the general comments I have offered here. Nonetheless, whatever form EFD takes, it remains a critical cornerstone of a democratic society. In the words of John Dewey
A society which makes provision for participation in its good of all its members on equal terms...is in so far democratic. Such a society must have a type of education which gives individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure social changes without introducing disorder.
Such a form of education is democratic in nature. Its mandate is clear, but the path toward implementation is poorly marked and riddled with obstacles... as is the path toward a democratic society.
Bibliography and Resources
Educating for Democracy
Benninga, J.S. (Ed.) (1991). Moral, character, and civic education in the elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Berman, S. (1997). Children’s social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. New York: State University of New York Press.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Mosher, R., Kenny Jr., R.A., & Garrod, A. (1994). Preparing for citizenship: Teaching youth to live democratically. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Puig Rovira, J.M., & Martinez Martin, M. (1989). Educacion moral y Democracia. Barcelona, Spain: Laertes.
Sehr, D.T. (1997). Education for public democracy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, P. (1996). Civic virtues and public schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
Character Education and Development
Berkowitz, M.W. (1995). The education of the complete moral person. Aberdeen, Scotland: Gordon Cook Foundation.
Canon, C., & Alvarez, B. (Eds.)(1985). El Sentido de lo Humano: Valores, Psicologia y Educacion. Bogota, Colombia: Editorial Gazeta.
DeRoche, E.F., & Williams, M.M. (1998). Educating hearts and minds: A comprehensive character education framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.
Power, F.C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Assessing EFD and CE
Berkowitz, M.W. (1998). A primer for evaluating a character education initiative. Washington, D.C.: Character Education Partnership.
Developmental Studies Center (1998). The Child Development Project: Summary of the project findings from three evaluation studies. Oakland, CA: Developmental Studies Center.
Leming, J.S. (1993). In search of effective character education. Educational Leadership, 51, 63-71.
Minkler, J. (1998). Civic responsibility assessment. Invited address to the Character Education Assessment Forum, Fresno CA.
Reference for Quotations (not already cited in bibliography)
Beckerman, M., & O’Rourke, T.G. (1996). Democracy is a democracy does: Citizenship Education Clearinghouse at UM-St.Louis. Missouri ASCD Journal, 6, 25-29.
McWilliams, W.C. (1980). Democracy and the citizen: Community, dignity, and the crisis of contemporary politics in America. In R.A. Goldwin & W.A. Schambra (Eds.), How democratic is the Constitution? (pp. 79-101). Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.