In the previous chapter we looked at the theory of emotional intelligence and heard from one of the key voices and writers on this topic, Daniel Goleman. In the video interview he said:
“I think everyone should care about this (social and emotional learning) – not just people who are parents. So, its not just, ‘I want this for my kid;’ I want this for my community because I want to be safe walking down the streets. I want my friends and neighbors to be safe. One of the strongest effects of this is that it heads off criminal careers. It helps kids who might otherwise go down the wrong alley be able to manage their impulse, manage their anger, tune in to other people, and get along better. And I think it just makes the world a better place for all of us” (Edutopia.org interview).
First, there are implicit assumptions in this statement about the nature of human beings and how our paths in life are biologically wired or determined given how the brain is developed through education and surrounding structures. Second, when Goleman talks about how social and emotional learning “changes the brain” and can impact how we exist in this world and relate to others, he is essentially talking about what’s been referred to as “character education” – another key term used by schools across the country.
These assumptions and terms can raise healthy debates about human nature and the kinds of values and characteristics that should be a part of “character education.” In other words, are we born wired to be violent and hence social and emotional learning is a way to alter those natural impulses? What values and characteristics do schools want to encourage their students to develop and practice? How educators answer these questions will determine how character education programs and initiatives are actually implemented.
Read the article, How Not to Teach Values: A Critical Look at Character Education by educational theorist and scholar, Alfie Kohn. In it he explores some of the debates and disagreements mentioned above. In addition, he argues that what is called “character education” in schools can oftentimes be implemented in damaging ways that run counter to the actual goal of helping kids become “good people.”
“Unhappily, the problems with character education (in the narrow sense, which is how I’ll be using the term unless otherwise indicated) are not restricted to such strategies as enforcing sartorial uniformity, scheduling a value of the week, or offering students a “doggie biscuit” for being good. More deeply troubling are the fundamental assumptions, both explicit and implicit, that inform character education programs. Let us consider five basic questions that might be asked of any such program: At what level are problems addressed? What is the underlying theory of human nature? What is the ultimate goal? Which values are promoted? And finally, How is learning thought to take place?” (Khon)
Reflection Question: How can you as an educator teach and promote values without implementing a specific “character education” program? Provide one specific value (Kohn mentions several in his essay, some which he sees as beneficial and others not) and one specific example of a pedagogical decision you would make to promote, teach, or model that value.
- Khon, Alfie. Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 10th Anniversary edition: August 1, 2006.
- Khon, Aflie. The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life. Basic Books: May 21, 1992.