Rick Hartwell is a retired middle school teacher (remember the hormonally-challenged?) living in Southern California. He believes in the succinct, that the small becomes large; and, like the Transcendentalists and William Blake, that the instant contains eternity. Given his “druthers,” if he’s not writing, Rick would rather still be tailing plywood in a mill in Oregon. He can be reached at rdhartwell@gmail.com. 

                 Writing at the Museum: Creating a Class of Humanists  In an                                    Environment of Extended Writing by Rick Hartwell 

Is art necessary in the twenty-first century? At first this assignment may seem to be merely another persuasive essay provided in partial compliance with California’s English language arts content standards and disconnected from the students’ real lives. It is, rather, the terminal activity in a series of lectures, a field trip, discussions, two essays, an oral presentation, and two more essays, all of which comprise a cohesive unit that extends over approximately eight weeks. This is the culminating writing prompt provided to fifty-eight seventh grade students and their three peer tutors in the AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) sections at a Middle School in Moreno Valley, California. As with other valuable educational units, it is a work in progress, evolved over time (in this case, four years) from ideas provided by others, merged with one particular instructor’s interests, and manipulated each time to accommodate the group personality of each class.

 
I am primarily a language arts teacher; however, for these students my role is that of an AVID elective teacher and program coordinator. For these students my goal is to provide additional support in the academic areas in which they may be deficient, most often reading and writing, and to create opportunities for them to acquire and practice organizational skills, time management, and group cohesion, and to do it all while fostering an interest in higher education. Toward these ends, the AVID program and I focus on writing, inquiry, collaboration, and reading (the WICR elements of AVID). The writing at the museum unit includes all of these strategies and is very successful in motivating students to strive for better writing, to use higher level analytical thinking, to practice greater confidence in their own abilities, and to take an interest in unique areas of culture they might not otherwise encounter.

 

As to whether or not the students enjoy the unit, I can only note that the eighth graders who had participated the previous year as seventh graders, still looked forward to the field trip even knowing of the writing and presentation demands. Three students had even attended the museum on their own with their parents or guardians during the ensuing year. Several other students who had kept their essays from the prior year asked if they could use various parts of those essays for the current year’s prompts. (What a college concept; to hold onto previous academic work in order to apply it later!) But these are my biases; perhaps I should let the students’ words speak for them:

 
On the visit to the Palm Springs Desert Museum I really liked the artwork that was in there. It was very creative and it made me feel very cool and inspired. I really enjoyed looking at it –
                       
            Yasmin, 7th grade.
 
 
This was my first visit to an art museum. Prior to this visit I had never before had the opportunity to view and to judge art pieces in this manner. I learned that there are many forms of art, ranging from ancient artifacts to modern day art displays. As I walked through the museum I came across all sorts of wonderful and creative art pieces –
 
            Barbara, 7th grade.
 
 
As I come to an end I say, “Breathing Glass” has inspired me. It makes me want to be adventurous. I think “Breathing Glass” expresses everyday life and says no matter what you must try [and] never give up, work you[r] way. Life will never be easy deal with it –
 
            Aaron, 8th grade.
 
 
This art museum was the most beautiful place of art I have ever been to. It was filled with many pieces of art from famous artists. Some kinds of art that was [sic] there were sculptures, blown glasses, and many paintings –
 
            Randy, 8th grade.
 
 
Last year I wrote about this couple. I enjoy writing and love writing about things I like. That’s why I wrote about “The Old Couple on the Bench.” When I write, I usually write about things that I like and this art was it. It was so realistic! I hope I see more like it soon –
 
            Vanessa, 8th grade.
 
 
With the expansion of the AVID program at our school this year we were only able to accommodate the seventh grade sections; resulting in great disappointment among those eighth-graders who had participated last year, another reflection of the success of this approach.

 

As I tell my students, approbation deserves attribution. This unit evolved as an extension of a “Writing at the Museum” Writing Retreat opportunity provided through the Inland Area Writing Project (IAWP), a University of California, Riverside, affiliate of the National Writing Project (NWP). Tremendous thanks also must be provided to the Palm Springs Desert Museum and its Education Coordinator.

 

The museum provides writing tours as part of its educational outreach. Students are provided with clipboards and pencils and are conducted through the museum holdings for about an hour and a half by very knowledgeable docents. Stopping before pre-selected artworks for five to ten minutes, the docents present ten to twelve diverse pieces of art to each group of about fifteen students, providing background and context for a deeper understanding of both artists and art. My AVID students are required to take Cornell Notes for use later and are instructed to capture not only factual data, but their emotional reactions to the objects as well. Requests for a specific artistic focus can often be honored by the museum and, with prior arrangement and subject to availability, a facility for debriefing may also be provided. The Palm Springs Desert Museum charges absolutely nothing for this experience! The only cost for the school has been for bus transportation and this has been enthusiastically borne by my Principal. We are extraordinarily fortunate to have the PSDM within an hour’s drive, but I believe that the structure, techniques, and content of this educational opportunity could be provided through almost any museum: cultural, technical, industrial, interactive, or virtual, and there are many virtual museum tours available on the internet.

 

In order to prepare the students for the field trip and to provide them with the academic background and vocabulary necessary to discuss art, I ask a close friend of mine to conduct a class about one week before the trip. This retired middle school teacher uses a series of both black and white and color overheads to encourage student discussion of and response to art. The selections she provides change from year to year to maintain freshness for those students who have seen the presentation before, but for the eighth grade class she often makes reference to the previous year’s art and builds on those students prior knowledge. This is not always a smooth process, often acutely so for those students with limited or no background in art or art appreciation. This difficulty serves to underscore the need for more student exposure to the breadth of humanities, particularly in the earlier grades, and is one of the most compelling reasons for implementing a unit such as this in order to merge the humanities with the content standards. In brief, the following points are made:

 
I. Formal Elements of Art:
            A. Medium - the types and use of specific materials.
            B. Color - the distinction and use of warm or cool.
            C. Shape - the basics of geometry and the use of
                        soft or hard objects.
            D. Line - the quality of line and the use of
                        curved or jagged types.
            E. Texture - the presentation of depth and
                        the use of smooth or rough surfaces.
II. Content:
            A. Subject matter.
            B. Significance of subject.
            C. Use of symbols.
            D. Creation of mood.
            E. Purpose of the artwork.
III. Personal Response - What Is Your Reaction:
            A. Likes or dislikes? Specifically what?
            B. Powerful or boring? Can you analyze the why?
            C. What does it make you think of? Be specific?
            D. Would you like it in your home? Why or why not?
            E. Could you live with it always? Why or why not?
 

 To these could be added many other elements depending on the age and sophistication of the students: lighting and light source, both internal to the art and external; visual perspective and depiction of perspective; the artist’s reliance on common symbolism or allegory; cultural similarities and differences. As I noted earlier, this unit is itself a work in progress and I keep adding new ideas.​

​The students take Cornell Notes during Ms. Brown’s presentation that provide the background for analyses of specific works of art encountered at the museum. Adjustments to these requirements could be made for alternative types of museums. The students need to be encouraged to refer back to these notes periodically in order to avoid the adolescent pitfalls of the “I like it because I like it” or “I don’t like it because it is boring” type of response. I am very indebted to Cora Lee and I extend my thanks publicly. I also have the students thank her, not just with applause, but by writing short thank-you notes which I send to her. These notes usually take the form an eight-page mini-book created from a sheet of blank printer paper and then embellished with drawings and text. Elementary teachers will immediately know what I mean; others may have to ask their colleagues for instructions. This may seem like a “throwaway” element of the process, but I feel very strongly that this simple note is very much a part of real writing - not to mention a social skill that is fast eroding in our society - even though it does not appear in the content standards for the grades I teach. Later in the unit I have the students write thank-you notes to the docent who conducted their particular group, which I mail to the museum for delivery, and I have them write a more formal thank-you card, which I usually buy out of my own pocket, to their group chaperone. As the chaperones are usually parents or guardians, I have their student deliver these cards personally.

 
So what are the specific formal writing requirements I demand of the students? Over the several weeks following the field trip the students respond to the following prompts:

I. Create a poem, a narrative story, or an extended figure of speech in prose, expressive of your emotional response to one of the pieces of art you encountered at the museum -
                        Descriptive or Narrative or Poetry.
 
II. In essay form, using the elements of art and art vocabulary which you have recently learned, support your position that ________________ is the most (or least) artistic work you encountered at the museum -
                        Expository.
 
III. Compare and contrast two dissimilar works of art which you encountered at the museum, one you liked greatly and one you did not, using the elements of art and art vocabulary which you have recently learned -
                        Comparison and Contrast.
 
IV. Respond in essay form to the question, “Is Art Necessary in the Twenty-First Century?” defending your position with specific details and thoughtful analysis -
                        Persuasive.
 
 
These include descriptive, narrative, possible poetic, expository, comparison/contrast, and persuasive formats. Using writing structures provided in both the Step-Up-To-Writing (Sopris West Educational Services) and the 6+1 Trait Writing (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory) programs, I model each approach with the students by writing with them and then allow them a great deal of collaboration with one another. Writing need not be, perhaps should not be, a solitary practice; community works best. I write with them, in front of them, and I post my completed poetry or essay on the board. This is not for bragging rights, but for them to see that I value writing enough to be involved myself and that completed writing should be published.

 

            Are the students able to articulate their feelings towards art and announce them to the world? Absolutely! Note some of their comments:

 
There are many sculptures and paintings added to the museum that I enjoyed seeing. What did you like the most? My favorite sculpture was the sculpture that is called the “Breathing Glass.” A woman named Sandy Skoglund constructed this. This is a magnificent piece or art and I will tell you why –
 
            Julie, Grade 8.
 
 
But there was only one I really enjoyed viewing which (sic) was, “The Welcoming Storm,” by David Shepard. I believe that piece of artwork was the most artistic to me. . . . One thing I was intrigued by was how it made me feel. When I looked at “The Welcoming Storm” I felt like I was in my own little world of freedom and desire, although the painting looked rather fierce -           
           
            Victoria, 8th grade.
 
 
He [Max Biel, the artist] could have been saying that the gaps, or negative space was in our world because our countries aren’t all getting along. The purpose could have been anything. The “Positive/Negative” sculpture could have been something to express what he was feeling inside. I think that the purpose of the artwork was something that he was feeling in his life. The negative space (or gaps) could have meant that he had made mistakes in his life and has to fill in the gaps, and the positive space could have meant that he had fixed parts of his life –
 
            Sandra, 8th grade.
 
 
I think that I would very much love to have such a beautiful piece of art in my house. Just having a famous painting of the wild in my home would be an honor. “The Pride” isn’t one of those other paintings in my home where I would get so bored with seeing everyday. To me, I would love to wake up every morning and see that painting hung up on a wall in my home –
 
            Melissa, 8th grade.
 
 
But these students are not just academically oriented. They also can be creative and have fun. The following were submitted in response to the first writing assignment:

                       
                        “The End of Day”
 
“The End of Day” goes on and on from bottom to top
It would never stop
With every color of glass blown up
They look like ballons [sic] all twisted up
They look like a rainbow with sharp points
                                    . . .
“The End of Day” goes on and on from bottom to top
It has diffrent [sic] colors and shapes
It is so beautiful you wish it were day
Life is full of so many colors
Just like “The End of Day” –
 
            Bernice, 8th grade.
 
 
                        “The Cabinet on the Stand”
 
“The Cabinet on the Stand” looks so vivid, so alive
I can still picture it, it’s fresh in my mind
Some people might think it’s dull and boring
But I think it has something special
Something that won’t leave you snoring
Could it be the bright, firm, or golden engravings?
Or the soft, adorned people slaving?
Could it be the mysterious, ancient key lock?
Or the soft, gentle, whispering of the painted people talk?
Or could it be the still, steady, golden homes?
Or the soft, gentle rocking of the golden river stones?
The cabinet is special and unique in its own way
It has something special that I cannot say –
 
            Natasha, 7th grade.
 
 
                        “The Pump House”
 
The sound of men working around,
All of them making a harsh sound,
            “The Pump House”
The rushing of the water running,
Just to look at the art is stunning,
            “The Pump House”
 
The sounds of “The Pump House,”
Sounds just like the sqeual [sic] of a hungry mouse,
            “The Pump House”
The water running in and out,
Makes the children write about,
            “The Pump House”
 
The sight of the pump going up and down
Making a sqeuaky [sic] sound,
            “The Pump House”
 
It feels like a sandy shore,
Also like a wooden door,
            “The Pump House”
 
It smells like the ocean,
A fresher smell after every motion
            “The Pump House” –
 
            Julie, 8th grade.
 
 
 
“Old Couple on the Bench”
 
Sitting here and waiting
Sitting here with you
Sitting here and waiting
Wondering what to do
 
So quickly my life has passed me by
Soon will be my time to die
And leave this world that I love so much
And all the hearts that I hoped to touch
 
Sitting here and waiting
Sitting here with you
Sitting here and waiting
Wondering what to do
 
The past has gone, gone away
The future is here, here to stay
So enjoy the world while you can
Just don’t forget to plan, plan, plan –
 
                        Vanessa, 8th grade.

You just have to love it when a plan comes together, or when a student seems to get the point!
 Last year I added the fourth prompt, Is art necessary in the twenty-first century? and then realized that I needed to break up the demands of such continuous writing. In one of those inspirational moments of reflection, I decided that I should have the students make an oral presentation between the second and third essays. During a class discussion about “The Pump House,” a construction art piece created by Michael McMillen, I had commented that I was particularly taken by the artist’s rhythmical use of flushing water and that that sound could be considered an element of art too. I was very quickly confronted by, “Isn’t music a form of art Mr. Hartwell?” Well, ah, yes! Out of the mouths of . . . In any event, it was a simple process to add the following as a Musical Interpretation of Art, again in partial compliance with California’s English language arts content standards in the area of oral communication skills:
 The Learner Will (TLW) select a piece of music representing a specific piece of art encountered at the Palm Springs Desert Museum. The music selection will be played in class, cassette or CD, and will not exceed one minute in duration. TLW then orally “defend” their musical selection in a three-minute “speech.” Note cards may be used. This is an oral presentation skill required by the California English Language Arts Standards at both 7th and 8th grade. Remember, your objective is to establish and defend a specific musical selection as representative of a specific work of art. You will receive a rubric grade based on oral presentation skills - poise, posture, eye contact, voice volume, voice control, timing, audience reaction - as well as on your critical analysis of the music and the art selected.
 These oral presentations were then assessed on a four-point rubric system, much as is each essay, and the several days of presentations provided a much appreciated break in the heavy routine of writing. The diversity of musical selections was amazing and there were only two duplicate selections, The Flight of the Bumblebee and some Britney Spears’ thing I’m much too old to know. We even had a musical interpretation provided by one of our school counselors who was a chaperone on the field trip and she received a “four” and my thanks again for modeling for the students, and one presented by the mother of one of the seventh grade students. Mom received resounding applause, but I did not presume to critique her! This year I will be much more proactive and I will videotape these student presentations for later class analysis and critique, adding that element to the unit as well.
 It was about at this point last year, that I realized I was smothering under a rising mound of rubric scoring and badly needed to breathe more easily. My simple expedient, again adopted from others and adapted to my own needs, was to have those very students who had received rubric scores of four on both of the first two writing prompts to act as responders and reviewers for the essays from the third prompt. I then added the most successful students from the third essay and this augmented group, now about one-third in each of the two sections, responded to and reviewed the fourth essay.
 Was everything smooth? Of course not! Were all students engaged fully? Oh, that I could find that magic fount in which to baptize them all as willing participants; no, not all, never all! However, the vast majority did improve. They improved in writing, in class participation, in collaboration with their peers, in practicing social skills, and, I believe, in their aesthetic appreciation of art. As a teacher, what did I get out of it? The students practiced note-taking and listening skills. They, or the majority of them anyway, wrote four essays and three thank you notes. They created and delivered an oral presentation. They disagreed and agreed and argued and defended and discussed at great length their preferred selections of art. I believe this to be valuable practice in oral presentation skills. I think they appreciate better the concept of museums. I think they had fun; what a concept! I also haven’t heard the word boring in quite some time and, while eradicating that word from student vocabularies is not my only goal as an educator, it is certainly a good point at which to start. However, I think the students should have the last word:
 To end this I would love to say that this sculpture really inspired me because it for some reason told me that I can do whatever I believe in and to do that I have to work hard and enjoy being a kid at the same time - Ashawnte, 8th grade.
  This art piece was a true inspiration for me to accomplish my goals. In the future I would like to be an inspiration to other people. I am going to work hard so that I may be a hero to someone in the future. I am looking forward to visiting many more museums in my lifetime -  Barbara, 7th grade.
 I used to think an art museum was boring, but this is pretty  cool - Anton, 7th grade

Rick Hartwell is a retired middle school teacher (remember the hormonally-challenged?) living in Southern California. He believes in the succinct, that the small becomes large; and, like the Transcendentalists and William Blake, that the instant contains eternity. Given his “druthers,” if he’s not writing, Rick would rather still be tailing plywood in a mill in Oregon. He can be reached at rdhartwell@gmail.com. 

           
            Public Instruction of Values Education and Character Training
                                            by Rick Hartwell

 
Throughout history the instruction of the younger generations has encompassed the transmission of societal values and the development of acceptable character traits. Such instruction was often, but not exclusively, met within the confines of the family structure and reinforced through the habitudes and prohibitions of the supported, or perhaps merely tolerated, prevalent religious orthodoxy. While societal groupings were small or isolated, the transmission of values and character was processed merely through the multiple iterations of what was socially viable. Aberrations from the norm, beyond the limits of idiosyncrasy, were not acceptable and were dealt with rapidly and thoroughly. Methods of correction - punishment, ostracism, and death - were readily available.

 
As societal groupings expanded and encountered others with differing values and identifiable character traits, conflicts inevitably arose. Some ended in the annihilation of one group by another. Some ended in absorption of one group within another. And some ended in accommodation, each group either tolerant of or compromising with the other. This latter resolution would have created an environment in which the allowance for and recognition of the values and character of the first group had to be accounted for by the second group, while it yet retained and transmitted to its next generation the societal values and character traits of its own. Both groups were caught in this dilemma and both groups would have institutionalized the transmission of their cherished values and character. This interaction would have been compounded by and speeded up as subsequent social groups were encountered.

As with the institutionalization of the rites of birth, coming-of-age, marriage, and death, the institutionalization of educating the young was assumed first by the family. Then it fell to the social group of greatest allegiance, often supported by local religious affiliation and orthodoxy, and finally to the society as a whole. This more generalized, institutionalized form of education worked well for the transmission of basic skills useful to the individual within society: husbandry, agriculture, crafts, fine arts, and, eventually, the skills of the literate. There were, however, the seeds of dissent planted within this concept when it came to instructing, or even modeling, social values and character traits.

Those individuals providing the instruction, no longer family members or even necessarily members of the same religious persuasion or cultural group, were participants in and practitioners of their own values systems and character development. The audiences before them were the impressionable young from diverse social and cultural groups. As teachers, as models, the individuals providing instruction inevitable opened the doors of alternative beliefs and values. Youth, and rebelliousness, were served. Constraints were imposed and as more formalized procedures were established for investing in individuals the right to teach, the obligations of what to teach and not to teach began to be standardized.
 
There have always been educational dissenters. Socrates was certainly one. He openly defied the social norm of early Athenian society; however highly he may be esteemed today, he paid the ultimate price for trespassing the boundaries of values education within his own time and place. A similar case could be made for many other figures of historical note: Galileo, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln. Their arenas of conflict may have been science, religion, and politics, respectively, but their weapons were actually the transmission of values education and character. The reader is free to nominate others to this pantheon of values educators. Nisbett notes that, “There has been surprisingly little research on those beliefs and theories shared by the mass of people in our culture” (1980, 30). A thorough analysis of these historical watershed events in light of shared versus divergent cultural values, would be most illuminating.

In a recent issue of NEA Today: The magazine of the National Education Association (NEA), the organization’s President, Bob Chase (2001), remarks, “I am always taken aback when I hear folks say that our schools should return to teaching values. We never stopped teaching values. We teach them explicitly, and more important, we model values. Everything we do and say in front of our students is a values statement” (5). The teaching of values always has been, and remains, an integral part of the formal classroom experience.

The foregoing may appear to have been a lengthy digression, and in looking back it is certainly longer than originally intended. However, it was necessary to establish the historical basis of the conflict in teaching values in the public arena. The problem remains, of course, as to whose values shall be taught and of what shall they consist? These are the issues most recently discussed in the professional literature, being argued in the public forum and from the pulpit, and being dealt with daily by the classroom practitioner.

In his 1991 work, Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility, Thomas Lickona notes:

Schools wishing to do values education . . . need to be confident that: (1) there are objectively worthwhile, universally agreed-upon values that schools can and should teach in a pluralistic society; and (2) schools should not only expose students to these values but also help them to understand, internalize, and act upon such values (38).

As to exactly what constitutes these values, Lickona cites the “two great moral values: Respect and Responsibility . . . the core of the public morality . . . the fourth and fifth R’s” (43), and in Appendix A to the book allows that there are a multitude of others, among which are honesty, fairness, tolerance, prudence, self-discipline, helpfulness, compassion, cooperation, courage, justice, integrity, courtesy, hard work, self-worth, and “a host of democratic values” (421-422) from which the teacher “must still work up their own list - starting with respect and responsibility” (47). While not the only cataloger of values, Lickona’s list holds up well as a focal point for future reference.

In his chapter, “Making character work,” in An integrated approach to character education, edited by Rusnak in 1998, Switala lists: honesty, trustworthiness, punctuality, cooperation, respect, and responsibility (11). In the same edition, Barbour’s chapter, More than a good lesson plan, lists: honesty, trust, cooperation, respect, responsibility, hope, determination, and loyalty (70). In Emotional Intelligence, 1995, Goleman lists the “components of interpersonal intelligence” pursued by Hatch and Gardner in 1990: “Organizing groups - essential skill of the leader”; “Negotiating solutions - talent of the mediator”; “Personal connection - empathy and connecting”; and, “Social analysis - to detect and have insights about people’s feelings, motives, and concerns” (118). Although phrased much differently than those on Lickona’s list, these, too, constitute vales education.

Beane lists the values reviewed by the 1983 Task force on values education and ethical behavior and, although lengthy, there is reason to cite them fully: compassion, courtesy, critical inquiry, due process, equality of opportunity, freedom of thought and action, honesty, human worth and dignity, integrity, justice, knowledge, loyalty, objectivity, order, patriotism, rational consent, reasoned argument, respect for others’ rights, responsibility, responsible citizenship, rule of law, self-respect, tolerance, and truth (1990, 174-175). Note that these are listed alphabetically, not by any assignment of priority. In Values in education: Notes toward a values philosophy, Lerner suggests clusters of human needs, viewed as dualities and not hierarchically as with Maslow. Lerner juxtaposes the need for growth with the need for security, the need for selfhood or identity with the need for belonging, the need for meaning with the need for feeling and interaction, and, finally, the need for believing [in the future] (1976, 30-35, emphases added).

There are several previous studies that laid a foundation for compiling such lists. Hutchins’ 1917 research of “The Children’s Morality Code,” cited by Leming, emphasizes: self-control, good health, kindness, sportsmanship, self-reliance, duty, reliability, truth, good workmanship, and teamwork (1993, 1). Ryan’s 1993 evaluation of the 1947 works of C. S. Lewis leads him to believe that Lewis’ works for children contain the common values of kindness, honesty, loyalty to parents and family, and an obligation to help the poor, the sick, and the less fortunate (1). There are others of historical interest, but they do not address values significantly different from those already listed.

More recently, Carter finds the following values of significance in schools: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, justice, fairness, integrity, and caring (1999, 2). The California State Department of Education has created a “Character Education” website that lists “character traits and virtues such as honesty, courage, perseverance, loyalty, caring, civic virtue, justice, respect and responsibility, and trustworthiness” (retrieved October 20, 2001). Berreth, Deputy Executive Director, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), notes that “Schools should make basic moral values - such as justice, altruism, and respect for human dignity - a strong unifying theme” (2000, 1). Singh lists respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, fairness, caring, and citizenship, taken from the Character Counts! Coalition (2001, 47). Kagan, borrowing much from Lickona, creates a “Structures for Character” matrix which contains the following “Virtues Fostered”: leadership, helpfulness, kindness, good judgment, cooperation, courtesy, understanding, impulse control, self-motivation, and responsibility (2001, 54, duplications removed). Again, there are several more recent studies, inquiries and programs, but they, too, begin to duplicate one another.

In comparing the values and character traits among all these citations, what becomes evident is the great similarity in listings. True, the word selection may vary, the descriptive adjectives may change, but there is an undeniable uniformity nonetheless. Almost without exception, the values of respect and responsibility are listed. Beyond those, it often becomes unwieldy and it is convenient to create a more manageable list. Lickona himself suggests dealing with no more than five (1991, 422) in addition to “the two foundational moral values” of respect and responsibility (45). In reviewing Lickona’s list there are, indeed, five values that appear with the greatest regularity on the other lists. Thus, the generally agreed-upon list of values and character traits to be taught are: respect, responsibility, justice, integrity, courtesy, hard work, and self-worth. It should be noted that the quality of tolerance, cited earlier in this paper by the president of the NEA, and highly esteemed in education throughout the past decade, does not appear separately but is, presumably, subsumed within the quality of justice. A formidable list, even assuming that all parties to the educational process agree with it, but it does satisfactorily address the question: if there is one list, what is the general consensus as to the specific values to be taught?

 Loveless holds that “the schools of the 20th century reflect more of the nurturing, custodial functions of the family” (1998, 5). The foundation for this was presented earlier. Henry poses essentially the same issue, “From where comes the belief that teachers should be parents?” and provides confirmation of the premise contained herein: “The answer is from the circumstances that our children do not have enough parents, because parents are unable to do all that has to be done by parents nowadays” (1963, 312, emphases in the original). So, the responsibility for instructing what were once merely familial values has been transferred to the teacher. But what about the role religion used to play in values education and character training? Loveless continues,

 Although religious instruction is forbidden in the schools, programs have appeared promoting ethical training (e.g., character education, moral development, values clarification) and many of their lessons appear to be little more than secular translations of religious tenets (1998, 5).

Loveless is not the first nor, likely, the last to note the appeal of religion in transmitting values and character, even within the public domain. Just as a brief sidebar, Lickona’s Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility was itself dedicated “for God” (1991, dedication page)! One could easily be tempted to digress and tie this in with the current public and legal discussion regarding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Schools are merely, or perhaps mostly, reflections of the society as a whole. Religion, regardless of orthodoxy, exists within the social structure and it is untenable to expect its purgation from education. “The American school originated as an extension of fundamental social units: families, churches, and communities” (Loveless, 1998, 1). “American classrooms, like educational institutions anywhere, express the values, preoccupations, and fears found in the culture as a whole” (Henry, 1965, 287). For Henry, “School is an institution for drilling children in cultural orientations” (283). One might wish he had avoided the term drilling, with what has become a pejorative connotation, but the fact remains that Henry’s observation is valid: schools provide cultural indoctrination - another connotatively-loaded word. This is reiterated by Bidwell when he insists, “It is assumed that school systems are client-serving organizations, that is, that they are social units specifically vested with a service function, in this case the moral and technical socialization of the young” (1965, 973, emphasis added) and they “also are agents of public welfare” (977). Although schools currently assess only the attainment of the “technical socialization of the young,” they are, indeed, still charged with transmitting moral socialization as well.

As noted previously, in California there is even a governmentally sanctioned and supported internet website produced by the State Department of Education, (http://www.cde.ca.gov/character/about.pg.html, retrieved October 20, 2001), which provides: an historic background to the teaching of values education; current trends in the field; a detailed, annotated bibliography; and, the recommendation to include values education as part of the assessment process in social science content. Also in California, the English-Language Arts Framework, also produced by the State Department of Education, contains a number of references to the direct and indirect instruction of both values education and positive character traits (1987, v, viii, 1, 7, 17, 42). The frameworks documents for the other core content areas contain similar references, particularly in the area of social sciences. As commented on by Mitchell and Boyd, “Societal-level influence flows into the schools through special interest groups, political parties, sectarian religious groups, family values and cultures, education professionals, architects, and textbook publishers, along with a host of other groups and organizations” (1998, 134). Although not investigated herein, it seems most likely that similar support for values education exists from professional and political organizations in states other than California.

 However, although required of them, is it reasonable to expect that teachers be both the selectors and deliverers of values training? Bidwell notes that “relations between teacher and student would appear to be necessary to the massive form of socialization which is required in bringing students from childhood to adulthood” (1965, 975). This necessity has not diminished in the ensuing three and a half decades. The wider globalization of information and cultural exposure students now encounter, demand an even greater sensitivity to values and character education. In the view of Rowan and Miskel, “an important source of work rules is the (often implicit) ideologies held by teachers, students, parents, and administrators in school systems” (1998, 375). The order in which these are listed is not accidental. Even more than parents, classroom teachers are the modelers of societally-expected work rules.

The classroom, then, “is the level of public moral philosophy, where human and social values are developed and defined” (Mitchell & Boyd, 1998, 135, emphasis added). Mitchell and Boyd include in the fifth level of their educational organization paradigm those elements “left largely in the hands of educational philosophers and curriculum theorists” (138). One could be certain that they meant to indicate only those who formulate educational direction from within the university; however, teachers are, by definition, curriculum theorists and educational philosophers; their day to day, even moment to moment, decisions form the basis of the “human and social” values received by their students.

Nisbett notes that “Social judgments and expectations often are mediated by a class of schemas . . . cognitive structures representing the personal characteristics and typical behaviors of particular ‘stock characters’” (1980, 35). Among these “stock characters,” of course, are the teachers encountered throughout the formal educational experience. The number of these “stock characters” who influence any given student may well exceed four dozen by completion of twelfth grade. Absolutely “no one, including the most marginal or socially isolated of humans, ever escapes the deep imprint of macro- and micro-cultural systems in which he or she is reared” (Wolcott, 1983, 383). This is so, regardless of the continuity or discontinuity of the values taught and modeled by teachers and those instilled at home. “School systems not only are client-serving, but also are agents of public welfare” (Bidwell, 1965, 977). The family can no longer provide to the child both the technical and moral imprints required by society.

So teachers are, quite naturally and over an extended period of time, the instructors of values and character. This professional demand, shouldered readily by most teachers, carries a great load of responsibility. The teacher must be vigilant to every behavioral nuance displayed. Tierno address this admonition well:

 A teacher exhibiting a behavior, or engaging in an act, in the view of one or more students is, in effect, providing a model for students to emulate. The mere fact that the teacher engages in the action suggests to students that they may choose that behavior for themselves. Since most social learning results from observation and imitation, teachers need to consider carefully every aspect of their conduct -- no matter how seemingly minor -- that students can observe” (1998, 59).

Barbour notes that the entire school now bears this responsibility: “For years, teachers have been teaching values in their classrooms, but today educators are finding it imperative to build values into the environment of the school” (1998, 77). Teachers may not so much be selecting values and character to teach, as they are modeling and displaying those values and character traits that are required by the society within which they were themselves educated and from which they are drawn!

Is there nothing to prevent the teacher from exhibiting, or even instructing, ill-conceived or discontinuous values? Think of the inappropriateness of those teachers who model smoking behaviors, unprofessional appearance or language, or public disparagement of peers. It is an abrogation of responsibility to say merely that those are adult behaviors; students learn what is modeled, not only what is taught! What, if anything, is to prevent the classroom teacher from delivering an unacceptable version of values which are in conflict with those embraced by the other educational process actors? As Lerner notes, “The real problem is how to bring the discussion of values into education without moralizing, without indoctrination and propaganda” (1976, 76). How indeed?

In a narrowly defined society, an emerging society, aberrations and unacceptable behavior become apparent readily and are readily dispatched. In a pluralistic society, one given to pronouncements of its veneration for multiculturalism, aberrations from the acceptable main are not as easily distinguished, for the main is much broader and the borders not as clearly defined. In addition, as classroom teachers will attest, once the classroom door is closed, much goes on which will never be known. As before, there will always be those who advocate positions outside of the norm. However, whereas earlier societies summarily dealt with these fringe types, modern society is ranged with a vast spectrum of types, including teachers. Teachers are representative of the society within which they themselves develop and learn, including that society’s extremes.

Perhaps it is in the very nature of education to push the limits of accepted normalcy. To do otherwise would be to stagnate. “Attacks on the public school system, whatever their validity in fact, are built into the nature of the system and society. They are part of the decision-making process in a dynamic democracy which has become a pressure-group democracy” (Lerner, 8). Although addressing a different element of instruction, Spindler and Spindler note this as well. “The classroom is more flexible and less permanent than the printed page. One can be wrong, find out, and correct oneself” (1982, 27), what could be termed recursive, revisional learning within a community -- the classroom.

Institutional intervention to preclude the teaching of values and character will never be successful. In quoting Waller’s 1932 work, The sociology of teaching, Bidwell states that “teaching demands affective bonds between teacher and student which are foreign to the enactment of a bureaucratic office” (Bidwell, 1965, 979). This did not change from 1932 to 1965, nor from 1965 to the present. What changed, of course, was a greater exposure to the world that students encountered through diverse technology and virtually instantaneous media reporting. The students have encountered a greater breadth of acceptable values and will continue to do so along a constantly escalating curve.

Students experience the world first through their family and then through their teachers. Such experience is relatively exclusive at first, only becoming more expansive and diffuse as a greater breadth of world exposure is encountered. The values and character traits of those teachers that can be assimilated within what the student has already received, or which do not so greatly conflict with those traits previously received, will be found acceptable. The values and character traits of those teachers which are “not acceptable” to the student’s prior information, too much on the fringe, will be ignored or contested. As students mature, the sifting of values and character takes place in the classroom and on the playground, and no longer in the home or the family’s place of worship.

Since the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, there has been a resurgence of interest in the overt teaching of values and character in the United States. While it is too soon to cite more than anecdotal evidence, such evidence is decidedly weighted. Organizations with packaged programs to teach values in schools are doing a booming business. Posters, flags and placards abound in schools. Incidents that at one time would have given rise to court actions are now considered mainstream: public prayer in school on behalf of those affected by the attacks; a national moment of remembrance, with prayer, broadcast into classrooms; a nationwide morning set aside to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; money solicited from students without prior parental notice, and often without fiscal accountability. These were all instances of values education, uniformly focused because of outside actions, which reflected the general consensus of society at a specific time and place. Values are not created in nor can they continue to exist in a vacuum. They are derived from the social norm and, as broad as that norm may have become, they will conform to the limits of the attention focused on them. Within the context of institutional theory, the environment has changed considerable since September 2001. It is very likely that the structure of educational organizations will also change to reflect the new environmental influences.

As educators we have the responsibility to acknowledge the value traits and character education that is ongoing in our classrooms. We have the responsibility to recognize that we are among the most consistently observed models of societal expectations, as seen and accepted by our students.  We have the responsibility to actively engage our students in discussions of moral and ethical dilemmas. We have the responsibility to be teachers!

Sources

Barbour, K. 1998). More than a good lesson plan. In T. Rusnak (Ed.), An integrated approach to character education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Beane, J. A. (1990). Affect in the curriculum: Toward Democracy, dignity, and diversity. NY: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Berreth, D., & Scherer, M. (1993). On transmitting values: A conversation with Amitai Etziono. Educational Leadership, 51, 3. Retrieved October 25, 2001 from                                     http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9311/berreth.html

 Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972-1022). Chicago: Rand McNally.

 California Department of Education. (2000). Character Education. Retrieved October 20, 2001 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/character/about.pg.html

 California Department of Education. (2000). Character Education Annotated Bibliography. Retrieved October 20, 2001 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/character/biblio1.html

California Department of Education. (2000). Character Education evaluation criteria. Retrieved October 20, 2001 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/character/criteria.html

 California Department of Education. (1987). English-Language arts framework for California schools kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of  Education.

 Carter, G. R. (1999, October 21). Refocusing out attention on character education in the new millennium. Retrieved October 25, 2001 from                                                             http://www.ascd.org/educationnews/speech/character_education.html

 Chase, R. (2001, November). One nation, unbowed: We teach the values that make America strong. NEA Today, 5.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. NY: Bantam Books.

Henry, J. (1963). Golden rule days: American schoolrooms. In Culture against man (pp. 283- 321). NY: Vintage.

 Kagen, S. (2001). Teaching for character and community. Educational Leadership, October 2001, 50-55.

 Leming, J. S. (1993). In search of effective character education. Educational Leadership, 51,3. Retrieved October 25, 2001 from                                                                                     http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9311/leming.html

Lerner, M. (1976). Values in education: Notes toward a values philosophy. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

 Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and            responsibility. NY: Bantam Books.

 Loveless, T. (1998). Uneasy allies: The evolving relationship of school and state.  Educational  Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 1-8.

 Mitchell, D. E., & Boyd, W. L. (1998). Knowledge utilization in educational policy and
politics: Conceptualizing and mapping the domain. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 34,             126-140.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Judgmental heuristics and knowledge structures. In Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment (17-42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. G. (1998). Institutional theory and the study of educational     organizations. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research of
  educational administration, 2nd Ed. (pp. 359-384). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, K. (1993). Mining the values of curriculum. Educational Leadership, 51, 3. Retrieved October 25, 2001 from                                     http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9312/ryan.html

Singh, G. R. (2001). How character education helps students grow. Educational Leadership, October 2001, 46-49.

 Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1982). Roger Harker and Schonhausen: From the familiar to the  strange and back again. In Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 20-47). NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

 Switala, W. J. (1998). Making character work. In T. Rusnak (Ed.), An integrated approach to character education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 Tierno, M. J. (1998). Building a positive classroom environment. In T. Rusnak (Ed.), An integrated approach to character education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 Wolcott, H. F. (1983). Adequate schools and inadequate education: The life history of a sneaky kid. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 4, 3-32.