EDUCATING CHARACTER
If good character leads to better life chances, how do we instil it in schools?

Developing character is one of the core purposes of education according to the progressive think tank Demos in its report Character Nation.

The ability to control emotions, finish a job and put oneself in another person’s shoes are attributes that correlate with higher educational achievement and better prospects in the job market. These virtues might also be branded self-control, perseverance and compassion, with their clear Gospel resonances.

The Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues has identified four main categories of good character:

 

Moral virtues such as courage, honesty, humility, empathy and gratitude
Intellectual virtues such as curiosity and critical thinking
Performance virtues such as resilience, application and self-regulation
Civic virtues such as acts of service and volunteering

 

Some teachers consulted over this research preferred the term ‘personal development’ to describe what is at stake, but the report’s authors are surely right to privilege the idea of ‘character’ for this is a word with long historical antecedents, not least in the Christian faith. A series of policy suggestions follow, among which is the freedom that should be afforded teachers to deviate from the curriculum to reflect on character. For those who worry that the curriculum restricts schools from delivering a fully rounded education because of the searching focus on exam results and therefore league tables, this is a welcome suggestion.

 

The recommendation that the onus on a school to develop students socially, morally, spiritually and culturally should be renamed ‘character development’ runs the risk that spiritual development might be quietly dropped by those who are not sure what it looks like or whether it has a place in the modern British education system. The four categories of good character described above are excellent but insufficient if the spiritual component of education – an understanding of identity, meaning, purpose and respect for those who arrive at different conclusions to us along the way – is not clearly enunciated. The authors’ contention that character has ‘a rich philosophical heritage’ suggests they have either forgotten or conveniently sidelined the religious dimension to character.

 

Character is not a material issue and cannot be quantified like academic intelligence; it is rooted in what it means to be a created, moral being and is especially demonstrated in relationship to others. Good character education should privilege conversation around relationships, which all too often is reduced to questions of sexual intimacy. Anyone who has spent time in a modern workplace knows the intrinsic, irreducible value of colleagues who are sure-footed in their relationships. It is little wonder that those who demonstrate good character tend to do well in public life.

 

Altogether this report is good news and likely to contribute usefully to the developing debate on the indefinable qualities of a good education. As the authors note, the teaching of character is only so helpful; more important is the surrounding ethos, where character is both modelled and transmitted by what is currently called the contagion effect.

 

The Church, in its historic commitment to education in the UK, has much to contribute to this question both in church schools and non-church schools. As society loses cohesion, more emphasis has been placed on schools and teachers to make up for shortfalls in the family and other institutions; at times this has felt unreasonable. The development of a child’s character is the shared duty of many people and cannot be left to teachers once a child is old enough to cross its doors. The vast majority of parents know this, but as our shared values become frayed today, they need help too.

 

The Church feels the effects of the loss of this cohesion, which is shown most acutely in the difficulties it faces in making disciples. The development of Christian character by the transformative work of the Holy Spirit is fundamental to its life, but in a culture of live and let live, the Church itself is struggling to make a truly distinctive mark. We all have something to offer and something to learn.