Character Education in Public, Private, and Parochial Schools
This paper examines the role of character education across different schooling environments — public, private, parochial, and homeschool — drawing primarily on the work of Thomas Lickona, Lawrence Kohlberg, and other educational philosophers. It argues that a consensus on moral values and character formation is needed among educators and parents, and that this consensus can be pursued regardless of institutional setting. The paper emphasizes the educator's role as caregiver, model, and mentor, and contends that no single schooling model is inherently superior to another. What matters most is the philosophy educators bring to their work and the moral atmosphere they create for students.
- The Need for a New Consensus on Character Education: Erosion of moral consensus and need for renewal
- Defining and Developing Good Character: Educator's role in modeling and nurturing character
- Philosophy as the Foundation Across All School Types: Philosophy-driven teaching applies in any school setting
- The Distinct Contributions of Each Schooling Model: Public, parochial, and homeschool each offer value
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates multiple scholarly sources (Lickona, Kohlberg, Knight, Koonce) to build a cohesive argument rather than relying on a single authority.
- It moves logically from the problem (lack of consensus) to the solution (holistic character education) to application (across all school types), giving the argument a clear arc.
- The author takes a balanced, inclusive position — affirming the value of all schooling models — which strengthens credibility and avoids alienating readers with different educational backgrounds.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the writer weaves Lickona's framework, Kohlberg's developmental theory, and Knight's call for philosophical grounding into a unified argument about how character education should function across institutional contexts. This shows graduate-level integration of sources rather than simple citation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying a gap — the erosion of consensus around moral education — then proposes Lickona's holistic model as a remedy. It transitions into a personal position statement affirming all schooling types, supported by Knight's philosophy-first approach and Koonce's concept of students as world citizens. It closes by comparing the community roles of each school type, reaching an inclusive, non-hierarchical conclusion.
The Need for a New Consensus on Character Education
The consensus that exists among educators and parents concerning the form that moral education should take in our schools is one that presently needs to be developed, according to Dr. Thomas Lickona (1993). As Lickona (1993) states, "In the 20th century, the consensus supporting character education began to crumble under the blows of several powerful forces" — among them Social Darwinism, positivism, and increasing subjectivity with regard to morality and values. In other words, what was good for one person was not necessarily good for another or for all, as modern philosophers came to argue. Lickona asserts that educators and parents need to work together to arrive at a new consensus regarding character education: they must identify goals and values that they agree are important and vital for children's formation.
Defining and Developing Good Character
Educators can help students become caring, morally responsible persons by first identifying "what good character is" (Lickona, 1993), then developing a "comprehensive approach" that assists in forming that same good character. This approach should also be holistic — taking the form of the teacher acting as "caregiver, model, and mentor," establishing a moral community, and promoting moral reflection in the classroom (Lickona, 1993).
Each of these methods is an acceptable approach to helping students develop good character. As Lickona points out, it starts first with the educator, who not only must know what good character is but must be willing and able to demonstrate this quality in his or her own person, because students will look there first for an example of what good character truly means. If the educator cannot reflect this quality, there is little hope that students will be able to emulate something they have never seen. As Kohlberg (1963) notes, it is not a matter of "stamping in" moral development in the child but rather of nurturing it over time and providing a moral atmosphere in which it can grow.
References
Knight, G. (2008). Issues and alternatives in educational philosophy (4th ed.). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children's orientations toward a moral order. Vita Humana, 6, 11–33.
Koonce, G. (Ed.). (2016). Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues expanded (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill Publishers.
Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.