A Revision of Terms

    After reading the article, I find myself torn on the idea of bringing "character" into the classroom. On one hand, it fits perfectly into the structure of an English classroom. Really, it's practically impossible to teach or learn the subject without discussion of character. After all, we teach literature, and they don't call them "characters" for nothing. Intentionally or not, each time we discuss a certain character, what we are really doing is having a discussion on the character of the character. Think about it: we break down the character's actions into individual units and identify possible reasons behind each. Based off of this analysis, we then prescribe a general description ("good" or "bad"), and follow with a distinctive list of character traits as proof of our classification. So it's a safe bet to say that students are already learning about character without the additional standards described in the article. At least in the English classroom and probably also in a History or Social Studies classroom.
     It is when we travel outside of the person-based textbooks that the idea of character becomes less defined and less directly focused on. In these classrooms, I feel that character is still an important concept, but it is more of a secondary focus rather than a primary. These classrooms traditionally feature a more hands on approach to their subject; however, this does not mean that character is not a crucial aspect of the curriculum. In these rooms, students can take what they learn about character in other classes and apply it to themselves, rather than the characters in their books. Essentially, these classes afford students the opportunity to DEMONSTRATE their character rather than DEFINE or DISCUSS character.
     I do not think that it is character that we need in our schools; what is needed, however, is an overhaul of our everyday school vocabulary. Certain terms should be revised in view of the overwhelmingly negative view that accompanies them. Homework, for instance. How often have we felt that homework was just being assigned as punishment for classroom behavior? Using the ideas prescribed in the article, we need to work towards a place where students understand that homework, especially via a contract method of grading, can be used as an indicator of character and can bring about time management practices and hard work ethics that will aid them later in life. The same thought shift can be applied to the idea of AP classes. Sure it stands for Advanced Placement, but really the purpose of AP is not to segregate the "intelligent" from the "unintelligent". Rather, AP seeks to provide an outlet where students willing to work hard can earn college credit. There is honestly no reason why any student can not excel in an AP class, but it has become a synonymous with "nerdy", "bookish", "show-offish", "grade-oriented", "teacher's pet" and "better than me". Students should aspire to AP, rather than use it as a measure of their own unworthiness.
    Most of all, we need to change our definition of FAILURE. This word has amassed the most negative denotation of all and we desperately need to revise our perception of it. We need students to realize that failure does not limit, but opens up a world of possibilities that we may not have previously considered. Nor does it define us or our abilities; the true test of our character is how we react to failure and the steps we take next. We also need students to understand that failure is as necessary as success. We have grown too dependent on the idea of success and have made failure a dirty, inconceivable and unforgivable concept as a result. WE AS HUMANS NEED TO FAIL. We need to become "ok" with this idea and we need to provide safe and supported environments in which to do so.