Author: Kelly L. McEnerney

Correspondence regarding this article can be send to Kelly McEnerney, kmcenerney@semo.edu

Abstract

Character education can support students’ basic psychological needs and strengthen their social and emotional competencies and sense of moral integrity, all consistent with ​​​​Brunsdon and Walker’s (2021) notion of human flourishing. This article incorporates a systems approach to character education that integrates ​​social and emotional learning (SEL; Mahoney et al., 2021​​), encouraging a climate of care necessary for human flourishing. Drawing from the humanistic assumption that individuals are intrinsically oriented ​​toward patterns of growth when social and cultural contexts are supportive of their basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985), the argument is that character education must address these needs. Rural communities are well positioned to benefit from a systems-wide approach, as close-knit system structures are already in place to promote open communications that can empower students and nurture a sense of community. The role of the school counselor, consistent with the notion of cultural humility (e.g., ​​Hook et al., 2013), is to collaborate with different stakeholders to foster an environment that supports students’ basic psychological needs by being, and encouraging others to be, openminded and understanding of different experiences and perspectives.    

Keywords: rural communities,character education, social and emotional learning, self-determination theory, moral development  

Character Education in Rural Communities 

Character education, broadly defined and consistent with theAmerican School Counselor Association’s (ASCA, 2022) best practices, involves encouraging multidimensional virtues that support human flourishing (​​Berkowitz et al., 2017; Brunsdon & Walker, 2021; ​​Nast et al., 2020). Human flourishing, although not independent of culture, involves some objective quality of wellbeing (Kristjánsson, 2019). Kristjánsson (2019) defined human flourishing as a self-chosen “developmentally progressive activity of a meaningful life” in which individuals find purpose in areas in which they can excel and that serve a common good (​​p. 163). Likewise, Brunsdon and Walker (2021) defined character development as progress in the capacity to understand, recognize, and respond to moral and civic features of experiences in ways that are consistent with the goal of human flourishing. Character involves acting with good intentions and striving to be a moral person whose actions are in alignment with moral emotions (e.g., empathy), thoughts, and motivations(Blasi, 1983; ​​Narváez & Lapsley, 2009).  

Research has shown that character education is associated with positive gains in students’ moral integrity and conduct (Betawi, 2018; Parker et al., 2010). Betawi (2018) evaluated the effects of character education on moral integrity of a sample of elementary school children residing in Amman and attending a ​​Jordanian school. Betawi​​ developed the children’s moral integrity scale (CMIS), which includes four dimensions (empathy, honesty, respect, and courage). ​​Pretests and posttests revealed that students receiving character education, when compared to a control group of students from another school not receiving it, showed significant improvements on all dimensions of the scale. Moreover, in an analysis of rates of violent behavior across twelve Midwestern elementary schools, six of which incorporated some form of character education, those with character education programs reported lower rates than those without character education programs (Parker et al., 2010​​).Neither study addressed the role of school counselors in character education nor character education’s application to rural communities. Such research is limited at present. 

ASCA has adopted Brunsdon and Walker’s (2021) vision that character education should encourage a balance of intellectual, performance, civic, and moral virtues such that students’ pursuit of knowledge and skill is consistent with moral and civic goals. Brunsdon and Walker (2021) noted that educators tend to prioritize intellectual and performance virtues over civic and moral ​​virtues such as humility, care, honesty, andsocial cooperation. This tendency can result in students becoming performance obsessed and morally stunted. Moreover, students need to develop the wisdom to decide which virtue to employ in different situations, and the motivation and fortitude to respond in a contextually sensitive manner that supports human flourishing. Thus, Brunsdon and Walker (2021) recommended that character education focus on developing students’ moral reasoning and virtuous habits. 

Application of ​​Self-Determination Theory and Social and Emotional Learning  

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is a humanistic perspective on development that assumes individuals have basic psychological needs that, when nurtured, are the source of “self-determined motivation, well-being, and growth” (Legault, 2017, p. 1). It assumes that humans are naturally oriented ​​toward growth goals and processes of self-organization and only deviate from these tendencies when social and cultural contexts thwart these needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Structures that support basic psychological needs are, thus, consistent with the goal of human flourishing.  

Recently the application of self-determination theory impacted scholarship on the moral dimensions of character education (Krettenauer & Curren, 2020). In 2020, the ​​Journal of Character Education published a special issue that focused on the links between self-determination theory and moral development, the conclusion being that environments that meet students’ basic needs for autonomy, competence, and ​​relatednessencourage moral integrity (Arvanitis & Kalliris, 2020). Students experience moral integrity when their actions align with their moral thoughts, emotions, and motivations (Blasi, 1983). Krettenauer and Curren (2020) found moral integrity to be a strong predictor for moral actions.  

​​​​​Social and emotional learning (SEL; Mahoney et al., 2020) is a systems-wide dynamic approach to character education that is evidence-based and consistent with the principles of self-determination theory. Its purpose is to develop students’ social and emotional competencies by creating a caring and safe environment that supports basic psychological needs (Weissberg et al., 2015). The SEL framework incorporates different community partners and contexts in the shared development and implementation of the teaching and learning of social and emotional competencies including self-awareness (understanding one's own emotions), self-management (regulating one’s emotions and behaviors), social awareness (perspective taking and empathy), relationship skills (cooperation), and responsible decision making.  

Arvanitis and Kalliris (2020) explained how SEL supports basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, each of which uniquely contributes to a sense of moral integrity. ​​First, they proposed that need-supporting environments provide meaningful rationales for adopting moral rules by showing how they are consistent with what students already value. If the rule concerns relationships, students can reflect on their own need for relatedness and how they can expand their circle of relatedness to connect with others who may need a friend. Second, ​​need-supporting environments acknowledge students’ feelings of being emotionally conflicted, validating the existence of multiple emotions. Students learn to approach these conflicts ​​flexibly rather than defensively. Third,need-supportive environments convey a sense of choice. This encourages alignment at the motivational level such that students act morally because they have internalized a moral rule and to act any other way would be inconsistent with values they have adopted as their own. 

 Meyers and colleagues (2015) discussed procedures, outcomes, and insights from their implementation of SEL in several Midwestern rural school districts. The stage one, entry, involved establishing connections with community leaders and school district superintendents and seeking buy-in while being sensitive to the cultural, economic, and political contexts. After gaining support from higher-level administrators,the researchers acquired grant funding and used the grant proposal to serve as a consultation contract. They then met with teachers and parents to create a parent-teacher advisory board to provide feedback throughout all stages of the intervention. Stage two, problem definition, was iterative and focused on seeking feedback via interviews from multiple stakeholders to define specific student problems (e.g., high rates of risky behavior, and difficulty in regulating emotions and developing and maintaining healthy relationships) and roadblocks specific to rural contexts such as limited services and access to public transportation. Stage three, needs assessment, involved stakeholders reviewing interview data collected from the previous stage and providing recommendations concerning unmet needs and relevant services.Stage four, intervention, began when a group of parents and teachers interested in being part of the action plan selected—from a variety of SEL curricula—one curriculum most compatible with data collected from the problem definition and needs assessment stages. Stage five, evaluation of consultation and resulting interventions, consisted of teachers completing implementation integrity checklists in which they documented implementation dates, hours, and lesson components. The researchers consulted with school principals to assess roadblocks, which included some of the teachers not implementing curriculum components and completing checklists, teachers perceiving a lack of direction and support from researchers, and teachers experiencing stress with the amount of added curriculum components.  

Morgan (2019), discussed his perception of criticisms and praises associated with SEL (Morgan, 2019). He argued that school personnel tend to view the responsibilities of different stakeholders, including how SEL should be led and by whom it should be led, as vague. He noted that teachers often view such programs as mandates from state legislators and feel they are not part of the decision-making process. This misconception runs counter to the goal of SEL, which is to allow community partners flexibility to calibrate SEL to be sensitive to cultural differences. Thus, the SEL framework is consistent with autonomy-supportive principles of self-determination theory. Morgan (2019) proposed that school counselors, who have expertise in teaching social and emotional competencies, lead these initiatives. This article will further propose that school counselors use their systems-level expertise to encourage collaboration in the development of a shared vision. 

Strategies for School Counselors in Rural Settings  

School counselors in rural settings are part of a close-knit community in which personal and professional lives often converge and people know about each other’s circumstances. Partnerships can take years to build, but school counselors can use preexisting relationships and ties to the community to expedite system changes. School counselors are one of a variety of consultants working within a multidisciplined and multileveled sphere of community entities (e.g., county legislators, superintendents, school administrators, teachers, families, etc.).  Understanding state and local policy as it affects rural communities is necessary for school counselors to intervene at more proximal system levels including districts, schools, and classrooms (Myers et al., 2015). 

Myers and colleagues (2015) proposed starting with community leaders and superintendents who, in their research, were receptive to grant resources to establish SEL curricula in their small Midwest districts faced with enrollment shrinkage, funding cuts, and an unfunded state mandate to include SEL learning standards in their curricula. Although superintendent buy in was promising, communication breakdowns occurred at the proximal levels between principals and teachers, and psychologists and teachers. Psychologists were overextended and experienced difficulties meeting the training needs of teachers. Teachers stopped implementing the curricula as principals did not reinforce their efforts. 

School counselors in rural communities can apply their knowledge of the economic, political, and cultural contexts that dynamically shape teacher, principle, and psychologist’s receptivity to intervention. According to Johnston and colleagues (2021), individuals in rural communities tend to have a higher need for autonomy and relatedness than individuals in urban communities. Perhaps, because they have learned to depend on each other for support when access to resources is limited or delayed, they have developed a sense of communal self-sufficiency that collides with more remote state-based efforts to intervene. Indeed, Myers and colleagues’ (2015) teachers viewed SEL initiatives as legislative mandates and felt the program pushers did not field their input. To embolden teachers, school counselors can involve them in a collaborative process that leads to the development of SEL general guidelines, as opposed to universally applied standards.  

School counselors can model need supportive relationship building through their interactions with principals, teachers, and parents of which they actively involve in SEL program and curriculum development. Myers and colleagues (2015) suggested creating formal structures for ongoing support and feedback including parent-teacher advisory boards. As noted, the competencies would include understanding and managing emotions, setting positive goals, showing caring and concern for others, establishing and maintaining positive relationships, and making responsible decisions (Weissberg et al., 2015). School counselors can support a climate of care by strengthening communication among stakeholders, recognizing the challenges that rural communities face, and adjusting their interventive practices to be culturally responsive. 

Rural communities experience challenges—such as poverty, limited resources, and a lack of access to mental health care—that school counselors would need to account for in their initiatives. School counselors need to tailor their training in SEL for staff, teachers, and parents to be respectful of rural community values, recognizing the cultural relativeness of social and emotional competencies and moral rules. They can address the challenges of limited resources by involving community partners in applying for specific grants that target rural education such as The Rural Schools Collaborative (2025), and state level rural education initiatives. School counselors can consider allocating funds for virtual communication that encourages a broadening of social networks to include intercultural collaborations between students living in various parts of the country or world. Students would have the chance to develop multicultural competencies (including communication etiquette and appreciation of diversity) and friendships. Moreover, the need for relatedness of students who feel isolated within the rural community would be better supported. Online collaboration tools could also facilitate communication between community partners, including school counselors who may need to travel long distances to remain accessible to large numbers of teachers in school districts sparsely dispersed.  

Conclusion and Recommendations    

Researchers have documented the effects of SEL on students’ mental health and well-being (Taylor et al., 2017). The research on SEL in rural school communities is less extensive, particularly as it involves school counselors (Meyers et al., 2015). Moreover, only one study at present has examined SEL as it relates to the development of moral integrity (Arvanitis & Kalliris, 2020). As noted, moral integrity reflects a type of internalized moral motivation that is particularly useful in predicting behavior (Blasi, 1983). Research geared ​​toward its assessment could be useful for school counselors to pursue and or apply in their roles as school and community partners. School counselors would need to be aware of the cultural nuances of moral rules. They would need to be aware of the potential for communication breakdowns. The autonomy-supportive features of SEL may clash with authoritarian values. School counselors would need to provide education that both validates ties to traditional approaches and makes accessible knowledge of current best practices. 

The assessment of character education presents certain challenges, particularly regarding the operationalization of SEL and the goal of human flourishing. The application of SEL is not uniform, as each community develops a version consistent with their culture. This flexibility limits the scope of generalizability, such that data from one context may not be comparable with data from another context. Moreover, the resistance to change often seen in rural communities would affect the planning, implementation, and assessment of SEL. Rural communities often lack resources needed to implement SEL and may be unaware of such initiatives. The notion of human flourishing that Brunson and Walker (2021) used to capture the common good dimension of character education is subjective, again contributing to difficulties with generalizability when human flourishing is the end-goal.  

 The present recommendations are consistent with those of the ASCA (2022) in several ways. First, the theme of cultural humility embedded in SEL practices is consistent with the ASCA’s position that counselors, teachers, administrators, family, and community members share in the “development of a school philosophy and mission statement supporting positive character development.” Secondly, the ASCA’s position on “establishing positive family-school-community partnerships” is consistent with ​​autonomy-supportive and relationship features of SEL, as is the ASCA’s recommendation that students be involved in developing school rules. As Arvanitis and Kalliris (2020) proposed, when students view moral rules as self-chosen, they experience internalized moral motivation which is associated with action. The ASCA’s encouragement of extracurricular activities among students, school staff, guardians, and community members should include activities that encourage moral, civic, and performance virtues and that provide opportunities for practicing moral reasoning. As noted, Brunsdon and Walker (2021) argued that character education should nurture virtuous habits and strengthen moral reasoning skills.    

Overall, school counselors should assist in creating a climate of care that supports students’ basic psychological needs. Since school counselors see first-hand how teachers, staff, parents, and administrators interact ​​with one another and the students, they can directly assess progress ​​towardgoals and offer (and seek) suggestions through workshops, professional development sessions, and focus groups, understanding that their own lived experience is different from others. Thus, they should be autonomy-supportive in encouraging all stakeholders to participate in the development of a shared vision for SEL that focuses on multidimensional virtues (e.g., performance, civic, and moral) that are consistent with each community's view of human flourishing. 

 

References 

Arvanitis, A., & Kalliris, K. (2020). Consistency and moral integrity: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 49(3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1695589 

American School Counselor Association (2022). The school counselor and character education. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-Character-Education  

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3, 178–210.https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1 

Berkowitz, M. W., Bier, M. C., & McCauley, B. (2017). Toward a science of character education: Frameworks for identifying and implementing effective practices. Journal of Character Education, 13(1), 33–51. 

Betawi, A. (2018). Calling for character education: Promoting moral integrity in early childhood education in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 190(5), 738–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1489383 

Brunsdon, J. J., & Walker, D. I. (2021). Cultivating character through physical education using memetic, progressive and transformative practices in schools. Journal of Moral Education, 51(4), 477–493.https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2021.1894105 

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Perspectives in social psychology. Springer. 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 

Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of counseling psychology, 60(3), 353.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595 

Johnston, C. S., Belanger, E., Wong, K., & Snadden, D. (2021). How can rural community-engaged health services planning achieve sustainable healthcare system changes?. BMJ open, 11(10), e047165. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047165 

Krettenauer, T., & Curren, R. (2020). Self-determination theory, morality, and education: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Moral Education, 49(3), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1794173  

Kristjánsson, K. (2019). Flourishing as the aim of education: A neo-Aristotelian view. Routledge. 

Legault, L. (2017). Self-determination theory. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer. 

Mahoney, J. L., Weissberg, R. P., Greenberg, M. T., Dusenbury, L., Jagers, R. J., Niemi, K., Schlinger, M., Schlund, J., Shriver, T.P., VanAusdal, K., & Yoder, N. (2021). Systemic social and emotional learning: Promoting educational success for all preschool to high school students. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1128.https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000701 

McEnerney, K. L. (2021). A time for care: Character education and the school psychologist. Communique, 50(3), 4–6. 

Meyers, A. B., Tobin, R. M., Huber, B. J., Conway, D. E., & Shelvin, K. H. (2015). Interdisciplinary collaboration supporting social-emotional learning in rural school systems. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 109–128.https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929956 

Morgan, R. D. (2019). How school counselors can help teachers integrate the basic competencies of social and emotional learning. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 12(2), 109–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-02-2019-0038 

Narváez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (Eds.). (2009). Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology. Cambridge University Press. 

Nast, T., Elias, M. J., & Yuan, M. (2020). The 11 principles of character. Overview. Journal of Character Education, 16(2), 11–18. 

Parker, D. C., Nelson, J. S., & Burns, M. K. (2010). Comparison of correlates of classroom behavior problems in schools with and without a school‐wide character education program. Psychology in the Schools, 47(8), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20506 

Rural Schools Collaborative. (2025). Grants in Place. https://ruralschoolscollaborative.org/programs/grants-in-place 

 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 

Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school‐based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta‐analysis of follow‐up effects. Child development, 88(4), 1156–1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864 

Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19). Guilford Press.