Moral Education

Keith Benson Civics, Citizenship and Social Education 9.20.2006 Dr. Beth Rubin What types of civic and moral education have been advocated? How do we assess what students learn from these approaches?

Through Kohlberg’s, “Moral Reasoning”, and Newman’s “Skills in Action”, I have identified three different types of civic and moral education. They are character education, values clarification, and civic education. During last class week, I asked how formal the weekly responses should be, and to that question I was told, “Not formal at all.” In respect to that, instead of writing out an essay on the three types of moral and civic education, I will list them along with their descriptions. Furthermore, I will comment as to which of the three were advocated.

The first I would like to discuss is Moral Education. Moral education would have a teacher instructing students in moral, ethical decision making and actions. This was the only type of civic and moral education that was not advocated. Lawrence Kohlberg dismisses the approach of teaching students morals and principles as he views it not as students learning and adopting lessons, but rather being indoctrinated. “The first alternative approach is that of indoctrinative moral education, the preaching and imposition of rules and values of the teacher and his culture on the child. (Parker, 209)” In addition, Kohlberg also mentions schools are not mandated to teach morals or values, and schools should only teach what is mandated.

Personally, I could not disagree more. As a teacher myself, in an urban area, this issue is very personal to me. Though I am hired as a History teacher by the Camden Board of Education, I would be shortchanging the students, and my own principles if all I did was teach them US History. As any teacher can profess, sometimes a teacher has to perform different roles. One of the roles performed by some teachers is that of a parental one. As it is a parent’s duty to guide their child in terms of adopting morals and principles, in some instances, teachers may have to fill that void for students without such parental models. For example, I teach a student in my 9th period class whose parents died when she was very young, and is currently residing with her aunt and uncle - both of whom are drug addicts. Who could she feasibly turn to at “home” for moral guidance and direction? Students and children both need to be taught certain things before they can adopt it as there own. This concept applies to students in content-based courses like Spanish and algebra, why must it stop there?

Moving on to Values Clarification: This is the option Kohlberg advocates. In this form of civic and moral education, the goal is to have students become aware of moral and ethical options and make decisions based on their own principles. He points out, in values clarification, there is no right or wrong choices; just options to be chosen by students in accordance with their own principles. “Value clarification implies the principle that in consideration of values there is no single correct answer. (Parker, 210” This approach, I believe is a valid goal, but it is not a method to guide students toward moral and ethical decision making. Ideally, a student will eventually be able make certain decisions based on their own adopted principles. But

moral and ethical principles have to derive from somewhere or someone; they are not hereditary or bequeathed. What about the possibility that a student’s choices based upon their principles, can be self-destructive? Students, as stated earlier, have to be taught morals, and then they can be adopted and acted upon. Again, from my experience teaching, there are some students who feel morally and principally obligated to join in a fight if their friend is fighting someone – even while in school. According to Kohlberg, I should not tell my students they should walk away and refrain from fighting. If I did tell my students that, I wouldn’t be looking out for their best interest, I’d be indoctrinating them. Hopefully, after hearing my speech about how they should walk away, they will eventually adopt that concept as one their own principles, and then act on it when the situation presents itself. Values clarification in a way “puts the cart before the horse.”

Finally, I’ll discuss civic education. Quite simply, Newman, et al, describes civic education as a curriculum that prepares the student for an active life in public affairs. He discusses that civics is more than a subject that should be taught, but that students should be groomed to participate and “exert influence” in matters that affect public life. To him, “public life” can be as big as participating in elections and strikes, or as small as helping “cyclists try to establish a bike trail. (Parker, 227)” Also, Newman details a curriculum model for the sole purpose of grooming social activists. I believe Newman’s civic education has its advocates, especially in more modern American society where the view is, largely that, youth of today are not as civic minded as past generations . “During the last ten years civic leaders

and scholars have expressed great concern about civic and political apathy in the US, especially among young Americans. (Patrick, 1)”

Assessment Assessment of these various education models would in large part be subjective. As Newman points out, sometimes the definitions of civil action can be rather contradictory. To some, paying taxes is viewed as a responsible act apart of good citizenship. To others being a good citizen could be someone who refuses to pay taxes because their tax dollars are being contributed to help finance things against their principles – like war. Overall, the idea of good citizenship means different things to different people. Newman mentions the basis of civic education is to prepare the student to take part in, and help shape, the State. Patrick urges civic action and participation on any level. Kohlberg believes students cannot fully take advantage of or appreciate a truly democratic government without a sense of morals and principals. All in all, worthwhile assessment has to be reserved for future determination. Will our American democracy collapse due to chronic disinterest and unprepared-ness on the part of the masses of unprincipled citizens? I believe time can be only worthwhile judge.