search BFS site

@BFS! archives

Taking Moral Education Seriously

by Dr. Michael Nill,
Head of School

Excerpted with permission from the National Association of Independent Schools. Copyright 1998 by Independent School Magazine.

Although there is evidence of renewed interest in moral education, the typical school spends little, if any, time on explicit moral instruction or in thinking about how to go about it. This is true whether we restrict our notion of moral instruction to matters relating to behavior or think, as I do, that it should also include considerations of the good life and the qualities, goals, and values that define who we are. When current moral instruction does rise above the merely implicit, it is often piecemeal, ad hoc, or misdirected.

This lack of attention to such instruction exists in public and independent schools—even independent schools with mission statements that give high priority to building the (moral) character of their students. As educational researchers Edward Wynne and Kevin Ryan have remarked, “There is little evidence that the moral mission of our schools’ curriculum (with the possible exception of our sex- and drug-education curricula) is currently the subject of public discussion or scholarly debate.” (Curriculum as a Moral Educator, American Educator, Spring 1993)

If schools in the past were correct in their general assumption that entering students came equipped with basic moral attitudes, the implementation of effective programs of moral instruction was perhaps a less crucial concern; but this certainly cannot be assumed at the present. Observation and statistics make this painfully clear. Just in the time I was working on this article, a nationwide Harris poll of students in grades 6-12 found that 40 percent of them knew someone who had been killed or injured by a gun, and 15 percent admitted that they had carried a gun within the last 30 days. In a survey of students in New Haven, 27 percent of sixth graders and 49 percent of eighth graders indicated that they are sexually active. Even if we allow for exaggeration, there is cause for alarm.

The admission that there is something radically wrong and that we have to do something about it should not be left to fundamentalists and crisis-mongers. Nor should we, by our silence or misguided resistance, allow the purveyors of a narrow moralism to define and promote moral instruction in the schools. Too much is at stake. A much larger group of educators will need to be actively engaged if today’s schools are to institute effective and humane programs of moral education that stress positive moral values and feature instruction that is explicit, methodical, and no less attuned to appropriate teaching techniques than, say, instruction in English or history.

Why should schools care?

From a sociological perspective, the strongest reason for schools to engage students in moral issues is the much-discussed breakdown of the institutions which have previously laid the groundwork for morality in children: the family and community. Functioning communities composed of individuals linked by geographical location, common concerns, and shared outlooks no longer exist. This isolation of the family unit makes it increasingly difficult for parents to raise children with moral standards.

Even more troubling is the decreasing amount of quality time children spend with parents, a situation which is by no means exclusively attributable to the growth of single-parent homes or homes where both parents work by necessity or choice. All too frequently children are growing up without a sense of self-worth or limits. Pervasive societal values of self-fulfillment, materialism, and instant gratification are not conducive to formation of a strong moral character. Without some sense that individuals are part of larger communities towards which they have responsibilities, children are not likely to develop a strong moral sense. And without close supervision, habits conducive to morality are not likely to grow. Indeed, without effective moral instruction children are likely to parrot the values of consumer capitalism and the entertainment industry.

But the need for schools to provide moral instruction is not just a matter of taking up a task by default. Moral training is an integral aspect of producing education students. In an important sense, schools function as a rite of passage into the life of the larger society. As Colin Turnbull notes in his book, The Human Cycle, it is not just the accumulation of knowledge, but the ability to apply it wisely that marks an educated person. A student is neither educated nor equipped for adult life if he or she has not been trained to evaluate various personal and societal goals, ideals, and types of life from the point of view of their broad ethical implications, and to identify, pursue, and promote values that comprise a worthwhile life. The idea that schools are merely transmitters of academic knowledge flies in the face of the traditional concept of liberal arts education. We might disagree with Plato’s ideas of education, but the question he raises—whether a person can act well and immorally at the same time—is crucial. No inherent link exists between having knowledge and acting morally, and separating them can have dangerous consequences. The number of “highly educated” individuals who took up the cause of Nazism is one dramatic illustration of this. Moral instruction, then, far from being a newfangled, right-wing invention, has been at the heart of theories of traditional education. The words of a revered headmaster at my previous school are still apt: “The school aims to develop physique, mentality, and character in our students, but because the first of these are menaces without the last, the greatest of these is character.”

On the other hand, schools that consciously or unconsciously fail to provide moral instruction do not merely omit this aspect of education, but actually send out the message that moral considerations are not part of the educational process. In practice, instruction that remains purely implicit tends to convey a similar message. Maintaining a neutral position is not possible.

Moreover, every school is a community. Even though it is a more limited community than the larger society, its survival and ability to function effectively depends on students and other members of the community acting in accord with moral values.

Strategies for a Program of Moral Education

The process of planning for, formulating, and implementing a progam of moral education is complex, difficult, and time-consuming. Yet it can be done. Four general strategies, in particular, will help schools successfully complete that process and address the objections raised above.

1. Involve relevant constituencies, particularly the faculty, in all stages of the process.
Although the school head or principal must take the lead in committing the institution to comprehensive moral instruction, any program imposed from on high is likely to meet with resistance, if not sabotage. It is, after all, the faculty who will have to implement it. Participation of faculty members in planning will not only provide them with the opportunity to learn more about issues in moral thinking and instruction, but it will also give them a stake in the success of the program. And a program that incorporates the ideas of the faculty will likely have a richer content. Much of the work will need to be done by committee(s), but it will always be important to balance this with informational and discussion sessions involving more or all of the faculty. For many of the same reasons it will also be beneficial to involve students and parents at appropriate points in the process.

Communication is the key factor in success. The purposes and goals of the program that emerge should be such that they can be clearly and readily articulated to all segments of the school community.

2. In deciding the content of the program, focus on the (moral) qualities, values, and behavior patterns which you think your graduates should have and which you think are needed of the school to be a successfully functioning community.
This focus has several advantages. It attends to morality as consisting of positive qualities or virtues, not as a set of precepts or a disciplinary code. Such a focus is also likely to generate more productive discussion of the goals of a moral education program. Even initially resistant faculty members will have definite ideas about the qualities which they think are required for the school’s community life, and these qualities lead naturally into larger considerations of the kinds of ideals and goals that constitute a worthwhile life.

The particular qualities and values selected will and should be dependent on the specific realities and needs of the student body, the predilections of the faculty, and mission of the school. It will not be difficult to generate a list of qualities and values. Some that readily come to mind are integrity, empathy, courage, perseverance, generosity, respect for self and others, temperance, self-discipline, and a sense of community responsibility. The qualities and values selected should be briefly spelled out in a way that is useful and accessible to faculty and students. One effective way of doing this is to provide appropriate examples of behavior applicable to each quality and value. Respect for self, for example, could be illustrated by good eating habits, development of talents, commitment to act in accord with what one thinks is right, and pride in accomplishments.

One further task is to determine what knowledge and experience a school would want its students and graduates to have in regard to moral reasoning, controversial moral issues, and moral theory or philosophy. Given the kind of society our students and graduates do and will live in, I would think schools would want to promote a high level of such knowledge and experience so that students will be secure in their beliefs, and be able to think through any moral issue they may encounter.

The approach suggested here avoids several of the objections raised against moral instruction. The kinds of values proposed will not lead to fanaticism, intolerance, and crimes against humanity; nor can they be characterized as puritanical. In addition, they have a broad enough appeal to transcend cultural and religious differences or they can be spelled out in such a way.

3. Implement the program with a wide variety of instructional techniques, keeping in mind the developmental stages of adolescents, the limits of reasons, and the need for school practices to be consonant with the goals of the moral education program.
A comprehensive, effective program of moral education requires an assortment of instructional techniques employing both affective and cognitive approaches—for knowledge of values is useless without the character structure and disposition to pursue those values. A variety of possible techniques is suggested below, but only the individual school can determine the techniques which best match its needs.

Skill in moral reasoning, discovery of one’s own values, and knowledge of controversial moral issues can be achieved through debates, small-group discussions of case studies of moral dilemmas, and exercises employing values-clarification techniques. Moral theory can be approached in a culminating, senior-level course. Empathy can be reinforced through role-playing, responsibility to the community through community service projects and assigned work at the school itself.

The moral imagination can be exercised by having students rewrite narratives from the point of view of those whose voices have been silenced or ignored. Caring for others can be encouraged through cooperative learning and democratic classroom procedures. Lessons in responsibility and conflict resolution can be taught by giving students a voice in school decisions. Students, for example, could be given the task of formulating a code of community standards; some of them could serve on a disciplinary committee. Values can be reinforced through familiarity with fictional and historical figures that students can admire or at least discuss from the point of view of values. The possibility of a better world can be gleaned from the study of history by comparing and evaluating the values which have inhered in and been promoted by the particular social, economic, and political structures of various societies past and present. The school’s discipline code, if properly used, can itself be a source of instruction.

Whatever techniques are employed, they should take into account the realities and developmental stages of adolescents. Otherwise the implementation of the program will not be successful. It is simply not realistic to leave all decision-making about values to students. They need specific direction; faculties that refuse to give that direction in fear of imposing values are doing teenagers a disservice.

Another concern: successful implementation of moral instruction can be undercut by school practices that conflict with the goals of the progam and negatively affect the climate of a school, often in subtle ways. If for example, the school wants students to value effort, it should not have an award system that only honors those with the highest grades. If it wants to promote citizenship, it should not restrict awards to achievement in academics and athletics. And if it wants students to have a sense that they are responsible for maintaining the school, it should not single out scholarship students as the only group which has work assignments.

4. Engage parents in moral education.
Parents play a crucial role, either positive or negative, in the moral development of their children. And since the school will be more likely to have more success with students who come from homes which support its moral instruction program, it is in its interest to involve parents.

In addition to articulating the goals of the program to parents, the school should sponsor relevant programs and activities: grade-level meetings for parents to discuss common discipline and parenting issues; support groups for parents; and programs that feature talks and discussions of such issues as discipline, self-esteem, psychological development of teenagers, drugs, and coping techniques when a child draws away from the family and seeks his or her own identify. Such programs and activities will not only serve as a source of information about important parenting issues, they will also engage parents in talking to each other. The more parents find out about what is going on with their children, the more effective they will be in setting limits and in disciplining.

Following through on the above four strategies will, of course, be time consuming. But respecting the process will bring important advantages to the school: the values it stands for will have been explored and clarified, its practices will have been reviewed, and the members of the school community will be committed to the success of the program they have helped design. No program of moral instruction can guarantee that any given student will graduate with the kind of values we would like to see, but attempting to guide students in a positive direction is what the task of education is all about. Taking on this task would certainly be more satisfying than grumbling about declining standards. And doing nothing would, I fear, leave a legacy of even lower standards.

Back to @BFS! archives
Back to @BFS!