There are methodological flaws in the North American system in dealing with crime, violence and other deviant behaviors. Predominantly, focus is on fighting the outcomes of the undesired behaviors, instead of their causes. For instance, police forces are expanded to fight gangs, drug-trafficking and prostitution; criminals are convicted and put into prison. It is relatively easier to do, but has no long-term implications. Preventative measures, such as education, are to large extent neglected. Therefore, not surprisingly, the rates of crime and violence are steadily on the rise in
Believing that every member of a society desires to live in a moral environment, the following paper proposes introducing moral education into North American school curricula. A carefully designed program could become a very powerful means to create better societies through raising morally conscious and responsible citizens. The paper discusses ideological reasons for such a reform and points to its potential applications.
There are firm theoretical grounds for teaching morality in schools at all levels (e.g., Piaget, 1932[1997]; Ikemoto, 1996; Nucci, 2000; Bandura & McDonald, 1963). Contrary to what people had believed at various times in the history, immorality is not innate (Berk & Shanker, 2004). There is no such thing as the original sin in a DNA code. Nobody is born a bad person; a burglar, a rapist or a gang member. People rather become such characters due to, broadly speaking, situational and educational factors. Hence, importantly, learning becomes of crucial importance in acquisition of moral reasoning.
Generally, the earlier learning takes place the better. It is true about a whole wide range of skills, but it is especially evident in terms of language acquisition (Pearson, 2007). In fact, there is a great parallel between the acquisition of language and that of social and moral reasoning: neither of the skills are innate, yet the newborns certainly posses the capacity to attain them. The change may occur with an intervention of the adult (Piaget, 1932[1997]) and appropriate stimulation is critical as the acquisition is taking place gradually. The parents’ input builds a foundation to expand vocabulary and make sense of grammar, but it is the school that teaches children to read and write. Without a certain degree of schooling, literacy may be incomplete or even impaired. Similarly, without an appropriate input, social and moral reasoning skills may develop in deviant and detrimental ways.
Acquisition of moral reasoning, requires not only experience of appropriate social planes, but also sufficient levels of biologically restricted cognitive maturity (Piaget, 1932[1997]). Nonetheless, consistently with theories of Lev Vygotsky (for general review, please refer to Berk & Shanker, 2004), socialization is the most important process in development of human-specific higher mental functions, such as language or moral reasoning. Thus, it is socialization that shapes the child’s general idea about the world, including the sense of morality.
The main problem of the current situation with the socialization of morality is diffusion of responsibility. Who exactly is responsible for children’s moral development: parents, teachers, spiritual leaders or perhaps children themselves? The society awaits the young people to become moral and well adjusted citizens, but at the same time is conservatively reluctant to teach them these skills. Alluding to the language acquisition metaphor, it is as though the parents did not send their children to school, believing that they themselves would learn to be fully literate. It can happen, but is rather unlikely. Thus, how can we even expect the citizens to be moral, if they have only limited opportunities to explore the nature of morality, moral judgment and moral reasoning?
The school is an institution which could readily take the responsibility to promote the development of ‘moral literacy’ for several reasons. Children spend about ¼ of the day at school, which after sleep is probably the most time-consuming activity for approximately twelve years of their lives. Thus, the school shapes and socializes children like no other person or institution. It is also a reasonably good model of the society and experiences gained at school give the child a concrete idea of how the world functions. In a group of peers, social relations completely change and the children continually gain more and more autonomy from parents and other adults (Piaget, 1932[1997]).
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that moral development can be altered by modeling and social learning (Bandura and McDonald, 1963; Bandura, 1969). Interaction with teachers and peers already is an informal, intuitive type of moral education. However, modern educators need to consciously become appropriate role-models. Through fostering mutual respect and understanding of morality of cooperation, the teacher will not only accelerate, but also deepen the maturity of moral reasoning (Piaget, 1932[1997]).
Curriculum-based moral education is a brilliant way to facilitate child’s moral development, but is not its only benefit. Classroom moral education creates a friendly community and improves general academic standards (Ikemoto, 1996).
All the above mentioned arguments suggest that children are ready to learn whatever they are taught. If they are taught mathematics, they are very likely to become mathematicians. If they are taught morality, they are to become moral citizens. Nonetheless, this argument might meet with an opposition from some parents and religious institutions.
In North American multicultural societies, religious and ethic minorities could feel threatened that morality taught at school will contradict the teachings of their religion or culture. However, the research clearly distinguishes between moral and social conventions (Turiel, 1983 as quoted in Nucci, 2000) suggesting that moral conventions are fairly universal across religions and cultures. The curriculum-based moral education ought to teach universal moral conventions.
Specific religious moral conducts (e.g., Ten Commandments of Judaism and Christianity or Five Pillars of Islam) are usually rigid, dogmatic, impractical and rarely explained. The contemporary world and everyday decisions are not as black-and-white as they may seem to the child (Kuhmerker, 1991). She needs to understand that rules are created and demand a subjective interpretation (Piaget, 1932[1997]). For example, according to the 5th commandment (Thou shalt not kill) killing is immoral. However, how moral is the capital punishment (Kieslowski & Piesiewicz, 1989) or killing in defense of one’s daughter?
Traditionally, family was another institution responsible for socializing morality. Unfortunately, in the world today average North American parents do not have adequate time for their children. They have extended working schedules and the divorce rate is high (Statistics Canada, 2006). Supporting moral development needs time, effort, commitment and patience from the adult’s side. Although the parents want to bring up their children the best they can, many of them hold conservative misconceptions of moral education and commit basic mistakes. Piaget (1932[1997]) calls parents “poor psychologists” (p.191) who provide their children with a rather controversial moral training, promoting the morality of constraint rather than morality of cooperation. Furthermore, an average parent usually only increases child’s mental confusion through imposing contradicting rules and often providing no explanations for them.
The collaboration between the parents and teachers in moral upbringing of the child is the most desirable. Ideally, moral education at school should only reinforce what is taught at home (Ikemoto, 1996), but for many children the curriculum-based moral education may be the only one they will ever get. We cannot make sure that all children are getting the same quality of upbringing at home, but we can at least provide a similar quality of education.
Importantly, teaching morality in schools will not replace the traditional institutions (the family and religion) which have socialized morality. The ultimate goal of all moral educators is to help the child to become a better person and an adjusted citizen. A universal moral education in school will promote the moral welfare of the entire society, but will not deny the influence and access of family and religion to the child.
There are examples which North American educators and policymakers could follow in creating the moral curriculum.
How does it translate into practical terms?
Therefore, teaching morality in North America could be teaching respect for life (Ikemoto, 1996), fostering development of empathy and perspective taking abilities (Piaget, 1932[1997]; Roots of Empathy, 2006) and also transmitting social and communications skills. Teaching such morality is free of religious and cultural biases and definitely falls under the category of universal moral conventions.
According to Nucci (2000), the curriculum-based moral education could rest upon four universal aims: (1) to develop the student’s abilities to reflect morally on their own social life and the structure of the society, (2) to engage in moral decision-making with examples relevant to everyday contexts, (3) to facilitate integration of general moral understanding with the student’s self-conception, and finally (4) to stimulate the capacities to act as moral agents and ethical leaders. Hence, the ultimate aim of modern moral education is not teaching children any specific rules, but rather general and universal guidelines upon which they can build their own sense of morality and interpret the existing rules.
In the long-run, promoting the understanding of the rules is far more successful than forcing them. Thus, the path to moral maturity is greatly a question of gradual acquisition, not one-time learning. Through cooperation, sympathy and reciprocity, moral educators need to use the above mentioned guidelines to create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the classroom. Children attain a more in-depth understanding of concepts through peer discussion than through hierarchical indoctrination (Piaget, 1932[1997]).
There are already existing classroom-based programs which assist the child in moral development. Roots of Empathy (2006) has a main purpose of promoting development of children’s emotional literacy and empathy. Increasingly popular in elementary schools across
Older children may discuss Kohlberg-like dilemmas (see Kuhmerker, 1991) in contexts of their everyday lives. Also dilemmas posed in relevant movies, for instance, Kieslowski and Piesiewicz’s (1989) Decalogue could be discussed and justified.
The above mentioned examples are only several suggestions for curriculum-based moral education. It is a very important, but sensitive project. It needs to be carefully designed by education professionals to suit cognitive and social levels of child’s maturity. Consistently, this paper is not calling for an educational revolution, but a carefully planned educational evolution. It has depicted theoretical frameworks in which universal moral conventions could be taught. In fact, there is enough of theoretical grounds on development of moral reasoning to apply it into a real-life, North American setting. We have the tools. Now we need the courage and determination to commit to this project.
