More options. Find it at other libraries via WorldCat Limited preview. Contributor Pike, Mark A. Bibliography Includes bibliographical references p. Contents Concepts and contexts in citizenship and moral education Underlying values in citizenship and moral education The aims of citizenship and moral education Language and literacy in citizenship and moral education Citizenship and moral education through the arts The humanities and the moral education of citizens Citizenship and moral education through RE and PSHE Teaching and learning citizenship How children learn values The morality of assessing citizenship Reflections on professional practice in citizenship and moral education.
Supplemental links Table of contents. Ethische vorming. Bibliographic information. Publication date ISBN hbk. Browse related items Start at call number: LC The inevitable question, of course, is, whose morality will be taught? We will offer our answer by way of a sketch of a theory of moral education. Given this theory—and the civic and educational frameworks we outlined in Chapters 1 and 2—we will draw out the implications for the role of religion in moral education. To put a little flesh on these theoretical bones, we will take sex education as a case study.
We trust that it is uncontroversial to say that schooling is unavoidably a moral enterprise. Indeed, schools teach morality in a number of ways, both implicit and explicit. Schools have a moral ethos embodied in rules, rewards and punishments, dress codes, honor codes, student government, relationships, styles of teaching, extracurricular emphases, art, and in the kinds of respect accorded students and teachers.
Schools convey to children what is expected of them, what is normal, what is right and wrong. It is often claimed that values are caught rather than taught ; through their ethos, schools socialize children into patterns of moral behavior. Textbooks and courses often address moral questions and take moral positions. Literature inevitably explores moral issues, and writers take positions on those issues—as do publishers who decide which literature goes in the anthologies. In teaching history we initiate students into particular cultural traditions and identities.
The overall shape of the curriculum is morally loaded by virtue of what it requires, what it makes available as electives, and what it ignores. For example, for more than a century but especially since A Nation at Risk and the reform reports of the s , there has been a powerful movement to make schooling and the curriculum serve economic purposes.
Religion and art, by contrast, have been largely ignored and are not even elective possibilities in many schools. As a result, schooling encourages a rather more materialistic and less spiritual culture—a matter of some moral significance. Educators have devised a variety of approaches to values and morality embodied in self-esteem, community service, civic education, sex education, drug education, Holocaust education, multicultural education, values clarification, and character education programs—to name but a few. We might consider two of the most influential of these approaches briefly.
For the past several decades values clarification programs have been widely used in public schools.
Values are ultimately personal; indeed, the implicit message is that there are no right or wrong values. Needless to say, this is a deeply controversial approach—and is now widely rejected. The character education movement of the last decade has been a response, in part, to the perceived relativism of values clarification. Finally, we note what is conspicuous by its absence: although all universities offer courses in ethics, usually in departments of philosophy or religious studies, very few public schools have such courses. Unlike either values clarification or character education programs, the major purpose of ethics courses is usually to provide students with intellectual resources drawn from a variety of traditions and schools of thought that might orient them in the world and help them think through difficult moral problems.
As important as we all agree morality to be, it is striking that schools do not consider ethics courses an option worth offering. In Chapter 2 we distinguished between socialization, training, and indoctrination on the one hand,and education on the other. Socialzation, we suggested, is the uncritical initiation of students into a tradition, a way of thinking and acting. Education, by contrast, requires critical distance from tradition, exposure to alternatives, informed and reflective deliberation about how to think and live. Not all, but much character education might better be called character training or socialization , for the point is not so much to teach virtue and values by way of critical reflection on contending points of view, but to structure the moral ethos of schooling to nurturing the development of those moral habits and virtues that we agree to be good and important, that are part of our moral consensus.
This is not a criticism of character education. Children must be morally trained. Character education does appeal, as the Manifesto makes clear, to a heritage of stories, literature, art, and biography to inform and deepen students' understanding of, and appreciation for, moral virtue. Often such literature will reveal the moral ambiguities of life, and discussion of it will encourage critical reflection on what is right and wrong.
But if the literature is chosen to nurture the development of the right virtues and values, it may not be well suited to nurture an appreciation of moral ambiguity or informed and critical thinking about contending values and ways of thinking and living. Of course, character education programs often nurture the virtues of tolerance, respect, and civility that play major roles in enabling educational discussion of controversial issues. One of the supposed virtues of the values clarification movement, by contrast, was its use of moral dilemmas and divisive issues; moreover, in asking students to consider the consequences of their actions, it required them to think critically about them.
But the values clarification movement never required students to develop an educated understanding of moral frameworks of thought that could inform their thinking and provide them with critical distance on their personal desires and moral intuitions; it left them to their own inner resources which might be meager. Let us put it this way. Of course, one of these issues is the nature of morality itself; after all, we disagree about how to justify and ground those values and virtues that the character education movement nurtures. If students are to be morally educated—and educated about morality—they must have some understanding of the moral frameworks civilization provides for making sense of the moral dimension of life.
After all, morality is not intellectually free-floating, a matter of arbitrary choices and merely personal values. Morality is bound up with our place in a community or tradition, our understanding of nature and human nature, our convictions about the afterlife, our experiences of the sacred, our assumptions about what the mind can know, and our understanding of what makes life meaningful. We make sense of what we ought to do, of what kind of a person we should be, in light of all of these aspects of life—at least if we are reflective. We have space here to offer only the briefest sketch of a theory of moral education.
For any society or school to exist, its members students, teachers, and administrators must share a number of moral virtues : they must be honest, responsible, and respectful of one another's well-being. We agree about this. Public schools have a vital role to play in nurturing these consensus virtues and values, as the character education movement rightly emphasizes; indeed, a major purpose of schooling is to help develop good persons.
If we are to live together peacefully in a pluralistic society, we must also nurture those civic virtues and values that are part of our constitutional tradition: we must acknowledge responsibility for protecting one another's rights; we must debate our differences in a civil manner; we must keep informed. A major purpose of schooling is to nurture good citizenship.
But when we disagree about important moral and civic issues, including the nature of morality itself, then, for both the civic and educational reasons we discussed in Chapter 2, students must learn about the alternatives, and teachers and schools should not take official positions on where the truth lies. The purpose of a liberal education should be to nurture an informed and reflective understanding of the conflicts.
What shape moral education should take depends on the maturity of students. We might think of a K—12 continuum in which character education begins immediately with the socialization of children into those consensus values and virtues that sustain our communities. As children grow older and more mature they should gradually be initiated into a liberal education in which they are taught to think in informed and reflective ways about important, but controversial, moral issues.
Character education and liberal education cannot be isolated in single courses but should be integrated into the curriculum as a whole. We also believe, however, that the curriculum should include room for a moral capstone course that high school seniors might take, in which they learn about the most important moral frameworks of thought—secular and religious, historical and contemporary—and how such frameworks might shape their thinking about the most urgent moral controversies they face.
This is, of course, the inevitable question: If we are going to teach values, whose values are we going to teach?
Moral education and character education: their relationship and roles in citizenship education
The answer is simple, at least in principle: We teach everyone's values. When we agree with each other we teach the importance and rightness of those consensus values.
When we disagree, we teach about the alternatives and withhold judgment. For example, we agree about democracy; it is proper, indeed important, to convey to students the value of democracy and the democratic virtues. We disagree deeply about the values of the Republican and Democratic parties, however. We can't leave politics out of the curriculum simply because it is controversial. If students are to be educated , if they are to make informed political decisions, they must learn something about the values and policies of the two parties.
In public schools, teachers and texts should not take sides when the public is deeply divided; there should be no established political party. Schools should teach students about the alternatives fairly. And so it should be with every other major moral or civic issue that divides us—including religion.
Citizenship and Moral Education | Values in Action | Taylor & Francis Group
A good liberal education will provide students with a basic cultural literacy about those aspects of the human condition sufficiently important to warrant a place in the curriculum. We have argued in earlier chapters that a major purpose for studying history and literature is the understanding and insight they provide into the human condition.
History is a record of social, political, moral, and religious experiments; it provides interpretations of the suffering and flourishing of humankind.