Values, Character, and Moral Education

Values education has always been part of the American school system. Schools aim to develop students with strong, resilient character using two of the most influential movements pertaining to values education—the value-clarification movement and the cognitive moral development model. However, inherent tensions also reside in schools between an emphasis on strong academic preparation and the degree of responsibility schools have for educating young people regarding moral decision-making and values. Research shows that creating respectful classrooms that promote values can increase student academic achievement.

Keywords Character Education; Cognitive Moral Development Model; No Child Left Behind (2001); Peaceful Schools Project; Respectful Classroom; Responsive Classroom; Values Clarification Model

Overview

Definition of Character/Value/Moral Education

Character, values, and moral education take on many definitions, both broad and narrow in scope. In general, character education encompasses both relational and personal values. From a relational perspective, character education focuses on respect, fairness, civility, and tolerance (Beninga et al., 2006). From a personal perspective, character education emphasizes self-discipline, effort, perseverance, and other characteristics related to the self (Beninga et al., 2006). Moral education refers to a process through which moral and social norms are continued, constructed, and transformed (Chen et al., 2022). Schools with strong character, moral, and values education programs can choose to focus on relational values, personal values, or a combination of both.

History of Values, Moral, & Character Education

Schwartz (2007) indicates that America's founders strongly believed that teaching civic responsibility, developing democratic values, and instilling a strong sense of moral responsibility were essential elements of a strong democracy. Therefore, the first public schools in the United States ensured that values education was a main focus of the curriculum. Paris (1995; cited in Schwartz, 2007) asserts that as early as 1789, Massachusetts required that all schools teach common virtues such as justice, regard for truth, universal benevolence, etc. A strong focus on morals and values was an extremely important component of the educational model in the infancy of the United States.

Although immigration in the early to mid-1800s began to change the landscape of America—thus affecting the demographics in schools—the focus on values and morals remained strong (Lerner, 2006). However, as the late nineteenth century approached, educators began to place an increasing emphasis on academics, decreasing their focus on moral issues (DeRoche, 2015). Interestingly, according to Lerner (2006), the subject of moral and character education became extremely popular at this time as many magazines and journals began to point out the moral deficits of well-educated individuals. Additionally, popular opinion held that parents were unequipped to teach values and therefore looked to schools to teach children about character. The debate regarding the responsibility of schools to teach values began in earnest.

By the mid-twentieth century, many schools still maintained a strong focus on moral education. However, certain uncontrollable phenomena such as racial tensions, religious tensions, the "Red Scare," etc. influenced public opinion and many people turned their attention to academic training as opposed to values education (Lerner, 2006). During the 1960s and 1970s, people rejected moral education completely as many were fearful of indoctrination (Lerner, 2006).

Schwartz (2007) indicates that as the United States continues to become culturally diverse in the twenty-first century, arriving at a consensus regarding morals and values in education is becoming more and more difficult. Finding a common ground on academic matters has proven much easier for schools than debating the moral issues that people believe should be left to the discretion of individual families. However, a new trend in character education is once again attempting to take center stage as there is renewed concern about maintaining American values. Additionally, the media attention on increased school violence raises many questions about young people's moral development.

Beninga et al. (2006) indicated that the renewed interest in character education programs coincided with the rise of high stakes testing as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB asked schools to not only concentrate on academic achievement, but also on character development. However, despite the increased national attention on character and moral development, many schools were fearful of focusing time and energy on moral development, as they did not want to detract from their clear focus on academic achievement. Additionally, many schools lacked the resources, staff, or time to implement or create new moral development programs, as they struggled to meet the academic demands of NCLB.

Value Clarification & Cognitive Moral Development Movements

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, two movements influenced the ways in which educators thought about value and character education. Rather than taking the extreme positions of indoctrinating beliefs or remaining completely value-neutral, educators and researchers searched for an appropriate medium that did not coerce students into holding certain values, but also did not remain completely value-neutral. The value clarification movement and the cognitive moral development movement were two particularly influential movements that shaped the way educators thought about value education.

Value Clarification Movement

The value clarification movement was originated by researchers Simon and Raths (Simon et al., 1972; cited in Ellenwood, 2006). The central tenet of the movement is that educators do not need to be concerned with the actual content of the values that individuals hold, but rather they need to be concerned with the actual process of valuing. Simon et al. (1972) asserts that it is not reasonable to assume that teachers can work with students five days a week for many years without influencing students' values. Rather, the researchers argue that it is important for teachers to directly state their social and personal values, and then walk students through the actual process of developing their own sets of values and moral decisions in specific situations.

Simon et al. (1972) propose a three step value clarification process that enables students to actively participate in the process of making their own responsible decisions and adopting their own core sets of values. First, students are presented with a situation and encouraged to think critically about it. They are then allowed to choose freely among a variety of alternative responses without any restrictions regarding the actual response they choose. Second, students are invited to publicly announce their decisions and publicly affirm their thought processes. Ellenwood (2006) indicates that through the process of affirming their decisions, students are encouraged to think about the social implications of their decisions and how they affect others. In stage three, students act on their decisions, with teachers helping them navigate through the process of making their actions part of their everyday sets of values. Ellenwood (2006) indicates that although this model has received significant criticism, it is recognized as an extremely important contributor to the understanding of best practices regarding values education.

Cognitive Moral Development Movement

Lawrence Kohlberg based much of his framework regarding values education on the work of Jean Piaget (Cherry, 2022). Piaget asserts that cognitive development takes place naturally and in a sequential manner. In the first stage of cognitive development, obedience, students determine what they believe to be right or wrong solely on information disseminated by a parent or teacher. At this stage, children believe what they are told to believe. In the second stage, around age seven or eight, students are able to interpret rules and understand that their intentions are just as important as the actual outcome of their actions. In the third stage, students are able to determine the justice of their actions as well as how their actions fit into a larger set of social moral values (Ellenwood, 2006).

Kohlberg built upon the work of Piaget and developed six stages of cognitive moral development. In the first two stages, pre-conventional thinking, young children make moral decisions based on their fear of punishment or desire for a reward. The next two stages, conventional thinking, apply to the adolescent years and are characterized by students making decisions solely to conform to expected social norms or to obey authority. In his highest two stages of moral development, post-conventional thinking, adults are able to make moral decisions based on universal ethical principles and are able to view their decisions from a more global perspective (Cherry, 2022; Ellenwood, 2006).

Ellenwood (2006) indicates that in many schools Kohlberg's work became extremely influential and replaced the thinking that accompanied the value-clarification movement. He further discusses the implications of Kohlberg's model in the classroom setting and indicates that teachers need to be acutely aware of the different stages of moral development. Accordingly, they need to provide students with experiences that stretch their current mind-sets, but do not go too far beyond their cognitive abilities. Ellenwood (2006) further highlights that Kohlberg's research indicates that students who are afforded many opportunities for extensive peer interactions are able to move more quickly through the stages than those students who are not afforded as many opportunities.

Although Kohlberg's model of moral development has had a significant impact on the way educators think about moral decision-making among young children, some people believe that his model is too formulaic and that other factors play a role in the development of moral decision-making processes (Cherry, 2022; Ellenwood, 2006). Nonetheless, Kohlberg's model is considered to be one of the most influential in the field of values education.

Influence on the Teaching of Values in Modern Classrooms

Ellenwood (2006) argues that twenty-first century schools place a low emphasis on teaching moral and character development because teaching values is risky. There is much less risk involved in determining which mathematical concepts should be taught at each grade level or which books students should read. Ellenwood (2006) found that some individuals believe that by teaching children a set of core values, schools are thereby indoctrinating them with a specific set of moral values. Furthermore, some teachers believe that incorporating moral development into the curriculum directly jeopardizes a core pedagogical belief that all students should be free to weigh evidence, explore different options, and arrive at their own conclusions (Ellenwood, 2006).

Regardless of the elements of the debate over teaching moral values, Ellenwood (2006) asserts that, ultimately, it is impossible for schools to mandate specific values or coerce students to believe and act in certain ways. However, Ellenwood (2006) further claims that it is also impossible for schools to be value-neutral. No matter what perspective you hold on values education, every educational institution operates on a certain set of core values that is either directly or indirectly communicated to young people. Therefore, students in schools will be exposed to some set of values. Whether schools choose to directly teach students a set of common values or students indirectly absorb common values as communicated by the cultural and traditional aspects of an individual school, all students are influenced in some form by the values of the educational institution and its members.

Global Values Education

Schwartz (2007) offers a detailed discussion of a values education model used by teachers in Japan which may have implications for the renewed focus on character education in the United States. Japanese educators believe that moral education is a central component of the advancement of intellectual growth, and have developed a formal moral development program that is mandated for students in elementary school through high school. Schwartz (2007) asserts that a solid civic education encourages students to develop their own perspectives and helps them understand multiple perspectives regarding life decisions. Ultimately, students who are exposed to a strong values and character education program are more likely to grow up respecting and understanding different cultural and global perspectives than their counterparts who are not exposed to such a program. Schwartz (2007) provides numerous examples from the mandated Japanese program that speak to the level of values education to which students are exposed in Japan. For example, first graders learn how to speak with a cheerful voice, say thank you, cooperate, be kind, work hard, and make good decisions. Later on in middle school, moral decision-making and core values are emphasized in a more sophisticated manner as students learn to develop a sense of self and embrace different perspectives and world views as they learn core values such as preserving and maintaining the earth (Schwartz, 2007). This mandated program has proven highly successful in Japan. However, Schwartz (2007) indicates that in the United States such a program may take up too many hours of the school day. These hours spent on values education would directly detract from hours spent on academics. Thus, the tension between academics and moral development continues in earnest (Schwartz, 2007).

Asif et al. compared the moral education stances of teachers in Pakistan and China, finding that the teacher's moral standing greatly influenced the angle they used to approach teaching morals and values. In China, teachers focused on promoting morality regarding political allegiance, collectivist ideals, and family. In Pakistan, teachers were rather conservative and taught loyalty to the state's constitution, divine laws, and service to society were the focus of moral teaching. However, it should be noted that none of the teachers in this study used a research-based approach to these teachings (Asif et al., 2020). In 2019, Bleazby reported Australia's Ethical Understanding General Capability curriculum aimed to avoid indoctrination and subjectivism but encourage "1) understanding of moral issues and concepts; 2) moral inquiry skills; and 3) moral habits and values (e.g., being honest and caring)" (Bleazby, 2019). The aim of this plan was to incorporate moral development into schools in a research-based manner, while taking some of the pressure off teachers to come up with lesson plans that incorporated ethical and moral learning.

Effects of Character Education on Academic Achievement

Although some schools are worried that a focus on character and moral development will likely detract from the focus on academic achievement, there may be evidence that a strong character education program promotes academic achievement. Beninga et al. (2006) discuss evidence retrieved from an evaluation of programs such as the Peaceful Schools Project and Responsive Classroom which indicates that schools implementing such programs have experienced greater gains in academic achievement as expressed by scores on standardized tests as opposed to schools that do not implement specific character and moral education programs. Beninga et al. (2006) assert that research points directly to a positive correlation between an emphasis on values education and academic achievement.

In their research, Beninga et al. (2006) discuss four guiding principles that serve as a direct connection between schools with strong character education programs and schools with increased or high levels of academic achievement. First, Beninga et al. (2006) assert that good schools ensure a clean and secure physical environment. Schools with strong values education programs take pride in their school surroundings, respect the environment, and care deeply about the space within which students learn. Such a strong pride in the school environment directly ties into academic achievement as students learning in a clean, safe environment are better prepared to learn more effectively.

Secondly, Beninga et al. (2006) assert that good schools model fairness, equity, caring, and respect. They argue that schools which embrace a strong values education program and have high levels of academic achievement place a strong emphasis on modeling appropriate behavior and decision-making. In such schools, adults model the types of values they want students to embrace and, therefore, both directly and indirectly, infuse the school culture and environment with these values. The researchers further conclude that good schools encourage students to contribute to society in meaningful ways. For example, Beninga et al. (2006) found that academically strong schools with a heavy emphasis on character education encourage students to volunteer, tutor, recycle, fundraise, help other citizens, etc. Lastly, Beninga et al. (2006) found that good schools promote a caring community with positive social interactions and relationships.

In a longitudinal study, Watson (2006) set out to answer the question regarding whether students exposed to strong character and values education programs in elementary school were more likely to experience positive effects on academic achievement later in life. Most students were found to not only be academically successful in high school but were also found to have positive self-images with relation to moral decision-making and core values.

Applications

Creating Respectful Classrooms Focused on Values, Morals, & Character

Miller & Pedro (2006) discuss strategies for creating respectful classrooms that foster strong relationships, respect for differences, and understanding of multiple perspectives. First and foremost, Miller & Pedro (2006) assert that teachers need to be open to new experiences; they need to be well-read and understand different cultural experiences. They need to understand the lives of the children they teach, and they need to appreciate and understand the communities that surround their schools. With a strong knowledge-base in these areas, teachers are better equipped to create respectful environments that encourage a strong set of core values.

To create a classroom that values respect and teaches students to understand different perspectives and make good decisions, teachers must model respect for students in everything they do. They must pay close attention to student interactions, and open discussions with students when something disrespectful occurs (Miller & Pedro, 2006). Additionally, teachers that value respectful classrooms validate each student's experience and ask students to reflect on decisions that affect their lives. Wessler (2003; cited in Miller & Pedro, 2006) indicates that when students feel the teacher cares about their feelings and their beliefs, they are more likely to respect themselves and their fellow classmates.

Miller & Pedro (2006) further highlight the critical importance of developing strong relationships with students. They assert that students observe teachers to understand how they navigate through social and moral environments. As models, teachers play a crucial role in the development of moral decision-making. Furthermore, Watson (2006) emphasizes the importance of developing trusting relationships with students. In fact, Noddings (2002; cited in Watson, 2006) claims that caring student-teacher relationships may be an essential component for any moral/character education program.

Miller & Pedro (2006) assert that respectful classrooms foster greater appreciation for diversity, and encourage students to share personal beliefs, backgrounds, and ideas in a safe, open-minded environment. They further claim that respectful classroom environments aid successful teaching and learning as respect permeates throughout all student-teacher interactions.

Terms & Concepts

Character Education: From a relationship perspective, character education focuses on respect, fairness, civility, and tolerance (Beninga et al., 2006). From a personal perspective, character education emphasizes self-discipline, effort, perseverance, and other characteristics related to the self (Beninga et al., 2006).

Cognitive Moral Development Model: Lawrence Kohlberg based much of this framework of values education on the work of Jean Piaget. He elaborated on Piaget's model and developed a curriculum that depended entirely on natural stages of cognitive moral development.

No Child Left Behind (2001): A broad and comprehensive bi-partisan education reform that addresses the issue of performance in American elementary and secondary schools. The Act focuses on accountability for schools and districts, choice for parents regarding low performing schools, and requirements for use of federal education dollars.

Peaceful Schools Project: A specific values, moral and character education program designed to address issues related to bullying.

Respectful Classroom: Miller & Pedro (2006) assert that respectful classrooms foster greater appreciation for diversity and encourage students to share personal beliefs, backgrounds, and ideas in a safe, open-minded environment.

Responsive Classroom: Responsive Classroom is an approach to teaching and learning that helps to integrate academic and social learning throughout the day. The program was developed by Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc. and works with teachers to develop safe classroom environments (www.responsiveclassroom.org)

Values Clarification Model: Originated by researchers Simon and Raths (Simon et al., 1973; cited in Ellenwood, 2006). The central tenet of the movement is that educators do not need to be concerned with the actual content of the values that individuals hold, but rather they need to be concerned with the actual process of valuing.

Bibliography

Asif T., Guangming O., Haider M. A., Colomer J., Kayani S., Amin N. (2020). Moral education for sustainable development: comparison of university teachers' perceptions in China and Pakistan. Sustainability 12, 3014. doi.org/10.3390/su12073014

Beninga, J. Berkowitz, M., Kuehn, P., & Smith, K. (2006). Character and academics: What good students do. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 448-452. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19640766&site=ehost-live

Berkowitz, M. W. (2011). What works in values education. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 153-158. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66308941&site=ehost-live

Bleazby J. (2020). Fostering moral understanding, moral inquiry and moral habits through philosophy in schools: A Deweyian analysis of Australia's ethical understanding curriculum. J. Curric. Stud. 52, 84–100. doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1650116

Cherry, K. (2022, November 7). Levels of developing morality in Kohlberg’s theories. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-development-2795071

Ellenwood, S. (2006). Revisiting character education: From McGuffey to narratives. Journal of Education, 187, 21-43. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25387945&site=ehost-live

Lerner, B. (2006). Historical perspectives on character education. Journal of Education, 187, 129-147. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25387951&site=ehost-live

Miller, R. & Pedro, J. (2006). Creating respectful classroom environments. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 293-299. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21680085&site=ehost-live

Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. Teachers College Press.

Sandy, M. (2011). Practical beauty and the legacy of pragmatism: Generating theory for community-engaged scholarship. Interchange, 42, 261-285. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73462037&site=ehost-live

Schwartz, S. (2007). Educating the heart. Educational Leadership, 64, 76-78. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24666235&site=ehost-live

Shumer, R., Lam, C., & Laabs, B. (2012). Ensuring good character and civic education: Connecting through service learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32, 430-440. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84103780&site=ehost-live

Simon, S. Howe, L. W., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). Values clarification. Hart Publishing Company.

Watson, M. (2006). Long-term effects of moral/character education in elementary school. Journal of Research in Character Education, 4(1/2), 1-18. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23965205&site=ehost-live

What is the Responsive Classroom Approach? (n.d.) Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/about/aboutrc.html

Suggested Reading

DeRoche, E., & Williams, M. (2001). Educating hearts and minds: A comprehensive character education framework (2nd ed.). Corwin Press

Leming, J. S. (2000). Tell me a story: An evaluation of a literature based character education programme. Journal of Moral Education, 29, 413-427.

Weissbound, R. (2003). Moral teachers, moral students. Educational Leadership, 60, 6-7. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9209999&site=ehost-live

Williams, D., Yanchar, S. C., Jensen, L.C. & Lewis, C. (2003). Character education in public high school: A multi-year inquiry into Unified Studies. Journal of Moral Education, 32(1), 3-33. doi.org/10.1080/0305724022000073310

Williams, M.M. (2000). Models of character education: Perspectives and developmental issues. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 39, 32-40. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3517623&site=ehost-live