MORAL TRAINING
Character building must always be recognized as a most important
function of the school. It is a mistake to divorce the intellectual
training of children from growth in morality. If our country demands
increased industrial intelligence, the training of men and women for
leadership in manufacture, trade, and commerce, much more must it
demand citizens of sterling character. Industrial and intellectual
supremacy can mean nothing to a nation unless righteousness prevails
both in public and in private life. The idea that the schools of our
democracy are to train for citizenship has always been interpreted to
mean an education which will fit for a life of service to the best
interests of humanity. The fact that religious instruction, as such,
is barred from our schools, does not mean that we are as a people
irreligious, much less that we undervalue the significance of the
moral training of our children.
School conditions offer advantages for moral training, even though
the overemphasis on intellectual attainments may at times seem to
give the teacher little opportunity for work in this direction.
The fact of a group of children who may learn to work together, to
help each other, to respect each other’s rights, to serve the best
interests of the whole group, in fact a situation which demands just
those virtues which are demanded in society outside the school,
makes the school in some respects an ideal situation for training in
morality. Of course it is possible that the demand for intellectual
attainment may so occupy the mind of the teacher that she will
resort to repression in order to get results in habits and knowledge.
It is true, too, that the curriculum may be so narrow as to give less
opportunity than might be desired for the type of activity which best
lends itself to the development of social virtues. But if adverse
conditions hinder somewhat the work of the teacher, they cannot deny
a very important place to the school in the formation of character.
The increased responsibility of the school for the moral training
of children becomes apparent at once when the influence of the home
and the church of to-day are contrasted with the strength which
these institutions once possessed. Regret it as much as we may,
neither home nor church is as potent in the development of morality
as they once were. Before the dominance of the factory system the
boy or girl who participated in the activities of the home gained in
appreciation of necessity for coöperation and in understanding of his
responsibility to the group in a way that is denied the modern child.
To be a party to those industries through which food was secured,
clothing obtained, and shelter provided meant the exercise of all
of the social virtues. It was fitting under such a régime that the
school should devote itself largely to the tools of learning. But
under our present conditions the demand is insistent that the school
provide, in some measure, through its curriculum, its organization,
and by means of its methods of instruction, for the development of
the attitude of responsibility, and that positive morality which
places a premium upon doing good.
Let us inquire still more closely concerning the conditions under
which moral training must be effected in the school. First of all
there is the fact of heredity. The children with whom we work are
different by nature, and nothing that we can do will make them all
alike. Then, too, there is the added factor of training before
the school age. Many children come to school with bad habits and
low ideals. The one thing that every teacher ought to realize as
fundamental in moral training is the fact that differences in
children must be met by a corresponding difference of appeal on the
part of the teacher.
Over against the differences due to heredity and previous training,
there is to be found the common instinctive equipment. Children
instinctively imitate, construct, collect, inquire, emulate,
sympathize, contest, wonder, are proud, and the like. This
instinctive equipment furnishes the basis for actions which in turn
become habits. The problem of the teacher is to use these instincts
in securing desirable responses. Of course, undesirable responses
have their basis in instinct. Here it is the business of the teacher
to make the undesirable response result in discomfort, or, better, to
substitute a desirable response. To be too proud of one’s attainment
as contrasted with others may be unlovely, but to be proud of work
better done to-day than yesterday is a positive virtue resting upon
the same instinctive foundation. The teacher may be worried because
of the imitation of that which is socially undesirable, but she
may use this same tendency to react to produce the social graces.
There are cases in which the attempt to substitute may fail, and the
necessity for inhibition by accompanying the undesirable response by
unpleasant results arise. The important thing is not to neglect this
instinctive equipment. The tendencies shown in childhood furnish the
one basis for moral development, and their neglect may result in lack
of moral strength throughout the life of the individual.
Besides the differences among individuals, there are differences
corresponding roughly to stages of development. The authority which
is accepted without question by children of six will be seriously
questioned by the adolescent. Children grow not only in their
ability to judge of the right action, but also in their demand that
authority be amenable to reason. There can be no doubt but that
rational morality is the type which the school should attempt to
develop. To this end it is essential that the responsibility of
children for their own actions and for the welfare of the whole
group should increase as they pass through the school. There is a
possibility of controlling little children through fear, but the
time comes when threats no longer avail. It is a sorry spectacle to
see a mature individual who must still be controlled by fear of the
results which will follow misconduct. It may be questioned whether
the continued use of corporal punishment may not result in arrested
development in morality. The desire for social approval develops
throughout the school period. When children or adults fail to see the
reasonableness of a demand, this appeal to approval of the group may
be most effective in securing desirable responses. The rule which
the teacher must follow is never to appeal to a lower motive when a
higher may be used. Fear, respect for authority, faith in the wisdom
of the one directing, desire for social approval, ability to pick
out the essentially moral element in the situation, and desire to
act in accordance with one’s best judgment,—thus runs the hierarchy
of motives which control. In any group some children can be appealed
to by one motive and some by another. The teacher who is developing
moral strength in the group will constantly seek to appeal to the
children on a plane just higher than that which they have hitherto
occupied.
Another factor which plays an important part in conditioning the
work of the school in developing morality is the generally accepted
standards of the community. Social heredity furnishes the basis for
belief in the continued development of society. The progress that has
been made, the standards once established, become the common heritage
of the members of the group. Drunkenness is no longer considered
gentlemanly; we do not lie to our enemies when they have a right
to know the truth; our ideal of civic righteousness demands that a
man be as honest when he serves the whole people as he is when he
deals with individuals. The importance of this factor of environment
in determining the moral life of the individual is admitted even
by those who emphasize most strongly the importance of original
nature. For the school it gives hope because of the influences
which may there be brought to bear upon the child; and it adds a
problem, because the school may not ignore the home or the street
from which the child comes. It does not seem unreasonable to expect
that teachers will at no far distant day become most active in all
activities which make for better, cleaner, more worthy surroundings
for the children whom they attempt to train during a relatively small
part of their waking hours.
The physical condition of children and teacher has much to do
with the possibility of effective school work, and training in
morality is not an exception to the rule. There is not much use in
trying to form moral habits, nor in asking children to form moral
judgments, in a room filled with foul air, with the temperature above
seventy-five. Poor physical condition on the part of the teacher is
often responsible for lack of control on the part of children. A
nervous, worn-out teacher is apt to nag, is almost sure to magnify
insignificant acts, and by virtue of her lack of control of herself
is in no position to control or instruct children. It would seem
at times that we need medical care for teachers even more than for
children. One child in poor physical condition may be hard to manage,
and may fail to gain much either intellectually or morally from the
school; but one teacher in poor physical condition may do positive
injury to a roomful of children. A few days with a dyspeptic teacher
may mean the formation of bad habits which it will take weeks or even
months to eradicate.
We are beginning to realize that there is a direct relation between
hygiene and morality. The underfed, overworked, physically unfit are
so frequently immoral that we had almost charged their condition
to their immorality. In doing so we were often confusing cause and
effect. However the problem may be solved so far as adults are
concerned, we are satisfied that children of school age are entitled
to happy, healthful lives in so far as it is possible to achieve
this result. The work done to secure better physical conditions, both
in school and at home, is probably as significant for the morality of
children as is any instruction that is given; and such care for the
physical welfare of children is the condition without which we have
no right to expect them to grow morally strong.
While all are agreed as to the necessity for moral training in our
schools, there is a difference of opinion concerning the method to
be used. One school advocates direct moral instruction by means of
fairy tales, history, and other stories, and by moral precepts. The
advocates of this form of instruction believe that they can in this
way make children understand clearly what is right, and because of
the emotional reaction produced by tale or story the children will
not only know the right, but will also want to do right. Those who
believe in indirect instruction find in the regular work of the
school, in the teaching of all subjects, as well as in the control of
the children in school, the best opportunity for moral instruction.
With regard to the direct method, it seems to the writer that it
is assumed that “to know right is to do right.” So far as the
emotion aroused by a story of bravery, or honesty, or temperance is
concerned, the chances are that it will have entirely evaporated
before any occasion for action is found. And right here is one very
great danger in this sort of instruction. To have the emotions
aroused without any outlet in the corresponding action may result in
developing individuals who are entirely satisfied with the emotion.
They learn to delight in emotions, and lack efficiency in action.
The time to tell the story of bravery is when bravery is actually
demanded; or for the child who knows the story simply as a story
and without any attempt to use it to teach morality, the story may
be referred to when this virtue is demanded. Likewise with the
moral precept. For one who has had some experience in acting in
accordance with his best moral judgment, the precept may be used as
a significant generalization. Honesty may be the best policy after
you have won in the struggle and have the approval of conscience,
and of those whose judgment you value. You may be ashamed to be
designated by the name of the unlovely character in the story, when
you are really guilty of his weakness of character. It would seem
safer, from what we know of the emotions, to assume that actions are
responsible for emotions rather than to expect the emotion to produce
the corresponding action.
In support of the indirect method of teaching morality, it may be
argued that the school presents continually a situation in which
moral action is demanded.[21] It is possible, of course, to deny to
children any considerable responsibility for their actions. Children
who are hedged about by rules and regulations, who are constantly
directed and commanded by the teacher, will grow little in power
to form correct moral judgments. But the ideal school is in fact
a society, and the demand for moral activity, and consequently
the chance to grow in morality, is as great as in any other life
situation. It must be remembered, too, that the main purpose of
the moral training which the school gives is to make moral growth
continuous. New situations will demand new adjustments, and it is not
possible to supply the child with a morality which will be sufficient
for his future needs. The one preparation which will certainly be
effective in making possible later growth is to be found in the moral
action of to-day.
The subjects of instruction lend themselves to moral training. Moral
strength depends upon interest in those activities which make for
social welfare, in the exercise of judgment in determining the course
of action which will contribute most to the general welfare, and in
action in accordance with the judgment rendered. Our course of study
contains much which should result in increased appreciation and
sympathy in the activities which characterize our modern society.
Geography, history, nature study, literature, all deal with men in
their relationship with one another in a common environment. If
teaching means anything more than gaining knowledge, the method
employed in school subjects cannot be without moral significance.
Teachers who demand accuracy, who are more interested in the truth
of history than in a moral tale, who are open-minded rather than
dogmatic, who seek to exalt the intellect and to hold the emotions
under control, are doing more effective moral teaching than those who
preach by the hour.
As has already been indicated,[22] the ordinary school work lends
itself to the development of positive moral virtues. To work
together, to contribute to the welfare of the whole group, to
determine conduct in view of the possible effect on others, is to
exercise those virtues which are demanded in all social situations.
Pride and joy in one’s work and contempt for the shirker are as
natural in school as in any other situation. The so-called school
virtues of punctuality, regularity, obedience, and industry are
virtues outside of schools by virtue of the same sanction which gives
them validity in the school society. It is important to realize
that many of these virtues must be reduced to the basis of habit in
order to be most effective. Acts of kindness, courtesy, punctuality,
repeated often enough, become second nature. They need no longer to
be thought about.
In the field which requires judgment, it is also true that one’s
attitude may become habitual. Much which we call morality can be
accounted for by taste. Many boys and girls have been saved the
struggle through which others pass by ideals and contempts which they
have derived from their associates. Fortunate, indeed, is the boy or
girl who can say: “The members of our set do not frequent saloons,
do not lie or cheat, play fair, work hard, dare to do right.” All of
us tend to derive our moral code from the group of people with whom
we are constantly associated. There is honor even among thieves,
because they have a code which they respect. The teacher who secures
the coöperation of the leaders of the group can modify, indeed
transform, the moral attitude of a class by this appeal to the code
which the whole group accepts and upon which the leaders insist.
The highest type of moral action is that which involves judgments of
worth. When one asks himself the question, is this right, will it
be for the general welfare, and then acts in accordance with that
judgment, he has performed an essentially moral act. Training for
this sort of action is of the same sort that is demanded wherever
the judgment is involved. The child must be taught to analyze the
situation and to pick out the essentially moral element. The writer
once knew a high school class who habitually cheated in examinations.
They said that they were getting ahead of the teacher. The principal
explained that they were dishonest, that cheating was stealing.
The attitude of the class changed. They responded to this analysis
of the situation which pointed out the moral element. What we call
thoughtlessness and the sowing of wild oats is often to be explained
by the lack of analysis which makes prominent the moral significance
of the contemplated action. The school should give opportunity
whenever possible, whether in ordinary schoolroom work, on the
playground, or with reference to extra-school activities, for the
exercise of the moral judgment. Power to analyze new situations and
to act morally depends entirely upon previous judgments and actions.
Any discussion of moral training would be incomplete which did not
take account of the reformation of the wrong doer through school
punishments or discipline. “Discipline and punishment are teaching
processes as much as are grammar or arithmetic lessons, and when we
remember that conduct and behavior is the whole of life, we must
welcome the occasions for discipline, and even for punishment. No
sane person is glad that a child’s instincts, impulses, and habits
have taken wrong forms, but the real teacher is glad that these forms
manifest themselves, so that they may be worked over into correct
reactions.”[23] The key to the situation is found in placing the
responsibility with the child. If a wrong has been committed, either
he has failed to think of the moral significance of his act, or he
has chosen to do wrong. In the one case reformation may be brought
about by making clear the nature of the act; in the other the child
must will to do differently, and must by his own act regain his place
in the group whose welfare he has transgressed. What the ordinary
situation demands is more of thinking on the part of children and
less of resentment and anger on the part of teachers.
Punishments need to be differentiated to fit the child. The writer
has known boys in active rebellion against school authority who
would accept corporal punishment rather than give any evidence of
intention to submit. In such a case this form of punishment was
justified. Happily such cases are rare with the teacher who knows how
to work with children. Even in cases where the offense is seemingly
identical, the punishment must be varied to suit the individual to be
reformed. Suggestion may suffice for one, another may be persuaded,
and still another must be labored with at length in order that the
judgment which the teacher has passed may be accepted by him as
valid. In any event it is the thoughtful individual, who has the
habit of analyzing the situation when in doubt, and then acts in
accordance with his judgment, which it is the purpose of the school
to develop.
The importance of the moral influence of the teacher has always
been recognized. At times, however, the negative rather than the
positive factors have been emphasized. It is well enough to demand
that the teacher be free from vices, petty or great; but it is even
more important to inquire concerning the positive virtues which
characterize the instructor of children. We may hope that our schools
will develop open-minded children, provided the teachers are not
dogmatic. Courage, industry, integrity, are fundamental virtues.
Does the teacher possess them? Sympathy with all activities which
make for public good is demanded of all in a democracy. Does the
teacher participate, is the teacher a factor, in those movements
which make for improvement in the community? The ideal teacher is an
intelligent, hard-working public servant, whose field of endeavor
is limited only by the needs of the community which he serves. The
number of teachers who have thus exalted the office of teacher in
the community is happily increasing. The moral effect upon the
lives of children of association with such a man or woman cannot be
overestimated.
FOR COLLATERAL READING
_Moral Training in Public Schools_, Chapter I, by C. A. Rugh.
J. MacCunn, _The Making of Character_.
_The Essentials of Character_, by E. O. Sisson.
_Exercise._
1. Why is the school a good situation in which to train children in
morality?
2. Is the man who simply does not injure others to be thought of as
living a moral life?
3. Do you think any teacher has a right to claim that she is not
responsible for the moral training of her pupils? Why?
4. In what way do the instincts furnish the basis for moral
training?
5. Should you treat all of the children alike in situations which
involve a moral issue?
6. How would you hope to have boys come to render the moral
judgment that it is wrong to throw stones through the windows of a
vacant house?
7. How may school spirit and school standards contribute to the
development of morality?
8. Name some troublesome things which boys do that might be
explained by bad physical conditions in the school or in the home.
9. What do you understand by the direct method of moral
instruction? What is the strength and the weakness of this method?
10. Do you think the moral significance of a story or a poem should
be taught in a lesson in literature?
11. Name school situations which involve moral judgments and which
offer opportunity for training in morality.
12. How would you hope to train children to form the habit of
asking themselves whether a proposed line of action was right
before acting?
13. How may the one who does wrong in school provide the
opportunity for the best sort of training in morality?
14. Is there ever any defense for corporal punishment?
15. How important do you consider the influence of the teacher in
developing morally sound boys and girls?