v
Everyone can probably agree that kids these days have more things to worry about,
distract them, and get them into trouble than any other past generation of kids have ever had.
There are a lot of statistics and first hand account reports that back that statement up, and will be
detailed later in the discussion of the problems youth face. With all of these issues going on in
the lives of youth, there is a need for someone to step forward and do something. Many people
expect that parents, extended family, and friends should be able to recognize these issues in
youth and take it upon themselves to do something about it. However, there will be many
instances where the people, who are most involved in a youth‟s life, may not know how to help
or maybe too preoccupied with their own lives to notice that a particular youth is falling through
the cracks. Churches and their youth groups are also pointed to, when people ask who should be
stepping forward. Now these would be wonderful groups to step in and support a youth dealing
with these tough challenges. All youth are required by law to attendschools as students until they are
between 16-18 years old, depending on what state they live in.
So schools could step in and address the lack of morals and values with their students because
they have access to working with all of the students. Things like moral education have been
around for a while and have been attempting to address the problem (Brimi, 2009).
The youth of today have a lot of problems that they have to face and many of them do not have
the skills to overcome the obstacles. It is evident that these youth need support in developing
better values and morals. Schools have the ability to stand up and take on these problems with
their students. With the solid foundation that moral education has built, character education has
emerged with the ability to assist students in developing strong values and morals. The purpose
of this article is to analyze the importance of implementing character education programs into
schools, and what needs to be done to make those programs more effective.
Moral Education
Theories of cognitive and moral development emerged to help assist schools in understanding how their
students develop, and consequently, how to better teach to assist in the students‟ development. Piaget
developed a theory about cognitive development that progresses in four stages (Papalia, Olds, &
Feldman, 2007). The last three stages theorize about the stages that school age children would develop
through. He proposed that by the time children begin school they are in the preoperational stage (ages
2-7) of their cognitive development where the main emphasis is the mastery of motor development
skills.
As they move through elementary school, they move into the concrete operations stage (ages 7-12)
where they begin to think logically and concretely about situations. As students move from the
preoperational stage to the concrete stage they are able to move from being egocentric all the
time, to the ability to be sociocentric at times. This means that they can now see things from
other peoples‟ point of view instead of only seeing things from their own perspective. Then
around the time students move onto the middle school grades they move into the formal
operation stage (age 12 and older) where they develop the ability to think abstractly (Pearson &
Nicholson, 2000). Then Kohlberg took Piaget‟s cognitive development theory a step further by
theorizing about moral development and reasoning. Kohlberg‟s theory of moral reasoning
consists of six stages, which are divided into three different levels. Students will enter
elementary school at the first level, which is called preconventional morality and it begins with
stage one which deals with obedience and punishment. In this stage students will obey rules in
order to avoid punishment. The second stage of preconventional morality deals with self-interest.
Students will conform to rules in order to get something they want. The second level of
Kohlberg‟s moral reasoning is conventional morality. Students usually achieve this
developmental level around the time they are entering middle school. This level begins with
stage three, where students obey rules because they want to please others. They worry about
what people think of them and they want to be seen as a “good boy or girl”. The fourth stage of
the moral reasoning theory is when students become concerned about showing respect to higher
authority and maintaining social order. By the time students reach the third and final level, they
will usually be in high school; however, there are some students who do not reach this level until
college, or not at all. This level begins with stage five where students follow rules and conform
in relation to what is good for the welfare of society. At this point, they are able to recognize that
there are instances where human needs and the law conflict. In the final stage of Kohlberg‟s
theory, students act upon what they think is the right thing to do, regardless of rules or opinions
of others (Papalia, Olds, & Feldman, 2007).
Piaget and Kohlberg‟s theories really led the way for moral education to begin to
establish itself theoretically. Later, there were several other theories that emerged to make
contributions to moral education. Havighurst‟s social development theory stated that most
children develop a sense of right and wrong in early childhood before they even reach structured
schools. Also, his theory talked about how in middle childhood, students learn to get along with
their classmates and develop a conscience and attitudes about friendship groups (Pearson &
Nicholson, 2000). Loevinger developed an ego development theory that proposed that students
develop from a self-protective stage where they follow the rules, into a conformist stage where
they learn to appreciate niceness, helpfulness, and cooperation from others (Pearson &
Nicholson, 2000). Gilligan‟s theory of moral reasoning focused more on relationships and care.
According to her theory, in regards to moral decision making, emotional factors such as
emphasizing with others and caring and compassion for other should be taken into account
(Schuitema, Dam, & Vaeugelers, 2008). Then in the 1980s, moral education took more of a
behaviorist approach with many new social programs (Brimi, 2009). The most famous of those
was the war on drugs campaign “Just Say No”. Students began to get messages that were to do as
they were told, such as resist drugs, abstain from sex, or conform to whatever other behavior
chosen as appropriate. In these campaigns, behavior was shown to be right or wrong. This
contradicted Kohlberg‟s theory where students were to engage in their own moral reasoning
(Brimi, 2009).
Character education
In attempting to teach today‟s youth to have solid morals and values, and to turn the lives
around of those who have already began to go down the wrong path, character education could
be the answer. Lickona (1993) describes character education as a program that strives to
encompass the following:
*The cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of morality. Good character consists of
knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good. Schools must help children
understand the core values, adapt or commit to them and then act upon them in their own
lives.
Many are unaware that the idea of character education in schools is not a new one. In the
early part of the nineteenth century, teaching morals in school was an accepted part of most
public school curricula in the United States. A popular teaching tool back then was a series of
stories called the McGuffey Reader that told tales of heroism and virtue. These stories also
included the values of the county‟s early patriots such as George Washington (Lickona, 1991).
Schools were able to use these stories to start discussions with their students about how to act in
a way that reflects their virtues. However, character education never really got the chance to
fully evolve and establish itself.
This really provides teachers a lot of freedom to be creative and have fun while
including important values in their lessons (Burrett & Rusnak, 1993). Teachers and curriculum
writers could also support character education through:
*Reviewing instructional materials for themes relating to personal development
and referencing such materials to specific learning objectives
*Reviewing national, state, and local documents for statements of goals relating to
personal and social/cultural development
*Constructing a chart of ideas or concepts in various subjects that are focused on
character themes
*Selecting methods and activities that involve students in the process of reflection
about moral/ethical issues
*Teaching lessons that integrate character education with the content being taught
*Evaluating students learning for evidence of understanding of and personal
growth in matters of character
(Burrett & Rusnak, 1993, pg. 20)
As shown in the statistics there is a need for youth to receive more support. It seems that the
youth do not have the correct values or morals to be able to combat the issues they experience. Moral
education has been around for along time and it has set a good foundation for character education to
come in and continue to support students. Many character education programs have not been able to
prove that their teachings are effective with students. There has been effort to improve character
education programs in order to make them more effective in educating students in the importance of
good character such as Lickona (2003) with his ten essential virtues, and Burrett and Rusnak(1993)
with their proposed six key principles for an integrated character education program, to name a
couple. However, there needs to be more detailed studies to evaluate programs in order to better
identify what programs need to include to be effective, and what is not working. Through the
support of parents, the community and the dedication of all school staff, it is this author‟s belief
that character education has the capability to really make a difference in the lives of students by
helping them develop a strong value system and teach them the skills to interact and survive in
their society.
References
Brimi, H. (2009). Academic instructors or moral guides? Moral education in America and the
teacher‟s dilemma. Clearing House, 82, 125-130.
Britzman, M.J. (2005). Improving the moral landscape via character education: An opportunity
for school counselor leadership. Professional School Counseling, 8, 293-295.
Cali, C. (1997). Creatures of character: Winning with character education. Professional School
Counseling, 1, 19.
Cook, J. (2006). School Counselors’ Role Expands to Address Challenge of Today’s Students.
Retrieved March 24, 2009 from www.schoolcounselor.org
By: Marianne M. Torres
