Realizing that “smart” and “good” are not the same, wise societies since the time of Plato have made moral education a deliberate aim of schooling. They have educated for character as well as intellect, decency as well as literacy, virtue as well as knowledge. They have tried to form citizens who will use their intelligence to benefit others as well as themselves, who will try to build a better world, a free and just society, that is, in other words a democratic society. This means that moral education should become the foundation of our democracy.

Should the schools teach values?

Any time you put that question to a group of people, teachers, parents, scientists, politicians, it is sure to start an argument. If anyone says yes, schools should teach values, somebody else would immediately retort, “Whose values?” “How can our schools teach values?” And if to the first one there might be found an agreement, the second is always open to discussion. It explains the existence of different approaches to moral education. Conventionally they might be divided into two: “traditional” or “indirect” and “modem” or “direct”. The traditional approach implies teaching moral values through discipline, the teacher’s good example, and the curriculum. The adherents of the “modem approach” believe that moral discussion is the best way of teaching values. This theory is mostly based on the moral development psychology of Lawrence Kohlberg. One of Kohlberg’s doctoral students, Moshe Blatt, had a hunch that the moral dilemmas Kohlberg used in his research could be used to stimulate moral discussion in the classroom. Blatt was right; dilemma discussion over a period of several weeks, if directed by a teacher who posed or drew out higher-stage arguments, helped students advance in their moral reasoning.

Taking into consideration that there are no moral lessons in the curriculum of most of our schools, we believe that moral dilemma discussion may be used at the lessons of English.

What does a moral dilemma look like? Here is a thumbnail sketch of the stages and the outline of a teaching plan, using the following dilemma:

Sharon and Jill were best friends. One day they went shopping together. Jill tried on a sweater and then, to Sharon’s surprise, walked out of the store wearing the sweater under the coat. A moment later, the store’s security officer stopped Sharon and demanded that she tell him the name of the girl who had walked out. He told the storeowner he’d seen the two girls together and was sure the one who left had shoplifted.

The storeowner said to Sharon, “Come on now, come clean. You could get into serious trouble if you don’t give us your friend’s name.”

Should Sharon give Jill’s name to the storeowner? Why or why not?

“Why should Sharon have to take the rap for Jill? Jill looked out for herself, didn’t she? Sharon should do the same.”
“It depends on whether she owes Jill a favor – or whether she wants Jill to cover for her sometime.”

Note that the stages represent structure or quality of reasoning rather than the specific content of what the person says should be done.

5. Point to pay special attention in actual teaching: Discussing what Sharon should do, each child can think about what he or she can do. For this problem, there may be more than one good answer, and some answers may be better than others. Whatever solution a child comes up to, he should be able to support it with his best reasoning. With this approach, a teacher encourages students to use their own moral reasoning and allows for different responses. But at the same time the teacher challenges students to examine their reasoning and that of their peers critically.

In this teaching plan the class will be divided automatically into two groups: a group reasoning why Sharon should tell Jill’s name, and another – giving reasons why she shouldn’t tell. Each child is assigned to one of the two groups, regardless of their own opinion. By separating “person” and “opinion”, children are expected to express their positions rather freely and this is expected to activate discussion. Children will take various perspectives in order to persuade children of the other position. This will be helpful in developing their own judgement. By having an active discussion, children’s capacity for expression is expected to improve.

 

6. Detailed plan of the lesson.

Teaching values through lessons of English the teacher may use the similar plan and dilemma, but three things have to be present in a classroom for moral stage process to occur:

1. Controversial dilemmas that provoked disagreement among students.
2. “Stage mix” in the group (students at different stages of moral reasoning).
3. Using “Why?” questions.

We should always remember that a moral society doesn’t just happen. It takes work and effort by parents, teachers and everyone who’s directly or indirectly involved in the process of educating children. We might reflect whether to join the dilemma right or left, but we cannot doubt whether to teach values or not. Rather schools must do what they can to contribute to the moral development of the young and the moral health of the nation.