A brief course in the teaching process

CHAPTER XIV
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.