A Review of Early 21St Century Developments

Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

A Review of Early 21st Century Developments

Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

A Review of Early 21st Century Developments A Note to the Reader

Among its many interests, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture is deeply curious about the nature of moral formation among the young. It has, to that end, launched a number of inquiries surrounding this topic. As a matter of ongoing practice, the Institute operates from the assumption that to know a subject well, one must understand the discourse that surrounds that subject. The report that follows is a preliminary historical examination of the normative discourse that dominates elite graduate schools of education in America. We offer this to friends and supporters of the Institute to keep them apprised of our work. As a preliminary foray into this subject, we ask that neither this document nor any part of it be cited without permission of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools: A Review of Early 21st Century Developments

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be cited, sold, reproduced, printed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

Published by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture. Printed in the United States of America.

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact: Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture University of Virginia P.O. Box 400816 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4816 (434) 924-7705

www.iasc-culture.org

[email protected]

2 Table of Contents

I. Introduction • 4

II. Moral Formation as Cognitive and Emotional Development • 6 Moral Formation as Cognitive and Emotional Development • 7 Moral Education as Technique • 10 Spirituality and Religion • 13

III. Moral Education • 17 Alternative Views in Moral Education • 27

IV. Social Justice • 32 Social Justice Pedagogy • 44

V. Citizenship • 49 Justice • 50 Pluralism • 53 Development • 60 The Harvard Civic and Moral Education Initiative • 65

VI. Conclusion • 73

VII. Bibliography • 75

3 I. Introduction

The eminent educational philosopher Nel Noddings recently rearticulated a key distinction made over a century ago by John Dewey, which provides a helpful framework for thinking about how elite university education schools address moral education today. The Lee L. Jacks Professor of Child Education Emerita at Stanford University, Noddings remains one of the leading voices on moral education. Dewey, she says, “reminded us that there are two meanings of moral education. By one, we refer to an educational effort to produce moral people. By the other, we refer to a program of education that is itself morally defensible.”1

To the extent that university education schools today are concerned with moral education, they are overwhelmingly focused on the latter meaning of the term. A rhetoric of social justice, which has permeated education schools since the mid-1990s, describes and drives such efforts at what these schools believe to be a moral system of K–12 schooling.

By contrast, education schools pay limited attention to the former meaning of moral education—producing moral people. There is very little discussion of character in elite education schools today. Moral education fares a bit better, with some education schools offering a course on the topic for graduate students. Citizenship education is more popular, but still fairly marginal in most institutions. The most frequent place where education schools discuss forming moral children is in educational psychology courses—whether the introductory core course that all prospective teachers must take, upper-level undergraduate courses, or graduate courses on topics such as adolescence, child development, or social and personality development.

This report surveys the landscape of elite university education schools’ activities in the field of moral education. Section II, Moral Formation as Cognitive and Emotional Development, examines the implicit and

4 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture explicit messages about moral education found in educational psychology textbooks. Section III, Moral Education, describes the approach of various courses on that subject and the thought of the professors who teach them. Section IV, Social Justice, traces the rise of the dominant social justice rhetoric and provides a critical analysis of how it shapes beliefs about moral education. Finally, Section V, Citizenship, explores the ideas of elite education professors on that subject, including a discussion of the influence of the frameworks featured in Sections II–IV.

The report is based on a study of eight university education schools generally recognized to stand in the first rank of such institutions: The University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Education; Teachers College at Columbia University; the Harvard Graduate School of Education; the Michigan State University College of Education; the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education; the Stanford Graduate School of Education; Peabody College of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University; and the University of Wisconsin– Madison School of Education. Michigan State, Vanderbilt, and Wisconsin offer undergraduate degrees in education with teacher certification. The other five schools certify teachers primarily at the graduate level. All eight institutions offer research-based graduate degrees in fields such as educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, and leadership, policy, and administration. This project has examined faculty biographies and publications, degree requirements, courses, syllabi, and assigned texts for each of these schools. A list of works studied for each section of this report can be found in Section VII, Bibliography.

5 II. Moral Formation as Cognitive and Emotional Development

In her 1989 textbook Educational Psychology, Anita Woolfolk encapsu- lated that field’s predominant understanding of moral formation: “The development of moral reasoning can be seen in relation to both cognitive and emotional development. Empathy and formal operations in particular play large roles in a progression through [Lawrence] Kohlberg’s stages and levels. As we have seen, abstract thinking becomes increasingly important in higher stages, as children move from decisions based on absolute (though in some cases fairly abstract) rules to decisions based on principles such as justice and mercy. The abilities to see another’s perspective and to imagine alternative bases for laws and rules also enter into judgments at the higher stages.”2 Now in its 12th edition as of 2012, Woolfolk’s textbook is a mainstay in introductory undergraduate education courses. Our analysis of the textbooks assigned for the whole range of undergraduate and graduate educational psychology courses in elite university education schools finds a remarkable consensus about moral education, which Woolfolk exemplifies: a primary emphasis on moral formation as cognitive and emotional development. On this view, morality develops in and from the individual person. Such approaches ignore the concept of character, because they focus on the psycho-social structures of the person. Although newer editions of textbooks like Woolfolk’s discuss cultural diversity and biological/neurological complexity (topics that early editions did not address), the primary paradigm for moral development centers on the individual’s cognitive and emotional growth, exemplified in psychological theories such as constructivism.

The impact of constructivism on moral thinking in educational psychology is significant. According to Dale Schunk’s textbook on learning theories, “constructivism is a psychological and philosophical perspective contending that individuals form or construct much of what they learn and understand.” This theory places “great emphasis on learners’

6 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture information processing as a central cause of learning” and downplays the influence of culture or environment.3 Psychologists advance educational practices built upon these ideas. One such pedagogy centers on a cognitive state they call disequilibrium, a concept developed to help explain why individuals are motivated to learn. According to Woolfolk, “If the scheme [of understanding a particular event or situation] does not produce a satisfying result, then disequilibrium exists, we become uncomfortable. This motivates us to keep searching for a solution through assimilation and accommodation, and thus our thinking moves ahead.”4 This pedagogy places high importance on educators assessing the child’s inner mental states as the key pathway to cultivating the student’s innate ability to learn. For the constructivist, “teachers should not teach in the traditional sense of delivering instruction to a group of students. Rather, they should structure situations such that learners become actively involved with content through manipulation of materials and social interaction.”5 On this view, the student constructs the knowledge. The implication for moral formation is that morality is not taught didactically. Instead, the child constructs moral knowledge internally—a difference that has real pedagogical and cultural implications.

Moral Formation as Cognitive and Emotional Development A fundamental tenet of developmental psychology is that as children develop, their cognitive, emotional, and social capacities both widen and deepen according to the particular stage of life they inhabit. As children grow older and become further immersed in the broader culture around them, they become more adept at social situations, navigating relationships, and personal self-understanding. They also become more aware of moral and social obligations. Moral development is simply part and par- cel of the child’s overall developmental growth. The emphasis psychologists place on childhood development undergirds their understanding of moral formation. As children’s cognitive and emotional abilities progress in life, they develop the capacities for higher levels of moral reasoning and maturity, such as the ability to evaluate situations in more nuanced ways. Moral reasoning is, as Barbara M. Newman and Philip R. Newman put it in their textbook on human development theories, “the application of principles of logic to moral issues in order to decide which actions are right or wrong, just and humane.”6 The majority of educational psychologists believe that to understand moral development requires seeing how children reason through decisions and moral dilemmas.

7 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Much of the focus on reasoning is grounded in Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of the stages of moral development, which he articulated in the 1960s. Building upon the famous psychologist Jean Piaget’s stage theory, Kohlberg linked moral development inseparably with the cognitive stages of childhood development. Later moral psychologists would incorporate emotional growth into children’s moral development. The majority of educational For Kohlberg, the development of moral reasoning “follows a specific and unwaver- psychologists believe that to ing pattern of development, moving from understand moral development pre-conventional to conventional and then to postconventional judgments.”7 In his is primarily to see how children theory, the first stage of children’s moral rea- reason through decisions and soning involves primarily seeing the world and actions within it as static. Children at moral dilemmas. this stage “regard rules as external features of reality rather than as subjective, internal principles that can be modified at will. Together, egocentrism and [moral] realism lead to other deficiencies in moral understanding. In judging an act’s wrongness, younger children focus on objective consequences rather than intent to do harm.”8

As children continue to mature and encounter the world around them, they start to incorporate other participants into their moral community. This incorporation profoundly shifts children’s moral framework, advancing them through moral stages. They begin to experience the complexities of social life while developing the cognitive and emotional capacities to better account for those experiences. Laura Berk summarizes this view nicely in her Child Development textbook: “According to the cognitive- developmental perspective, cognitive maturity and social experience lead to advances in moral understanding, from a superficial orientation to physical power and external consequences to a more profound appreciation of interpersonal relationships, societal institutions, and lawmaking systems.”9 Such appreciation develops in children a deeper sense of the web of social obligations, and they are able to incorporate these rules into their own self-understanding. In other words, they have the cognitive and emotional capacity to see moral prescriptions as a constitutive part of who they are as moral beings. In his textbook Social and Personality Development, David Shaffer predicates a moral pedagogy precisely on this idea: “If making internal attributions about one’s feelings or one’s conduct

8 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture truly promotes moral self-restraint, then we should be able to convince children that they can resist the temptation to break rules or violate moral norms because they are ‘good,’ ‘honest,’ or otherwise ‘responsible’ persons. This kind of moral self-concept training really does work.”10

Despite the criticisms that Kohlberg’s theory is too masculine,11 too Western,12 or too outdated,13 his stage theory stands as a dominant paradigm within developmental psychology for thinking about moral development in children. As John W. Santrock puts it in the 14th edition of his venerable Adolescence textbook, “Why is Kohlberg’s theory important for understanding moral development in adolescence? Kohlberg’s theory is essentially a description of the progressive conceptions people use to understand social cooperation. In short, it tells the developmental story of people trying to understand things like society, rules, roles, institutions, and relationships. Such basic conceptions are fundamental to adolescents, for whom ideology becomes important in guiding their lives and making life decisions.”14 Almost all developmental psychology textbooks assigned in elite education schools introduce moral development exclusively via Kohlberg and his stage theory.15 But as psychologists have continued to study the moral development of children, they have made changes to Kohlberg’s theory. One such modification is domain theory, as advocated by noted psychologist Elliot Turiel, a professor in the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education and a former colleague of Kohlberg. Domain theory states, “there are different domains of social knowledge and reasoning, including moral, social conventional, and personal domains.” Children’s and adolescents’ differentiation between domains grows “from their attempts to understand and deal with different forms of social experience.”16 Domain theorists stress complexities of moral and social reasoning that Kohlberg either overlooked or oversimpli- fied. What they do not question is the centrality of cognition in moral growth regardless of culture or religion.

Most recently, psychologists have begun at least to mention a possible role for cultural differences in their understanding of moral development, even if their analyses are not sophisticated. Nearly all new textbook editions, such as Woolfolk’s Educational Psychology and Berk’s Child Development, mention the impact that cultural diversity has on society, as well as on moral reasoning. According to Woolfolk, “There are a number of broad cultural distinctions that might influence moral reasoning. Some cultures

9 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

can be considered more traditional, with greater emphasis on customs that change slowly with time. In contrast, traditions and customs tend to change more rapidly in modern cultures.”17 However, even when psychologists invoke a cultural difference as a factor, they tend to categorize it as a different way of reasoning rather than emphasizing actual cultural content. Educational psychology’s focus on reasoning as the locus of moral development, as opposed to other factors like culture, has direct implications for the ways that schools approach moral formation.

Moral Education as Technique When moral formation is construed as the development of cognitive and emotional capacities, moral education centers on techniques to spur such development. It thus becomes watered down, largely devoid of content. Several examples illustrate this kind of moral education. The moral dilemma is one of the most popular educational techniques recommended by psychologists, who believe it allows individuals to both engage and grow into different levels of moral reflection, understanding, and reasoning. These dilemmas challenge students’ existing views, which results in a disequilibrium that requires them to scrutinize the foundations of their moral beliefs. Another common technique these textbooks recommend for advancing moral reasoning and behavior in children is positive reinforcement. As Berk suggests, “Once children acquire a moral response, such as sharing or telling the truth, reinforcement in the form of praising the act (‘That was a nice thing to do’) and attributing good behavior to the character of the child (‘You’re a very kind and considerate boy’) increases its frequency.”18 Psychologists also encourage involvement in community and civic activities: “Society benefits when children exhibit prosocial acts [ones that benefit others], so facilitating these behaviors is an important responsibility for adult caregivers…when children voluntarily help others without expectation of rewards or immunity from punishment, they are exhibiting a special class of prosocial acts called altruistic behavior.”19 Finally, psychologists recommend discussing the morality of an action: “One effective way for parents to teach their children prosocial values and behaviors is to have discussions with them that appeal to their ability to sympathize.”20 The common strand uniting all these strategies is their vagueness. They reduce moral education to a compliment or a prepackaged individualized technique for raising a child’s sense of self-worth that ignores the particularities of actions and their context. Teaching altruistic behavior becomes nothing more than training a child to not expect a reward.

10 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

While this type of moral education provides a large role for pedagogy, it is a particular kind of pedagogy that primarily focuses on helping the child to develop his or her own innate sense of perceived right and wrong, and to be disciplined in following that inner guide. Cultivating the child’s moral- As educational psychologists ity becomes little more than helping the continue to highlight the child construct a positive sense of self. For instance, Shaffer stated as early as 1988 that cognitive facets of moral “it appears that labeling children as ‘good’ development, they increasingly or ‘honest’ not only increases the likelihood that they will resist temptations but also import new findings on contributes to children’s feelings of regret or neuroscience, which builds remorse should they behave inappropriately and violate their positive self-images.”21 upon their time-tested insights This pragmatic attitude again assumes that about cognition. moral education consists in teaching children the necessary skills to become socially adept. Such approaches are not surprising, given that psychologists often view child development in thin individualized terms. In turn, moral formation continues to be viewed as the development of children’s cognitive and emotional abilities.

As educational psychologists continue to consider the cognitive side of moral development, they increasingly rely on new findings of neuroscience to build upon their time-tested insights about cognition. Schunk tells education students that “being familiar with neuroscience will give you a better foundation to understand…cognitive learning…educators increasingly are showing interest in findings from neuroscience research as they seek ways to improve learning and teaching.” Specifically, they believe “brain research…might suggest ways to make educational materials and instruction compatible with how children process information and learn.”22 One researcher writes, “Moral judgment, it seems, depends on a complex interplay between intuitive emotional responses and more effortful ‘cognitive’ processes,” each of which depends on a different “set of brain systems. When we deliberate over a moral dilemma, the two systems compete, producing anguish.”23 Other writers on this topic argue, “The orbitofrontal region is of particular relevance to parents because it integrates so many aspects of the brain that are central to good mental and emotional functioning. Along with the anterior

11 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

cingulate and closely related regions, it appears to play a critical role in social cognition, the human capacity to sense other people’s subjective experience and understand interpersonal interactions. Recent studies have also suggested that this region is crucial for the development of moral behavior.”24 The takeaway from such studies is that insight into the brain’s cognitive processes better enables the educator or parent to inculcate moral behavior in the child. Neuroscientists use the term “neural plasticity” to describe “the ability of the brain to be shaped by experience and, in turn, for this newly remodeled brain to facilitate the embrace of new experiences, which leads to further neural changes, ad infinitum.”25 Neural plasticity implies that human behavior ultimately can be explained by changes in the brain.

Educational psychologists’ turn to neuroscience is yet another way that they portray moral education as a matter of finding the right techniques, ideally by scientific investigation. This move also continues their practice of seeing moral formation as cognitive development. Like the other moral strategies, neuroscience research and its application invoke thin notions of moral commitment, since neuroscientists, believing they have discovered the neural regions linked to moral action, advocate techniques to develop those areas of the brain. This assessment does not diminish the insightful research that neuroscience has produced over the past several decades, but it reminds us that neuroscience research has limited value for moral education since it cannot ever tell us what actions are moral or why they are so. Neuroscience unconsciously assumes a moral framework in which humans are seen as hyper-rational and effectively unencumbered by their personal histories and cultural background. At the risk of oversimplification, it seems that neuroscientists often portray human persons as nothing more than atomistic complex machines, hence their strong emphasis on techne or technique in cultivating moral attitudes and behavior. In fact, psychologists’ frequent invocation of the “prosocial” concept indicates their attempt to flatten the social and communal bearings of moral do’s and don’ts into a nomenclature of sympathy, empathy, and the like. Not that these moral terms are wrong in and of themselves, but outside of any strong moral community or institution, they fail to engender any normative understanding, intelligibility, or force. Developmental psychologists ultimately fail to see that morality is always situated in some communal, social space—a framework that is an indelible part of the human experience.

12 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Spirituality and Religion Developmental psychologists’ tendency to detach moral formation from traditions makes it difficult to develop rich notions of character, virtue, and moral action. Doing so requires thick moral traditions, such as religious ones, that inculcate children into those ways of life, with their rituals and communal beliefs. Strong moral cultures and communities not only delineate what is right and wrong, but they also provide the institutional and intellectual support as to why one should behave in particular ways, by giving substantive answers to substantive questions. Individuals inter- nalize religious, communal, and social traditions, which situate the individual within a larger community with common goals and goods.

One might think, then, that the current trend of elite education schools creating whole courses on the role of spirituality and religion in childhood development is a promising sign. The textbooks for these courses, however, promulgate ideas that fit seamlessly into the predominant paradigm of cognitive psychology, which makes the inner conditions of the individual child the source of moral insight and standards. These books sideline robust notions of religious education in favor of a more generic understanding of “spirituality.” According to Tobin Hart’s The Secret Spiritual World of Children, assigned in a course on spirituality at Teachers College, Columbia University: Some adults do offer religious education to children, most often teaching about the key figures, guidelines, and beliefs of a religious faith. Schools are increasingly asked to develop ‘character’ in children. And parents often wonder what their role in their child’s spiritual training should be. Both religious and character education have traditionally tended to mold from the outside in. However worthwhile this training may be, it does not assume that children have spiritual lives from the inside out…When we, adults, use [our] assumptions to filter our understanding of children, we miss their innate spirituality. But spirituality lives beyond the rational and beyond thoughts about God. Without an image of ourselves as divine and of our children as spiritual, we may have trouble seeing the divinity in our children.26 This negative sentiment toward organized religion is pervasive in the texts for these courses on spirituality and childhood development, which

13 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

portray moral formation largely as a matter of shaping and expanding “innate spirituality.” For instance, former Christian pastor turned developmental psychologist David Elkins reasons, “Most of us automatically assume that taking our children to Sunday school and church is a good thing; after all, who could question something so worthy? Nevertheless, I would encourage you to question it. Have you considered for example, the possibility that exposing your child to traditional religion might actually be damaging to your child’s spirituality?”27 These books champion the notion that spirituality is primarily if not totally generated within the individual’s process of self-realization— again, a theme that runs throughout devel- Negative sentiment toward opmental psychology. organized religion is pervasive in the texts for these courses Some writers do acknowledge the need to situate spirituality, yet do so within a polit- on spirituality and childhood icized trajectory. According to Thomas development, which portray Oldenski and Dennis Carlson, authors of a book assigned in a seminar on Spirituality moral formation largely as and Education at Indiana University, “As a matter of shaping and the spiritual crisis of contemporary western culture deepens, the new right’s call for expanding “innate spirituality.” a return to [a] fundamentalist, authoritarian form of spirituality may be expected to have an even stronger appeal. All the more imperative, then, that a democratic progressive alternative to this articulation of spirituality with right- ist politics be formulated.”28 This approach displaces spirituality from historic religious communities (such as Christianity or Buddhism) and sublimates it to meet the perceived needs of a particular political project. Another way of situating spirituality turns the core beliefs of historic religions into superfluous decorations, such as the way two educators reported about a project they conducted to explore spirituality in kindergarten classrooms: “We asked the children what they had learned.… Caroline expressed her enjoyment of the study, explaining, ‘All of the ideas together, it looked nice for Dramatic Play Heaven. I just feel like I’m having a party of everyone’s beliefs.’ Max picked up on this idea, saying, ‘It’s something like Caroline’s. It’s like a big party of beliefs.” Transposing thousands of years of religious belief into simply “a party” appears naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Nevertheless, the authors of this study valorize the children by writing that “guided explorations about differences in beliefs

14 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture are important because they help children develop healthy attitudes about spiritual plurality.”29 These books view traditional religion—with its particular rituals, traditions, beliefs, and “god” terms—ambiguously or even with hostility.

Ironically, though, as some psychologists such as Laurence Steinberg point out, children raised in thick religious communities that emphasize pedagogic instruction often exhibit the prosocial traits of civic engagement, generosity, and sympathy more than their non-religious counterparts: “Apart from attending a school in which some sort of community service is required, the best predictors of volunteerism in adolescence [include] being actively involved in religion.”30 Despite such empirical evidence, educational psychologists generally ignore the religious beliefs that shape communities and individuals. They rarely address what makes religious practices and teachings prosocial. For instance, a civic event that involved non-halal food might be praised for its communal orientation in a Christian context yet would be outlawed in certain Muslim countries. Again, the neglect of content—in this case, the particular beliefs of specific religions—causes educational psychologists to miss key cues that distinguish what action should be taken within a specific context.

When educational psychologists do consider religion, then, they focus not on beliefs or liturgical practices but on the prosocial environment that religious communities foster. Steinberg claims, “Some of the apparent positive effects of religious involvement are due to the fact that adolescents who are involved in religion often have other positive influences in their life that on their own promote positive development and prevent problem behavior (for example, supportive parents, prosocial peers, adults who care about them).”31 Berk takes the same approach, commenting that “religious involvement provides young people with expanded networks of caring adults and peers—conditions that foster moral maturity.… Religious education and youth activities directly teach concern for others and provide opportunities for moral discussions and civic engagement.”32 Again, these authors downplay the content of beliefs within the moral communities that the youths inhabit, thus reducing religion to a social club. Perhaps it is the professed neutrality of scientific thinking that pre- vents psychologists from seeing the importance of cultural content and context in moral formation. Regardless, the substantive question “why be moral?” simply never surfaces.

15 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

The deliberate rejection of content presupposes a worldview where only processes and techniques matter, which holds that “to behave in a self- controlled fashion, children must have some ability to think of themselves as separate, autonomous beings who can direct their own actions.”33 Together, these approaches socialize children into a therapeutic culture, which emphasizes the fulfillment of individual needs and downplays communal or transcendent moral standards. In a therapeutic culture, ideas about human nature and flourishing are often implicit, and are frequently marginalized by a focus on meeting the needs of the individual. An approach grounded in a more coherent set of beliefs to be examined and explicitly used for formation struggles to find a place in a schema that seeks only to promote one’s feelings and secure one’s self-directed identity. This therapeutic ethos is evident in psychologists’ tendency to tie morality, stripped of normativity and culture, to notions of the self. As Santrock frames it, “Individuals have a moral identity when moral notions and commitments are central to their life. In this view, behaving in a manner that violates this moral commitment places the integrity of self at risk.… Mature moral individuals engage in moral metacognition, including moral self-monitoring and moral self-reflection.”34 In this view, moral authority is lodged in the child, as educators seek to cultivate the child’s innate morality. This strong individualization of morality is ultimately problematic, if morality is ever to be about other-focused practices such as justice, compassion, and altruism. Psychologists are certainly interested in those ideals, yet their methods of moral formation—predicated on an ahistorical, unencumbered individual—provide little in the way of robust foundations for such practices. This removal of culture, content, and tradition, coupled with the concomitant rise of the individual, proves to be educational psychology’s undoing. Nearly all of its practitioners fail to see that these traditions and the content that shape them are the delineating “yeses” and “nos” of a moral community; they both form the moral culture and provide the evaluating standards for individual behavior. In other words, understanding the “why” of actions, as moral communities seek to do, provides the frameworks that make those very actions plausible. This normative undergirding makes character possible. To ignore the content of moral actions is to remove any substantial foundations on which to build one’s character.

16 III. Moral Education

In surveying the top education schools in America, the lack of courses that explicitly focus on moral education is striking. The major exception is the Stanford Graduate School of Education course “Moral Education,” taught by the noted professor William Damon. A cursory look at his syllabus suggests that Damon presents a variety of approaches to the subject, from political and moral philosophy to moral and developmental psychology. Yet despite the diversity that Damon incorporates in his class readings, one trend looms large: the valorization of scientific process, a common practice in developmental psychology. This theme is not surprising. In his 1988 book The Moral Child, Damon writes, “Scientific information can guide us both in defining and resolving our choices about moral education. It can do so by helping us understand the processes through which children acquire moral values in normal social life; by helping us recognize the origins of morality and the milestones of moral development; by helping us analyze problematic moral conduct when it occurs; and by suggesting to us strategies for effective moral instruction.”35 Though Damon would likely see himself as having moved beyond Kohlberg and similar developmental psychologists, his scientific predispositions indicate that his approach to moral education is similar to theirs.

One place Damon draws on developmental psychology is in his methodology for character education, which is a primary aspect of his approach to moral formation. Indeed, he proclaims that he has “believed in character education for most of [his] working life.”36 He has dedicated his academic career to studying it and advocates vigorously for its placement in American education. He directs the Stanford Center on Adolescence, which “aims to promote the character and competence of all young people growing up in today’s world.”37 He also edited a collection, Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Though the idea of character can be nebulous, its central tenet is that moral actions arise out of a person’s settled dispositions and habits. Historically, moral philosophers like Aristotle have exerted the most

17 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

influence on the concept of character. Damon’s emphasis on character from a developmental perspective marks a more recent trend. Yet he still believes it is important for students of moral education to engage with moral philosophy. The inclusion of these works (such as Aristotle’s virtue ethics) in Damon’s class perhaps reflects a worry that a hyper-rational psychological pedagogy (e.g., Kohlberg’s) is simply not enough to instill character. As Christina Hoff Sommers, a philosopher and former colleague of Damon at Clark University, says in one of those texts, “The purpose of moral education is not to preserve our children’s autonomy, but to develop the character they will rely on as adults. As Aristotle persuasively argues, children who have been helped to develop good moral habits will find it easier to become autonomous adults. Conversely, children who have been left to their own devices will founder.”38

Moral theory typically focuses on rights and obligations, yet Damon’s emphasis on virtue ethics should not come as a surprise. Since virtue ethics, as its name entails, is concerned about the nature and development of moral virtue in the individual, its language fits seamlessly into character education. There are generally three ways that philosophers understand moral judgments. The first, called consequentialism, determines the moral legitimacy of an action by the way The key point is that for it affects others. The second is deontol- ogy. Deontological judgments determine Damon, social context is not an the rightness or wrongness of an action independent source of potential by looking at the action itself, such as the moral agent’s intention, and not on the good. Rather, the possible effects the action has on others. Virtue eth- contributions of social context ics charts the third course. According to are completely defined by one class reading, it focuses on “how it is best or right or proper to conduct oneself the child’s needs. …in terms of how it is best for a human being to be.”39 Virtue ethics looks first at what constitutes human excellence, and then derives the proper moral behavior in the form of habits. Consequently, moral habits or virtues are those repeated actions that contribute to individual moral goods, such as personal character. By highlighting virtue ethics in his class, Damon reveals his desire to deepen moral pedagogy beyond the contributions of developmental psychology. This move does not necessarily mean that he is a virtue theorist, but it does suggest that he believes building character

18 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture in children requires more than just a Kohlbergian psychological process of the child’s inner moral development. Consequently, Damon’s approach to character education does not focus solely on moral reasoning, but incorporates other influences on moral life, such as the moral agents’ intuitions and social context.

To account for the complexity of moral judgment, Damon assigns students to read the work of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who advocates a “social intuitionist model…as an alternative to rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it deemphasizes the private reasoning done by individuals and emphasizes instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations (intuitions).”40 According to Haidt, moral judgments mostly occur on an unconscious level inaccessible to cognition. In other words, non-cognitive factors such as “quick, automatic evaluations,” or intuitions, play decisive roles in our moral judgments.41 “The implication of these findings for moral psychology,” he argues, “is that moral intuitions are developed and shaped as children behave, imitate, and otherwise take part in the practices and custom complexes of their culture.”42 Therefore, social context, by forming our moral intuitions, is an important factor in shaping character.

Damon likewise emphasizes the importance of social context, in contrast to many developmental psychology textbooks that marginalize it. In The Moral Child, Damon writes, “A child’s social experience determines the course of the child’s moral development. This experience is important not only because it exposes children to new ideas but also because it engages children in relationships that are conducted through essential rules and procedures.”43 Elsewhere, he claims, “As contemporary developmental theory has convincingly established, social influence is a necessary ingre- dient in all psychological growth, even the growth of those who venture into realms of untried and unknown.”44 In particular, a social environment that is “open, reciprocal, generative, truthful, and self-reflective” will “promote and sustain the person’s moral growth.”45 The key point is that for Damon, social context is not an independent source of potential good. Rather, the possible contributions of social context are completely defined by the child’s needs. He argues, “If they are to contribute positively to children’s moral growth, both parents and schools must operate with an awareness of the child’s developmental needs. For moral growth, the

19 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

primary developmental need is full participation in the kinds of social experiences that will build upon the child’s nascent moral sensibilities.”46

This belief that the child’s needs are the point of reference for moral formation inevitably instrumentalizes social context. By describing the social environment with terms like “procedures” and “rules,” Damon prioritizes the mechanics of moral formation rather than its content. He claims that “children’s morality is little affected by lessons or lectures for which they are at best passive recipients and at worst captive and recalcitrant audienc- es. Further, as with the rest of a child’s social life, the quality of the school interactions communicates a moral message that is more enduring than any explicit statements that teachers might make.”47 Damon does believe in the need for justice and fairness to regulate social situations like “school interactions”: “What makes rules ‘moral’ or ‘just’ is the fairness of their application to all parties and not their source in some unimpeachable external authority.”48 This notion of justice suggests why he assigns John Rawls’ seminal work A Theory of Justice—because it insists on procedure and process. Damon thus believes that learning the rules of distributive justice is an important facet of social experience for children: “There is no better example of children’s morality than sharing.… A child’s sharing is an exercise in distributive justice, admittedly on a very small scale.… And there is no graver human concern than one of distributive justice.”49 Emphasizing justice is not inherently misguided, of course. Yet crowning it as the governing criterion of social relations diminishes other relational ideals like love and care. In their place is a limited notion of individualized fair procedures, which inhibits social environments and the experiences they foster from becoming rich contexts for moral formation.

Despite his discussion of social context, Damon is still beholden to developmental psychology’s tendency to decontexualize moral development. He portrays learning the proper rules to navigate life as a primary task of moral development. Even when other concepts like democracy and virtue frame the discussion, the nature of those inclusions is remarkably thin. According to Damon, teaching democracy is not about having children grasp the foundational principles of democracy, but about learning the procedural rules that democracy entails: “It is not feasible to train children in democratic values simply by indoctrination and verbal directives. For an adequate moral education in a democratic society, children must come to understand the open, egalitarian interactional procedures implied by

20 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture democratic values. Such understanding can be fully acquired only through frequent participation in social engagements that are founded upon such procedures.”50 Damon prioritizes the social structure of a classroom or a school for developing moral character. The contents of instruction are secondary at best. The flattening of content illustrates how Damon’s moral thinking is ensconced in the frameworks of developmental psychology. He is more concerned with the “how” of moral development rather than the “what and why” of the social and moral content. In other words, science (as opposed to culture) and process (over content) are the driv- ing forces of moral education. Character education thus becomes simply another tool in the psychological belt, with the notion of “character” los- ing its substantial meaning.

Several readings for Damon’s moral education course illustrate this psy- chologizing of character. The authors’ important institutional positions, including some of the few professorships specifically in character education, suggest that contemporary academic work on character education remains beholden to questionable psychological frameworks. In a piece titled “The Science of Character Education,” Marvin W. Berkowitz, the Damon is more concerned with Sanford N. McDonnell Professor of Character Education and co-director of the “how” of moral development the Center for Character and Citizenship rather than the “what and why” at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, “define[s] character as an individual’s set of the social and moral content. of psychological characteristics that affect that person’s ability and inclination to function morally.”51 Daniel K. Lapsley and Darcia F. Narvaez call this approach “character psychology.” Lapsley and Narvaez, husband and wife, are professors of psychology at the University of Notre Dame. Lapsley is also coordinator of academic programs for Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education, which “sustains and strengthens under-resourced Catholic schools.”52 In a long article on “Character Education” in the Handbook of Child Psychology edited by Damon, Lapsley and Narvaez argue “that a considered understanding of what is required for effective character education will be forthcoming only when there emerges a robust character psychology that is deeply informed by advances in developmental, cognitive, and personality research.… In short, character education must be compatible with our best insights about psychological functioning.”53 This reduction to “psychological

21 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

functioning” lies at the heart of many of Damon’s class readings. In fact, even Aristotle is not exempt. According to Lapsley and Narvaez, “Aristotelian perspectives contribute much of value to our current understanding of character and its formation, although an understanding adequate for psychological analysis will require translation into contemporary models of developmental and cognitive science.”54 Writing in a similar vein is Kristján Kristjánsson, professor of Children are impulsive, erratic, character education and virtue ethics at the University of Birmingham in the irrational, egocentric, and easily UK, where he is deputy director of the influenced. They make mistakes Jubilee Centre for Character and Values, a major endeavor supported by the John because they are young, not bad. Templeton Foundation. “To put it blunt- ly,” Kristjánsson writes, “the promise of a psychologically (as distinct from anecdotally) informed virtue development has escaped us; the very idea of virtue development still finds itself in a state of seclusion from the social scientific considerations that should, ideally, undergird it.”55 Kristjánsson has expanded on this idea in his latest book, Virtues and Vices in Positive Psychology: A Philosophical Critique, in which he argues that positive psychology has “the potential to offer a significant new way forward for education in virtue and character.”56

The centrality of psychology does not diminish the fact that Damon advocates more robust forms of moral education in schools than stage theorists like Kohlberg typically do. For instance, Damon argues that “it is time to open our public schools once again to moral ideas set in a variety of religious as well as secular frameworks as well as to students’ free expressions of spiritual faith. Young people need all the inspiration they can get.”57 Damon counts social context as important, insists on moral theory, and even supports religion and spirituality within character education. Yet he largely frames his inquiries in Kohlbergian ways. Though he may not promote a stage theory predicated on autonomous rationality like Kohlberg, Damon’s calls for character education are in fact similar to Kohlberg in two important ways. He downplays content in favor of instrumentalized environments, and he relies heavily on psychological understandings of the person, a hallmark of developmental psychology that Kohlberg cham- pioned. The points of emphasis may have changed, but the structure ultimately remains.

22 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Another moral education course in an elite education school is “Moral Values and Schools,” taught by Joan Goodman, professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. After beginning her academic career in the field of counseling and guidance, Goodman shifted her focus to moral education in the mid-1990s and co-authored three books: The Moral Stake in Education: Contested Premises and Practices and Moral Education: A Teacher-Centered Approach, both with Penn law professor Howard Lesnick; and Teaching Goodness: Engaging the Moral and Academic Promise of Young Children, with Usha Balamore, a principal and former kindergarten teacher. Goodman’s pedagogy centers on developing children’s moral autonomy. She argues, “Educators, like parents, want their students to grow into autonomous adults capable of making responsible decisions.”58 In order for children to acquire the needed autonomy, they must eventually construct a robust moral identity, which is “the central hallmark of who we are; it takes precedence over what we do and attain, it is the fundamental aspect of the self.”59 She argues, “If we have not internalized a commitment to virtue and personal responsibility as essential to our identity…we easily put aside learned habits and resort to morally questionable behaviors, especially if we think we can avoid sanctions.”60 It follows that “when confronting a child’s moral misdeed, our goal should be to reach her sense of who she is and who she wants to be.”61

As Goodman advocates for moral autonomy in children, she articulates a distinct view of the child’s nature. Children “are not morally culpa- ble for most of the ‘wrongs’ at school.… They have minimal capacities for non self-interested deliberation, and even less to join rational conclusions with actions. They are impulsive, erratic, irrational, egocentric, and easily influenced. They make mistakes because they are young, not bad.”62 Therefore, “our interventions should [usually] offer support and guidance.”63 Furthermore, she believes that educators must “delicately balanc[e] [their] own responses to children” between “listening to and leaning on children.”64 Thus, the educational environment that is most conducive to the child’s moral growth toward autonomy is open and caring, yet restrains and instructs. As Goodman points out, liberal approaches tend to emphasize freedom and conservative ones obedience. But she believes “a good moral education program must embrace both perspectives, despite the tension between them.”65 Therefore, a moral pedagogy needs to “strike a coherent balance. Tip too far in the child’s direction

23 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

and risk a poorly adapted adult. Tip too far in the adults’ direction and risk distorting the child’s emerging self.”66 For Goodman, one particular moral program that tips too far is Noddings’ ethic of care. In wrestling with the tension between caring for child’s needs and teaching restraint, Noddings advocates the former. But Goodman argues, “Caring theory, with its emphasis on empathy, compassion, and attentiveness to the child’s present state undervalues the role of adult restraint and imposition in a rounded caring philosophy.”67 Although Goodman advocates a coherent middle path, she is quick to point out that her program “is not prescrip- tive in the narrower sense of providing a blueprint.”68 She reasons that “though balances are struck, weights cannot be prescribed; even within a family one child will need more solicitous care, another a firmer hand. The decisions, ever evolving, depend upon the nature of the child and parents, social values, personal and historical context.”69

Goodman’s moral project can be characterized as contextual. That is, the exact contours of a school’s moral program depends “upon the values [schools and communities] hold most dear and the instructional methods they find most comfortable.”70 Her deference to educators does not mean she is a moral relativist, a claim that she addresses head on. Rather, she considers herself a moral pluralist, which must be “distinguished from relativism, which contends that there is no right or wrong answer, only differing points of view.” By contrast, “pluralism rests on the belief that there is a right and wrong at stake and that one may believe he or she knows what it is but still think it right not to insist on having others act in accordance with that view.”71 For Goodman, there is a balanced right way in teaching moral education—one that allows for yet constrains a child’s agency. Therefore, moral educators must be able to distinguish between rules and situations that are flexible and those that are not. In incorporating Larry Nucci and Elliot Turiel’s distinction between morality and conventional rules—rules “of a particular institution without the universality attributed to morality”—Goodman argues for a contextual awareness of the student’s needs.72 On one hand, “steering by educators is maximally justified in situations that lie outside children’s control (anger, temper tantrums) or in situations of moral insignificance but important to the particular institution (safety rules, school procedures).”73 Yet at the same time, “children’s own participation is maximally imperative in situations of moral significance, the area most critical to acquiring responsible autonomy.”74 For Goodman, children must be coached in such a way that

24 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture the moral life will become a fixed part of their identity. Doing so requires a deep contextual discernment by the educator. This privileging of context in shaping the strategies for moral growth ultimately leads Goodman to advise “wise educators” to “consider the techniques appropriate to each aim.”75 Though Goodman importantly stresses contextual awareness, she nevertheless downplays the moral content of instruction. Thus, she goes down the same path as other educators influenced by developmental psychology.

Our research has uncovered only two other courses on moral education in the elite eight education schools, both at the graduate level like Damon’s and Goodman’s courses. Richard Weissbourd, director of the Human Development and Psychology Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education, teaches “Moral Adults: Moral Children.” Per the course description, “This course explores how children’s moral capacities develop in their relationships with adults. While the primary focus of the course is on the parent-child relationship, students will also examine how teachers, sports coaches, and other key adults shape moral growth. Attention will be given to conditions and interventions that positively shape parent- child, teacher-student, and coach-athlete relationships. The course will also take up salient class, race, and cultural differences in parenting practices and beliefs, in how moral qualities develop and are expressed, and in the obstacles children face to developing important moral qualities.”76 He is the author of The Vulnerable Child: What Really Hurts America’s Children and What We Can Do About It, named by the American School Board Journal as one of the top ten education books of all time, and The Parents We Mean to Be: How Well-Intentioned Adults Undermine Children’s Moral and Emotional Development, named by The New Yorker as one of the top twenty-four books of 2009. He also co-directs the Making Caring Common Project, “A national effort to make moral and social development priorities in child-raising and to provide strategies to schools and parents for promoting in children caring, a commitment to justice and other key moral and social capacities.”77

At Michigan State University, philosopher Matt Ferkany teaches “Moral and Civic Education.” Per the course description, This course will survey classic and contemporary works on a range of major issues surrounding moral and civic education. These include the scope and place of moral

25 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

learning in education, the major theories of moral education and development, where and how civic and moral learning occur in schools, controversy surrounding the use of publicly funded schools for moral and civic education, theories of citizenship, the connections between civic education and educational equality and social justice, and the pedagogy of civic and moral education. Specific questions we are liable to address include: Is all education in some sense moral education? What is the aim of moral education? Where in the curriculum does moral education fit? How do children develop morally? Are there important differences between the moral development of girls and boys? What sorts of character traits belong to morally well developed persons? What is teaching for social justice? How can the legitimacy of moral and civic education in public schools be established given the diversity of stake- holder views about ethics and justice? What is democratic citizenship and how can schools facilitate it? What is the role of instruction for autonomy and critical thinking skills in moral and civic education? Are dialogic approaches effective ways to teach moral and civic issues? Among classic authors, we will read Plato, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. Among the more contemporary authors we will read Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, Amy Gutmann, and possibly Barbara Stengel, Harry Brighouse, Eamonn Callan, and Diana Hess.78

Alongside the few courses addressing moral and character education in leading education schools, their faculty members have published a very small number of recent books on the subject. One such work is The Case for Character Education: A Developmental Approach by Alan Lockwood, professor and graduate chair in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin. His doctoral work was under Kohlberg, whom he credits with “inestimable” contributions to his thinking.79 Lockwood argues that “educators are engaged in values education whether they wish to acknowledge it or accept it, or not. What is at stake for our young people and our society is that the best justified and researched values education practices should be made available in our

26 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture schools.”80 Thus, at the heart of Lockwood’s own educational program, “Developmental Character Education,” is the need for developmental scientific research. This approach focuses on learning several things. One, what topics are likely to be important to students at different grade levels? Two, what intellectual abilities will students likely have at different points of their development? Lastly, how can educators predict the way children at different stages will understand moral values?81 It is not surprising that Lockwood relies heavily on Kohlbergian ideas of moral development that prioritize the individual. According to Lockwood, “progress toward mature morality is a result of experiences, including formal instruction, in which students must grapple with moral issues as they formulate their own autonomous moral points of view.”82 Lockwood believes didactic instruction is ineffective, and character education thus must “foster rich understandings and assessments of value-related issues in human interaction, to appreciate and recognize the critical importance of morality, and to promote autonomous virtuous behavior consistent with sound ethical principles.”83 One course in which Lockwood’s book has been assigned is EDUC 1260, “Emotion, Cognition, Education,” taught by Jack Demick at Brown University.84

Alternative Views in Moral Education Noddings opens her 2002 book Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education by claiming, “Character education today dominates the field of practice in moral education.”85 Surely an overstatement even then, this description is no longer valid today. While this report is not concerned with practice per se, we find that elite university education schools are mostly devoid of discussions about character, and many of the few treatments that do exist are thoroughly ensconced in developmental psychology.

Outside of developmental psychology, education professors who overtly address “moral education” in research or courses often work in the philosophy of education.86 Noddings is perhaps the leading contemporary voice in that field, and one of its few scholars to have worked out a full-fledged philosophical program. She has done so in a series of publications, beginning in 1984 with Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education.87 Noddings and the aforementioned psychologist Carol Gilligan are considered the foundational theorists of care ethics, responsible for establishing it as a discrete approach in moral theory.88

27 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Noddings has appeared on lists of leading contemporary educational theorists, alongside radical educators like Paulo Freire, Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux, and bell hooks.89 Noddings’ works appear sporadically on course syllabi in education schools, but education professors frequently cite her in their writings—particularly those advocating thin notions of social justice.

Noddings explicitly pits her Noddings explicitly pits her philosophy against character education. She calls philosophy against character her approach a “sympathetic alterna- education. The major difference tive,” yet one that “has much in common with character education.” The from character education is that major difference from character educa- “care ethicists depend more heavily tion is that “care ethicists depend more heavily on establishing the conditions on establishing the conditions and and relations that support moral ways relations that support moral ways of life than on the inculcation of virtues in individuals.”90 In this statement, she of life than on the inculcation of seems to prioritize the social over the virtues in individuals.” individual as the source of moral life. Other parts of her work are not so clear on this issue. When she discusses the motivation for people to care, she falls back on an individualist explanation. The carer “ideally acts in direct response to the needs of the cared- for,” but “when this impulse toward natural caring fails, a carer draws on her own ideal of herself as a carer.”91 Care theorists define virtues “situationally and relationally.”92 With regard to honesty, for example, “most of us would lie readily to save a life, a soul, or even the feelings of someone, of doing so would cause no further harm. Indeed, we might feel morally obligated to do so.”93

This approach to moral motivation is affective, and Noddings uses an epi- graph from David Hume to signal this tack at the beginning of Educating Moral People. In her view, principles are not enough to spur people to moral action. Only feeling can do so. “The educational task, then, is to education the passions, especially the moral sentiments. Faced with evil, we must feel revulsion. Faced with another’s pain, we must feel the desire to remove or alleviate it.”94

28 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Noddings mentions John Dewey repeatedly, and states that the ethics of care is a form of pragmatic naturalism. It has a relational ontology; caring is ultimate reality. “It does not posit a source of moral life beyond actual human interaction. It does not depend on gods, or eternal verities, or an essential human nature, or postulated underlying structures of human consciousness.” Rather, it draws on “memories of caring and being cared for.”95

In this care tradition, moral education has four components: modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation. Noddings asserts that “dialogue is the most fundamental component of the care model” because it enacts the caring relationship: “A carer must attend to or be engrossed (at least momentarily) in the cared-for, and the cared-for must receive the carer’s efforts at caring.” Citing Freire, she insists that “True dialogue…is open- ended. The participants do not know at the outset what the conclusions will be.”96 Implicitly, Noddings’ moral theory leaves no room for didactic instruction, Socratic questioning, or any form of communication in which one party is assumed to be superior in moral practice or knowledge. In addition, she notes, “If the topic at hand causes pain, a caring participant may change the subject.”97 A range of moral educators from the psychotherapist to the priest would certainly protest this stance. In many religious traditions, a person must wrestle with the pain of guilt or shame in specified ways to achieve redemption, and some psychothera- pists would encourage their patients to enter into their pain to learn how to cope with it. Noddings explicitly opposes traditional religious practices with her notion of confirmation, which intends “to bring out the best” in others. If “someone commits an uncaring or unethical act,” we should respond “by attributing the best possible motive consonant with reality,” which “draw[s] the cared-for’s attention to his or her better self. We con- firm the other by showing that we believe the act in question is not a full reflection of the one who committed it.”98 She contrasts confirmation with “the pattern we find in many forms of religious education: accu- sation, confession, forgiveness, and penance.” She finds fault with these practices for various reasons, including that “confession and forgiveness suggest a relation of authority and subordinate.”99

Two other promoters of moral education, Peter Smagorinsky and Joel Taxel, take a similar approach to Noddings in problematizing character education.100 She wrote the foreword to their book The Discourse of Character

29 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Education: Culture Wars in the Classroom. Both authors are professors in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Georgia. Smagorinsky was a doctoral student of the renowned educational theorist Michael Apple and states early in the book that he is using Apple’s methodology.101 Smagorinsky and Taxel “identif[y] the ways in which the concept of character is culturally constructed, emerging from the belief systems historically developed in communities of practice.”102 In doing so, the authors present an analysis of two character education programs, one in the Deep South and the other in the upper Midwest, which is “designed to highlight the ideological nature of any conception of character and to locate the origins of any belief system in cultural practice.”103 In comparing the two modes of character education, Smagorinsky and Taxel challenge the notion that there are universal norms upon which certain forms of character education rest. They reject “the moral abso- lutism presumed by Lickona, Kilpatrick and others.”104 Instead, they argue, “Character curriculum ought to do more than exhort students to do good. Rather, it should engage them with real questions about how to live the most emotionally satisfying and socially responsible lives in relation to others.”105 Additionally, character education should have “students approach themes, values, and ideas on their own terms, instead of through the inculcation of definitions by adults.”106

Like Smagorinsky and Taxel, Barbara Stengel, professor of the practice and director of secondary education at Vanderbilt University, believes that the school classroom is inescapably moral. In the book Moral Matters: Five Ways to Develop the Moral Life of Schools, co-written with Alan R. Tom and with a foreword by Noddings, Stengel argues that “schooling seems, in the public imagination, to be a predominantly value-neutral affair of the mind. Teachers appear, first of all, to be technicians who deliver instruction and assess performance. The irony, of course, is that this putatively neutral vision carries its own moral message, validates particular values, and requires specific kinds of relationships.”107 By ignor- ing the moral dimension of schooling, educators also fail to recognize an important reality of teaching. According to Stengel, “When educators avoid explicit acknowledge of the moral dimensions of their work, they are sidestepping not the moral that many enact with skill, but the play of emotion that is an integral feature of valuing anything.” For Stengel then, re-incorporating the moral back with the “academic,” allows for a fuller mode of education.108 Acknowledging the inescapable moral dimension

30 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture of schooling and the need for moral education is essential for educators like Noddings, Stengel, Smagorinsky, and Taxel. The moral reality of the classroom is also important for other educators who criticize certain forms of moral education.

In “Would You Like Values with That? Chick-fil-A and Character Education,” Deron Boyles, professor of philosophy of education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University, argues vehemently against a particular character development program in Georgia public schools. In 2000, Chick-fil-A CEO S. Truett Cathy became a national partner with the character development program Core Essentials: “An educational program that gives teachers and parents tools for imparting key values to elementary-age boys and girls.”109 In order to reward and encourage good behavior, teachers in the program are to give out vouchers for free meals from Chick-fil-A to their students. At issue for Boyles are the moral undertones of the program: “We have, in short, a program funded by a fundamentalist Christian whose company uses ‘kid’s meals’ as a bribe for behaving in docile, disempowered, uncritical ways. Might this actually be the motive for the program? That is, might it be the case that imposing hierarchy, developing non-questioning students, and privileging Christian-corporate values are intentional acts perpetrated by those wishing to maintain and increase their power, even at the expense of the very students to which they preach equality and kindness?”110 Boyles’ strong critical language and focus on power indicate his immersion in the movement for social justice education, a major force in university education schools on which the next chapter focuses.

31 IV. Social Justice

Today it is unquestionable that the primary framework for moral formation in university education schools is the language of “social justice.” Over the past 25 years, the concept of “social justice” has gone from minimal explicit usage to dominating the way education schools frame schooling and teacher preparation. The term’s influence is seen in education school mission statements and descriptions of faculty positions, professional organizations for education researchers, and books and other curricular materials.

The rise of the “social justice” framework is apparent when one examines the incidence of the term in scholarly journals. As Figure 1 shows [see end of section], the number of references to “social justice” in all education journals cataloged by JSTOR, the leading online repository for scholarly journals, has skyrocketed since the mid-1990s. This phenomenon is not limited to the United States, as journals such as the British Educational Research Journal, the British Journal of Educational Studies, and the British Journal of Sociology of Education showed a nearly identical pattern of increasing incidence of “social justice” over the same years. The observa- tion that the “social justice” framework rose simultaneously in the United States and the UK is particularly startling, and it suggests the need for further research on the British situation in order to illuminate the origins of the “social justice” ascendancy in the United States.

The catalog of Teachers College at Columbia University—America’s most famous, comprehensive, and historically important education school— illustrates the rising importance of the “social justice” concept. The catalog for 1999–2000 contained four references to “social justice,” while the catalog for 2011–2012 had twenty—a fivefold increase. Many of the added references came in program descriptions or lists of core values. Perhaps most notably, Teachers College has named “social justice” as one of “three shared philosophical stances that underlie and infuse the work we do,”

32 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture alongside an “inquiry stance” and a “curricular stance.” Consequently, one of the four “Expectations of Teacher Education Candidates at Teachers College” is that they will be “Advocates for Social Justice and Diversity.” Among the “Expectations of Teacher Preparation Programs at Teachers College” is that they will develop in graduates a disposition toward social justice. The Department of Curriculum and Teaching, founded in 1938, proclaims in its mission statement: “Broad questions about the nature, purpose, and design of curriculum and about the theory and practice of teaching remain at the core of all department programs. Addressing these questions in contemporary times calls for critical analyses of the ways in which curriculum, teaching, and schooling contribute to social inequalities, and a commitment to educating for social justice.” The department’s Elementary Inclusive Education program “prepares teachers to teach all children, particularly in urban contexts. The course of study emphasizes curriculum development for heterogeneous classrooms, critical multicul- turalism, teaching for equity and social justice, and an inquiry approach to teaching and learning.” Several of Teachers College’s program descriptions in Educational Leadership mention social justice, including two of them in which “social justice” is cited first in a list of core values.111

Teachers College is far from unique among education schools in incorporating “social justice” into statements of institutional identities and goals. Ads published for open faculty positions in education schools are particularly telling in this regard. Perhaps the most overt case is at Western

Figure 1

Number of articles that include the term “social justice” in education journals archived by JSTOR, 1933–2006

400 350 300 250 200 150 100

Number of Articles 50 0 1951 1981 1975 1972 1957 1978 1933 1987 1939 1936 1963 1993 1942 1954 1969 1945 1948 1984 1966 1996 1999 1960 1990 2002 2005 Year

33 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Washington University, which sought an assistant professor in education and social justice who would help design programs “for an innovative Education and Social Justice minor.”112 The University of Illinois, advertising for an open rank faculty position in the Department of Education Policy, Organization, and Leadership, stated, “The successful candidate would be immersed in school leadership issues related to social justice, equity, and equality.”113 A job ad for the Department of Educational Management and Development at New Mexico State University pro- claimed, “We aim to develop change agents and role models for socially- just educational systems.”114 According to a job ad for the University of British Columbia, the very purpose of its Department of Educational Studies is “to address global justice and equity.”115 Illinois Wesleyan University, in advertising for a Director of Teacher Education, sought “a teacher-scholar with a commitment to liberal arts and social justice education.”116 Santa Clara University, pursuing an Associate Dean for Faculty in the School of Education and Counseling Psychology, noted that “preference will be given to candidates who have experience in PreK- 12 educational settings and a demonstrated commitment to multicultural education and social justice.”117 Minimum qualifications for a faculty position in Educational Foundations at Utah State University included “evidence of understanding of historic and present day sociocultural issues that influence and are influenced by education, as well as a commitment to social justice.”118

A number of books also attest to the prominence of social justice rhetoric. Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, a reader intended for classroom use, is now in its third edition following its initial publication in 2000. The lead author/editor, Maurianne Adams, was chair of the Social Justice in Education Program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Another major publication, spanning over 700 pages, is the Handbook of Social Justice in Education. Lead editor William Ayers, who retired in 2010 as distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has also been an editor of the Teaching for Social Justice Series at Teachers College Press. Another series at that press, the Multicultural Education Series edited by James A. Banks, has published several important works on social justice, including Learning to Teach for Social Justice and Education Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action, and Policy. Banks, the most recognized figure in the field of multicultural education, is the Kerry and Linda Killinger Endowed Chair in Diversity

34 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Studies and Director of the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington.

It is helpful to step back and reflect on the most important commitments and qualities that universities seek in the professors who will prepare America’s future teachers. These job ads for education professors do not emphasize the life of the mind or the pursuit of truth. Rather, they seek educators committed to social justice. This tendency suggests that education professors see American schools primarily as instruments for shaping the social order, rather than incubators of intellectual and creative prowess.

The dramatic rise of social justice to As the term social justice becomes the chief moral language of education schools naturally prompts the ques- more ubiquitous, its meaning tion, in the words of one recent article becomes more contested. by a social justice advocate, “What Is All This Talk About ‘Social Justice’?”119 According to Teachers College professor and social justice educator Celia Oyler, “The phrase ‘social justice’ has proliferated in teacher education in recent years and is an umbrella term encompassing a large range of practices and perspectives.”120 As the term social justice becomes more ubiquitous, its meaning becomes more contested. In some cases, social justice simply means more diverse representation of women and minorities in education.121 In most cases, however, social justice entails a more complex and robust approach, as described by several leading education school professors. For instance, Ayers argues that social justice research is “research to resist harm and redress grievances, research with the explicit goal of promoting a more balanced, fair, and equitable social order.”122 For Christine Sleeter, professor emerita at California State University, Monterey Bay, and former director of its Institute for Advanced Studies in Education, “Social justice in teacher education can be conceptualized as…supporting access for all students to high-quality, intellectually rich teaching that builds on their cultural and linguistic backgrounds [and] preparing teachers to foster democratic engagement among young people.”123 Finally, University of Washington professors Morva McDonald and Kenneth M. Zeichner argue that “social justice programs explicitly attend to societal structures that perpetuate injustice, and they attempt to prepare teachers to take both individual and collective action toward

35 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

mitigating oppression.”124 Historically, the concept of justice focused primarily on the fair and equitable distribution of goods in society.125 According to Boyles, “Distributive notions of justice find their strength in egalitarian ideas where each person has an equal share.” Yet, for social justice educators like Boyles, traditional accounts of justice are woefully inadequate. He argues that “while such [distributive] dispensations are necessary to justice, absent from this egalitarian concept is the emancipa- tory emphasis found in social justice, an emphasis that seeks to free people from oppression.”126 Indeed, the goal of revealing, critiquing, and ending oppression is central in several of the varied articulations of social justice pedagogy found in university education schools. Some educators focus on the macro level of society, while some begin with the individual. Other educators fixate on race, and yet others examine unequal power relations. Oyler helpfully points to two main themes across the various approaches to social justice pedagogy: “(1) it is important for teachers to assume a capacity—rather than a deficit—orientation for young children, their families, and their communities; and (2) it is important for teachers to develop knowledge of oppression, a keen eye for inequity as it functions in schools, and a commitment to equity pedagogy.”127 In other words, social justice education focuses on ending the oppression of underrepresented students and dismantling the structures that facilitate it.

One prominent technique within social justice discourse is the use of critical theory to examine educational institutions and practices. Critical theory is an approach to social criticism that has its roots in the neo- Marxist Frankfurt School, a group of German thinkers who moved to New York City in the 1930s.128 It seeks to liberate individuals by critiquing unjust cultural structures and oppressive ideologies. According to a leading proponent of critical theory in education, UC Berkeley professor Zeus Leonardo, “Understanding the nature of oppression is central to [critical theory’s] internal logic. That is, it proceeds from the assumption that oppression is real and formidable—that is to say, oppression is simultaneously social and lived.”129 Critical theory found its major pathway into education through the famous Brazilian activist educator Paulo Freire and his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, published in 1968.130 Freire’s educational scheme, deemed “critical pedagogy,” became popular in 1970s, and today he is viewed as the father of social justice advocacy in education. According to University of California, Santa Cruz professor Ronald Glass, “Freire argues that overcoming the limits of situations is

36 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture ultimately an educational enterprise.”131 That is, proper education liber- ates oppressed individuals by allowing them to fully express themselves as free human beings. For the oppressed, to be able “to discern the truth of their nature, identities, and situation requires the achievement of a kind of knowledge that reaches behind the way things are to grasp the way things came to be.”132 Freire argued that the capacity for critique is the first step toward liberation. Consequently, robust criticism is central to social justice pedagogy. As Freire’s ideas matriculated into educational discourse, several educational theorists built upon his work. The most prominent of these scholars include Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, and Peter McLaren.133 Apple is possibly the most influential thinker in an American school of education. He is the John Bascom Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin, where he has directed 75 dissertations since 1970. His most famous book, Ideology and Curriculum, is often considered one of the most influential books on education in the twentieth century. More recently, Apple edited The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education. Critical education is the most general term for those who employ critical theory or critical pedagogy in education. Apple and his critical educator colleagues believe that a truly moral education that attains social justice cannot be accomplished within existing social and educational structures, but instead requires overhauling them.134 A central tenet for critical educators is that education is inherently a political enterprise.135

The social justice movement in education schools took off in the mid- 1990s. The year 1995 was a watershed, with several events that provided important stimulus to the movement: theoretical articles on critical race theory and culturally relevant pedagogy by Gloria Ladson-Billings, the publication of Other Peoples Children by Lisa Delpit, and the institutionalization of the social justice concept in the American Educational Research Association under the presidency of Linda Darling-Hammond. These events were also symbolically significant in that all three of these scholars are African-American women; their presence among the most influential education professors in the United States revealed the changing demographic of that group, a change which is surely connected to the rising emphasis on social justice.

Ladson-Billings is among the most prominent figures in educational research and served as president of the American Educational Research

37 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Association in 2005–06. She is the Kellner Family Professor in Urban Education at the University of Wisconsin and a colleague of Michael Apple in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, where the graduate program annually earns the nation’s top ranking from U.S. News and World Report. In 1995, Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate of Washington University published “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.” Cited over 1,500 times, this article brought a new way of thinking about race to the forefront of educational research and policy.136 Racial awareness is the central hermeneutical lens for critical race theorists (CRT) like Ladson-Billings, Leonardo, and A.A. Akom. CRT overtly rejects liberal solutions to racial inequality, calling instead for a more radical restructuring of society. Ladson-Billings dismisses “the standard liberal cant of individual rights,” claiming that liberal civil rights achievements such as Brown vs. Board of Education and affirmative action benefit whites.137 She argues that racism is so entrenched that it requires sweeping changes that liberalism has no mechanism for.138 For Ladson-Billings and Tate, racial inequality and school funding based on property values have led to an educational system that justifies the exclusion of black students and their concerns, as “demonstrated by white flight and the growing insistence on vouchers, public funding of private schools, and schools of choice. Within schools, absolute right to exclude is demonstrated by resegregation via tracking, the institution of ‘gifted’ programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes.”139 Educational problems like urban school failure are directly related to the oppression of racial minorities in education. Ladson-Billings’ other major 1995 theoretical article, “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,” now cited over 2,000 times, attempted to address these issues by articulating a pedagogy that gives voice and agency to minority students.140 She offered “a theoretical model that not only addresses student achievement but also helps students to accept and affirm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives that challenge inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate.”141 For Ladson-Billings, the cultural experience and knowledge of minorities are significant assets in their education. Her pedagogy also aims to “develop students who can both understand and critique the existing social order.”142 A moral education requires that minority students celebrate their cultural and racial identity while critiquing the institutional and racial realities that oppress them.

38 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Another CRT educator, Leonardo, argues that “Whiteness” lies at the center of all racial oppression and inequality in education. For Leonardo, “A critical reading of Whiteness means that White ignorance must be prob- lematized, not in order to expose Whites as simply racist but to increase knowledge about their full participation in race relations. It also means that racial formation must be read into the practices and texts that students and teachers negotiate with one another (Harris, 1999) as a move to affirm educators’ power to question narratives that have graduated to common sense or truth.”143 He also argues that raising awareness of white racial realities forces whites to recognize their own racial knowledge, which has two advantages: “one, it holds them self-accountable for race-based decisions and actions; two, it dismantles their innocence in exchange for a status as full participants in race relations.”144 For the sociologist A.A. Akom, associate professor of environmental sociology, public health, and urban education at San Francisco State University, there are five elements of CRT in education, which he extrapolates from Ladson-Billings and Tate: “(1) the centrality of race and racism and their intersectionality with other forms of subordination; (2) the challenge to dominant ideologies (for example, patriarchy, neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meri- tocracy); (3) the commitment to social justice and working toward the end of eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression; (4) a transdisciplinary perspective that values and includes epistemological frameworks from Africana studies, ethnic studies, women’s studies, etc.; and (5) the centrality of experiential knowledge of people of color.”145 According to Akom, educators “must reposition students as subjects and architects of research. Enabling youth to decon- struct the material and ideological conditions that oppress them inspires a process of community building and knowledge production.”146 Building upon these ideas, Akom is involved with an educational program derived from CRT called Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), which “identifies research as a significant site of struggle between the interest and ways of knowing of traditional Western research and decolonizing frameworks that reflect the inherent belief in the ability of people of color to accurately assess our own strengths and needs and our right to act upon them in this world (Smith, 1999).”147

For critical theorists, including critical race theorists, the recognition and reclamation of power is an important avenue for alleviating inequality and oppression. Indeed, an increased focus on power is the third characteristic

39 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

of the new social justice orientation within education schools in the mid- 1990s. One marker of this shift was the 1992 debut of a new core education course at Michigan State University, often considered the leading institution in teacher education and currently ranked first in elementary and secondary education for twenty consecutive years by U.S. News and World Report.148 Teacher Education 250, “Human Diversity, Power, and Opportunity in Social Institutions,” became the second of two required introductory courses for all elementary education majors. Michigan State generally offers 10–15 sections of 25 students per semester, since its teacher education program is so large. Teacher Education 250 mainly replaced Teacher Education 450, “School and Society.”149 The latter course was a general “social foundations” course, standard in education schools for much of the twentieth century. Its replacement by a more specific and clearly normative course suggests how the concerns animating education schools were changing in the 1990s.

In addition to institutional changes highlighting the role of power, educational theorists increasingly make it central to their analyses. Apple argues that understanding education “requires that we situate it in the unequal relations of power in the larger society and in the realities of dominance and subordination—and the conflicts—that are generated by these Apple argues that understanding relations.”150 Thus, for social justice education “requires that we educators, acknowledging the reality of power and its unequal dispersion is an situate it in the unequal relations important task—in education, as well of power in the larger society as in the broader society, because educa- and in the realities of dominance tion is not a stand-alone institution but thoroughly embedded in larger social and subordination—and the and cultural arrangements.151 Perhaps conflicts—that are generated by the leading voice calling for this work is Lisa Delpit, professor of educational these relations.” leadership and policy studies at Florida International University. As Executive Director and Eminent Scholar of the Center for Urban Education & Innovation at Florida International University, Delpit is “responsible for developing, seeking funds for, and administering programs related to pursuing social justice, equity, and academic excellence in Florida, the nation, and internationally, particularly for poor communities and

40 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture communities of color.”152 Delpit gained fame with a 1988 article, “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children,” which has since been cited over 3,500 times and which she expanded into the 1995 book Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom.153 According to Delpit, the problem of unequal power in education is that there is a frequently unrecognized “culture of power.” For Delpit, the “culture of power” in the classroom is “a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.” Additionally, she argues, “If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier, [and] those with power are frequently least aware of its existence.”154 At issue, then, for Delpit is the discriminatory nature of the “culture of power,” in which “the worldviews of those with privileged positions are taken as the only reality, while the worldviews of those less powerful are dismissed as inconsequential. Indeed, in the educational institutions of this country, the possibilities for poor people and for people of color to define themselves, to determine the self each should be, involve a power that lies outside of the self. It is others who determine how they should act.”155 Delpit’s proposed solution consists in “provid[ing] students who do not already posses them, the additional codes of power.”156 In her view, educators must help students simultaneously retain their own cultural identity and learn the predominant codes of power that allow them “to participate fully in the mainstream of American life.”157

Social justice educators also believe that some typical educational goals, such as cultivating a child’s autonomy,158 reflect the pervasive values of a hegemonic culture—thus marginalizing minority teachers and students.159 Social justice educators argue that redressing power inequalities in and through education requires empowering oppressed minority groups. Empowerment involves critiquing educational inequalities and affirming minority students’ cultural identity. One way to do so requires teachers to “create the necessary self-empowering conditions that allow kids to explore, theorize, reveal, and act upon the truths behind the world they inhabit.”160 Another method focuses on helping “mobilize students into organized political bodies (critical communities of struggle) so that they are able to voice their concerns and realize their own goals.”161 Fighting against unjust power structures also requires critiquing the underlying political and economic conditions that perpetuate the problem. For Leonardo, this mode involves “affirm[ing] educators’ power to question

41 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

narratives that have graduated to common sense or truth (Bishop, 2005), like the ‘fact’ of White racial ignorance.”162 For social justice educators, understanding power relations is fundamental to overcoming the unjust institutional structures that perpetuate inequality and oppression in education, as well as in society.

The final major indicator of the rise to prominence of the social justice concept since the mid-1990s has been its institutionalization within the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the main professional body for professors in US university education schools. Evidence of this institutionalization is found in the two leading AERA journals (Educational Researcher and American Educational Research Journal), annual reports, council meeting minutes, and the organization’s archival records held at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Darling-Hammond’s activities during her 1995–96 AERA presidency sparked a major push to institutionalize “social justice.” At the time, Darling-Hammond was a professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. Now at Stanford, she led President Obama’s education policy transition team, and Education Week ranked her as the education scholar with the greatest public presence in 2014.163 The work of task forces appointed by Darling-Hammond led to the creation of a full-time AERA staff position, Director of Social Justice, whose responsibilities included “facilitat[ing] ways in which the association protects, assets, and honors social justice and equity,” “working to establish sessions on the annual meeting program that address issues of social justice and equity,” and “working with the governance structure to develop a strategic plan for social justice within AERA.”164 In September 1998, the first Director of Social Justice convened the Social Justice Advisory Committee (SJAC), charged with giving direction to implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on the Role and Future of Minorities in AERA. SJAC became a standing committee with a slightly tweaked name (“Action” replaced “Advisory”) in 2000, and two years later, it expanded from six to nine members in order to take on a greater role.

In 1999, SJAC issued a statement on changing epistemologies, lauding “approaches to knowledge construction that are ethnically and culturally sensitive.”165 This impulse traces its roots back to the January 1997 report of the Task Force on the Role and Future of Minorities in AERA, which was appointed by Darling-Hammond in December 1995. In 2002,

42 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

AERA approved a new SIG (Special Interest Group, which can spon- sor sessions at the AERA annual meeting): Critical Educators for Social Justice. In 2004, SJAC co-hosted the First Annual Social Justice Action Distinguished Award Lecture and Reception during the AERA Annual Meeting in San Diego. That same year, the AERA announced social justice as one of its key commitments and adopted an “integrated social justice rationale and mission.” The institutionalization of social justice language in the AERA was mirrored by a dramatic rise in the number of references to “social justice” in AERA journals (and all education journals) during that period (not just because they were talking about the institutional changes, though that was some of it).

Toward the end of that period, social justice educators adopted a new central target of critique: “neoliberalism.” Indeed, the advent of critique of neoliberalism inaugurated the current period, dating roughly since 2001, in which talk of social justice is ubiquitous in education schools. This period has also featured a proliferation of charter schools, often accom- panied by the moniker “school choice,” as well as the wide spread of No Child Left Behind standards and testing after its enactment in 2002. The focus on neoliberalism in education began in earnest with Apple’s book Educating the “Right” Way, published in 2001 and expanded for a second edition in 2006. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Apple argues, there was a convergence of interests on the right. Along with neoliberals, Apple identifies neoconservatives, authoritarian populists—“religious fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals who want to return to (their) God in all our institutions”—and the new “managerial and professional” middle class.166 Neoliberals, according to Apple, “are deeply committed to markets and freedom as ‘individual choice.’”167 That is, they view “the world in essence [as] a vast supermarket.” Education “is seen as simply one more product like bread, cars, and television.”168 As other scholars have explained a neoliberal understanding of education, “schools must align their policies and practices with the notion of knowledge as a regular tradable com- modity.”169 Public education, as it becomes closely linked with economic competitiveness and the needs of the market, succumbs to high-stakes testing, accountability, and privatization, which are seen as ways to effectively produce and measure school progress. The proliferation of standardized testing accelerated with the passage of No Child Left Behind, and “its characteristics,” Apple notes, “include massive centralization of control, a loss of local autonomy, and a redefinition of what counts as good or bad

43 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

education that is simply reduced to scores on problematic tests of achievement. It can actually create even more inequalities than before.”170 Social justice educators also protest that “in the push to raise test scores, schools cannot develop curricula that build on students’ culture. Consequently, low-income students and students of color are unlikely to do well, not only because of low expectations, but also because the curriculum does not connect to their experience. Yet because policymakers portray all students as being provided the same opportunities, student failure is blamed on individual lack of effort.”171 Social justice educators are far from alone in opposing high-stakes testing, but their critique is distinct because they hold that its proliferation directly results from applying neoliberal ideals of competition and markets to schools. Thus, for social justice educators, neoliberalism is a “hegemonic” system that must be resisted on every front.172 Apple argues that “defensible, articulate, and fully fleshed out alternative critical and progressive policies and practices in curriculum, teaching, and evaluation need to be developed and made widely available.”173 For example, Apple advocates for the journal Rethinking Schools and the organization National Coalition of Education Activists, which “have jointly constructed spaces for critical educators, cultural and political activists, radical scholars, and others to teach each other, to provide supportive criticism of one another’s work, and to build a more collective set of responses to the destructive educational and social policies coming from the conservative restoration.”174

Social Justice Pedagogy From math curricula to teaching strategies, the practical outworkings of the social justice movement in education occur in various and unex- pected places. One such place is the science classroom, as exemplified by the work of Michigan State University professor of science education Angela Calabrese Barton, who earned tenure at Teachers College before joining the Michigan State University faculty. Her book Teaching Science for Social Justice, part of the Teaching for Social Justice Series co-edited by Ayers, won a Critics Choice Award from the American Educational Studies Association. The journal Cultural Studies of Science Education gave her article “Unpacking Science for All Through the Lens of Identities-In- Practice” its paper of the year award. Professional bodies have showered her with honors, including a National Academy of Education/Spencer postdoctoral fellowship, a National Science Foundation Career Award, and multiple AERA awards, including the Division G Award for Research

44 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Leading to Transformations of Social Contexts. Her other books carry titles such as Feminist Science Education and Teaching Science in Diverse Settings: Marginalized Discourses and Classroom Practice. Barton begins her book Teaching Science for Social Justice by asking, “How do high-poverty, urban youth construct a practice of science in their lives in ways that are enriching, empowering, and transformative?”175 By focusing on the student’s experience with science, Barton argues that the teaching of science can be an avenue for implementing social justice: “In showing which science experiences are relevant, we work to demonstrate how power, authority, identity, and action all play pivotal roles in the sense that youth make of their lives and in their attempts to use science (in part) to craft empowering opportunities to have their needs addressed.”176 Yet science is not the only non-traditional subject that social justice educators engage. For Eric (Rico) Gutstein, professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Illinois at Chicago and co-founder of Teachers for Social Justice, an education activist organization supporting teachers both in and outside of the classroom, “Students use mathematics to begin to develop (1) critical sociopolitical knowledge of their local and broader social realities (‘reading the world’ with mathematics); (2) a sense of social agency, that is, a view of themselves as capable of effecting meaningful change for social justice (‘writing the world’ with mathematics); and (3) strong cultural and social identities.”177 The work of these two education school professors suggests how social justice pedagogies can be quite diverse.

Social justice concerns frequently inform teacher education as well. A prime example comes from Darling-Hammond, who is often considered the leading authority in the field of teacher education.178 In 2002, she co- edited Learning to Teach for Social Justice with two of her students in the Stanford Teacher Education Program. The book was born when these students came to see her because they couldn’t understand why all their class- mates were not “mobilized to fight for social justice as the central core of their commitment to teaching.”179 Darling-Hammond and her students advocate for teacher education that “involves coming to understand oneself in relation to others; examining how society constructs privilege and inequality and how this affects one’s own opportunities as well as those of different people; exploring the experiences of others and appreciating how those inform their worldviews, perspectives, and opportunities; and evaluating how schools and classrooms operate and can be structured to value diverse human experiences and to enable learning for all students.”180 For

45 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Darling-Hammond, the first step to becoming an effective teacher is to better understand one’s own identity and history: “To be empathic and effective with all of their students, educators need to develop a sense of themselves as racial and cultural beings.”181 Darling-Hammond is not the only social justice educator who sees self-reflection as an important practice for aspiring teachers. John Smyth, research professor of education at the University of Ballarat in Australia, argues that “being able to locate oneself both personally and professionally in history so as to understand the forces that have come to determine one’s existence is the hallmark of a teacher who has been able to harness the reflective process so as to begin to act on the world in a way that amounts to changing it.”182 For Smyth, the goal of reflective teaching is achieving social justice.

Self-understanding is just a beginning for social justice teacher education. Sleeter situates her advocacy for social justice teacher education in contrast to “a deregulation conception [of teacher quality].” According to Sleeter, this conception, “reflected in reports by conservative think tanks such as the Fordham and Abel Foundations, emphasizes subject matter preparation only, seeing little or no professional pedagogical knowledge of value that can be learned other than through experience.183 Sleeter recommends that prospective teachers read the works of Freire, Apple, and Banks to be able to distinguish between the “political and cultural” freedom of a democracy and “the buy[ing] and mak[ing] money” freedom of the marketplace.

With oppression as a central concept in social justice education, Kevin Kumashiro specifically advocates for an “anti-oppressive” pedagogy. Kumashiro is one of the rising stars in the world of educational research. When he became dean of the University of San Francisco School of Education at age 43 in July 2013, the Chronicle of Higher Education pro- filed him under the headline “New Education Dean Takes Social Justice into the Classroom.”184 Previously a professor of educational policy studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago, he is the founding director of the Center for Anti-Oppressive Education and the current president (2012–2014) of the National Association for Multicultural Education. His most influential book, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning toward Social Justice, lays out his basic framework for anti-oppressive education, and he has written or edited several other books on the topic, including Troubling Education: Queer Activism and Antioppressive

46 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Pedagogy. According to Kumashiro, “The question needs to be how schools should be differently addressing issues of oppression. And therein lies the reason for re-centering education on issues of social justice, that is, on a social movement against oppression. The problems of common sense call on us to engage in anti-oppressive forms of education, i.e., in forms of education that explicitly work against multiple oppressions.” “Anti-oppressive” education for Kumashiro involves multiple approaches. One approach “focuses on improving the experiences of students who have traditionally been treated in harmful ways and not treated in helpful ways.”185 Another approach seeks to challenge larger social structures that marginalize groups. In fact, students are taught to think creatively and critically regardless of the narrative presented to them. “Anti-oppressive” education even challenges traditional forms of teaching math and science. Kumashiro argues that “maths and sciences education cannot be about only giving students what we traditionally consider to be mathemati- cal and scientific knowledges and skills. Such an emphasis on official knowledge Another major criticism of social (Apple, 1993) closes off anti-oppressive possibilities for change.”186 justice education is that in its pursuit of political goals, it With the growth of social justice advocacy in education, several criticisms have aris- narrows and instrumentalizes en. One criticism centers on the ambigui- education, paying insufficient ty of social justice language. According to social justice educator Marilyn Cochran- attention to academic content. Smith, Cawthorne Professor of Teacher Education for Urban Schools in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College, “the application of [social justice] language to disparate projects and programs, coupled with the absence of a fully developed definition or theory, has been a source of sharp criticism.”187 In fact, conserva- tives have even made claims to social justice.188 Another concern is the heavy use of ideological language. For example, Ayers goes so far as to put Ronald Reagan into the same category as Pol Pot and Mussolini.189 Apple expresses “anger at the arrogance of those who are such true believers in market logics.”190 Some social justice educators reduce the complexity of American culture to a monolithic “White” hegemony.191 Yet not all social justice educators resort to simplifications. In fact, some even “reject as self-defeating the reduction of education conflicts to simplistic bina- ries such as evil neoliberalism versus good social democracy.”192 Another

47 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

major criticism of social justice education is that in its pursuit of political goals, it narrows and instrumentalizes education, paying insufficient attention to academic content. Cochran-Smith notes how critics often charge that “teacher education for social justice centers on kids feeling good and teachings being politically correct, while nobody pays attention to learning.”193 Though she thinks this criticism is ill-guided, she does hit upon a common worry about social justice education—that seemingly nonideological subjects, such as science and math, become infused with politically charged language. Learning and mastering a subject becomes secondary to promoting social ideals. Educators inside the movement also charge that social justice education is overly focused on human institutions. According to Gail C. Furman and David A. Gruenewald, “most discourses on social justice are incomplete because they are concerned exclusively with human beings and fail to acknowledge the interdepen- dence of social and ecological systems. This anthropocentric orientation further reinforces assumptions about the legitimacy of existing cultural patterns (e.g., economic expansion and hyperconsumerism) and lacks the conceptual vision to acknowledge ecological problems or to see the social justice problems humans create for themselves when they damage their nonhuman environments.”194 Finally, some fear that an unreflective social justice education could become as oppressive as what it critiques. The social justice educator Connie North, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, warns,“To avoid the substitution of one oppressive discourse for another, we ought to continue questioning, theorizing, and expanding our knowledge claims about, and actions for, social justice.”195 The fixation on social justice education is also a symptom of what W. Norton Grubb and Martin Lazerson have called “the education gospel”—the belief that schools can fix all of our social problems.196 This tendency carries the danger of instrumentalizing schools as tools for solving our social problems, rather than making them places of intellectual excitement.

48 V. Citizenship

American schools have long sought to form their students into competent citizens. The shape of this citizenship education has changed over time, along with a shift in the country’s self-conception and perceived needs. In the early United States, educators often used the framework of republican- ism to define the qualities of a citizen, whereas the twentieth century saw a heavy emphasis on democracy. With the proliferation of pluralism in the United States, especially since the 1960s, tough new questions have arisen concerning the nature of democracy, civic life, and the formation of citizens. Even what constitutes a citizen is hotly contested. At the same time, commentators have become increasingly concerned about a perceived lack of interest in public affairs among young people. This theme emerged as early as the mid-1980s, when the political scientist Richard Battistoni warned of “a crisis in civic education” caused by “a continuous erosion of shared political values in American society” since the 1960s.197 The issue did not gain widespread attention until the late 1990s, however, when prominent scholars such as Theda Skocpol and Robert Putnam published works on this issue.198

The twin concerns of rising pluralism and decreased civic participation have prompted a renewed focus on citizenship education and a diversity of new pedagogies for it, both inside and outside of university education schools. Some educators focus on themes such as justice or social cohesion, while others narrow their view to the developing child. Yet each shares a common narrative that emphasizes the decline of civic participation, as well as the need for new citizenship paradigms and pedagogies to implement them. Though some theorists cannot be neatly categorized, contemporary thinking about citizenship education tends to focus on one of three themes: justice, pluralism, or development. Taken together, these themes capture the mood and trajectory of citizenship education today.

49 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Justice The justice framework is found throughout elite education schools, but perhaps the leading institution is Teachers College, especially through the work of professors Ernest Morrell and Celia Oyler. This approach mainly centers on the plight of poor urban schools that serve children whom justice educators classify as disenfranchised. According to such educators, these schools’ failings are not their fault, but rather result from systemic forces of inequality and oppression.199 Moreover, justice educators believe that recent American education policy has exacerbated the problem by narrowing the curriculum and focusing on test scores as the exclusive indicators of student learn- Critical pedagogy is about ing, thus inhibiting these students from learning about and addressing the politi- predisposing students toward cal, economic, and social structures that justice-oriented action while at perpetuate their disenfranchisement.200 Since the late 1990s, many justice edu- the same time teaching them cators have argued that a “neoliberal” how to unmask the institutional ideology drives this educational policy. As they see it, neoliberalism champions barriers that prevent such action. misguided economic and political ideals, such as the primacy of market logic, limited government assistance, and an individualization that locates failure primarily on the student. 201 Additionally, “the civic knowledge, skills, and attitudes of low-income students of color are routinely ignored or criticized in mainstream civic and literacy education.”202 They believe that the neoliberal approach leads to managerialism within and competition among public schools, which produce negative consequences. First, managerialism often stifles teachers’ autonomy, creativity, and most importantly, critical engagement with inequality.203 Teachers are “deskilled,” treated as workers rather than professionals, and increasingly required to operate according to directives from various levels of management. This “standardization,” according to justice educators, inhibits teachers from attending to the cultural particularities of children. Second, top-down imperatives to orient teaching toward standardized tests divert teachers’ time and energy from educating underprivileged students to rectify social inequalities.204 To remedy these ills, justice educators advocate a new pedagogy for citizenship education, which seeks to empower urban minority youth to pursue civic action.

50 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Many justice educators draw from the intellectual tradition of “critical pedagogy” originated by Freire, a multifaceted educational program that emphasizes political skills, collective action, pluralism, social justice, and understanding and addressing issues of power. It holds that “any genu- ine pedagogical practice demands a commitment to social transformation in solidarity within subordinated and marginalized groups.”205 Critical pedagogy views citizenship not as voting, but rather as the active political struggle for equality and social justice. Some justice educators frame this struggle as a quest for what the political theorist Benjamin Barber calls “strong democracy.”206 In contrast to liberal democracy with its focus on the individual, strong democracy “requires direct community involvement…this more communalist orientation toward democracy is concerned with pluralism, the common good, and understanding human difference. Rather than approaching decision making as ‘majority rules,’ it is essential to engage in dialoguing across difference…not to reach a (potentially weak) consensus, but instead to struggle toward a solution that most advances equality and social justice.”207 Justice educators thus believe that students must increase their capacities for both action and awareness. With regard to the latter, critical pedagogy seeks to develop students’ ability to critique the oppressive structural forces behind dominant texts and institutions. This emphasis draws from Freire’s famous principle that education is a thoroughly political enterprise and thus non- neutral,208 because schooling is “a cultural and historical process in which students are positioned within asymmetrical relations of power on the basis of specific race, class, and gender groupings.”209 Critical pedagogy is about predisposing students toward justice-oriented action while at the same time teaching them how to unmask the institutional barriers that prevent such action.

Justice educators typically advocate civic education programs centered on action, often motivated by Freirean critical pedagogy’s emphasis on “praxis—the dialectical cycle of action and reflection—as the source of critical consciousness for marginalized students.”210 In Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Community Activism as Curriculum, Oyler calls for teaching citizenship via “social action curriculum,” which engages students in community action in order to prepare them to solve social problems. This approach enables teachers to build on their “social justice commitments… by designing curriculum around social action projects that involve community education, outreach, or organizing.”211 Indeed, “community

51 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

organizing and outreach skills…should be at the center of school curricula in order to properly prepare students to engage fully in democratic life.”212 Justice educators advance a key conceptual innovation, the notion of a “civic agent.”213 Oyler often uses this term in place of “citizen” in order to shift our focus from “national identity papers” to “people who live and work in a place, and engage in a public manner as advocates and activists.”214 It also expresses her goal for civic education: “school-based social action curriculum is designed to foster engaged civic agency.”215 Morrell applies the concept to teachers. In “Teachers as Civic Agents,” he argues that quality teaching “prepares students to become self-actual- ized and critically empowered civic agents. [The approach] also redefines teachers as active civic role models and public intellectuals engaged in collective, critical work.”216 In fact, “teachers, in this model, do not teach students; instead, teachers and students educate each other in a dialogic relationship aimed at acting upon society to humanize both the oppres- sors and the oppressed.”217

Morrell has institutionalized these ideas through the Council of Youth Research, which he co-founded in 1999 as “a learning community that seeks to redefine teachers as public intellectuals and civic leaders.”218 The Council of Youth Research is a program of the Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (IDEA) at UCLA, where Morrell taught before moving to Teachers College. Jeannie Oakes, the founder of IDEA and the president-elect of AERA, now works for the Ford Foundation as Director of the Educational Opportunity and Scholarship programs, which aim to “inform public policy on issues of social justice.”219 The Council of Youth Research brings together “high school students, teachers, university professors, and graduate student researchers.” The students, from impoverished communities in the Los Angeles area, participate in “weekly meetings during the school year” and “graduate-level five-week seminars over the summer” that guide them “through the analysis of critical social theory and provide…the tools necessary to conduct field work and create multimedia presentations.”220 The Council of Youth Research is an example of Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), an approach to civic education that coalesced around the year 2000, building on the established model of Participatory Action Research (PAR).221 PAR emphasizes collective research by “insiders”—“stakeholders within a particular institution, organization, or community.”222 Its central tenets include analyzing power relations along several axes—gender, class, sexuality, and especially

52 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture race—and producing knowledge that is “critical in nature, meaning that findings should point to historic and contemporary moves of power and toward progressive changes improving social conditions.” Indeed, PAR “redefines knowledge as actions in pursuit of social justice.” YPAR builds on PAR by adding an explicitly pedagogical component drawn from the Freirean notion of praxis—students learn that their life experiences are not “predetermined [but] malleable and subject to change, and [they] possess the agency to produce changes.”223 YPAR proponents believe this approach is a way for young people to “resist the normalization of systematic oppression.”224 Morrell argues that “the educational research community would benefit greatly from increasing the opportunities for young people to develop YPAR projects in their schools and communities,” because when marginalized young people “develop the tools and capacities to conduct educational research, they ultimately ask fundamentally different questions in fundamentally different ways.”225 One of the newest approaches to civic education among justice educators, critical youth engagement, considers YPAR one of three essential endeavors (along with youth leadership and youth organizing) that facilitate access to civic engagement for marginalized youth.226 Critical youth engagement helps students navigate the psychological and political pressures of inequality. It also teaches students how to take up causes associated with social injustice and human rights.

Pluralism For some educators, pluralism—rather than justice—is the central focus for citizenship education. They argue that pluralism is an important aspect of a healthy democracy. In contrast to older models of cultural assimilation, they hold that citizens of all backgrounds should maintain their own distinctive traits while participating in democratic public life.227 Yet pluralism presents challenges to the cohesion of that public life, such as the historical distrust between races,228 a lack of shared political values,229 and the absence of a common vocabulary for public life.230 Pluralist educators believe Pluralist educators believe that that the solution to these difficulties is for the solution to these difficulties citizens to engage in robust deliberation together. Only then can pluralistic democ- is for citizens to engage in robust racy thrive. One team of these educators deliberation together. Only then defines deliberation as “the thoughtful processing of information from mediated can pluralistic democracy thrive.

53 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

and interpersonal sources, listening to diverse points of view, turn-taking in discussion, and working out compromises.”231 Deliberation requires participants to understand, negotiate, and at times appreciate the differences that exist within a political body. This approach facilitates tolerance of others—a keystone good, these educators argue, in a multicultural polity.232 Educating citizens for full participation in a diverse democracy thus entails teaching students attitudes and communication skills that facilitate deliberation. Educators concerned with the effects of globalization on citizenship, and for whom pluralism is among several salient realities, add to the chorus calling for deliberation as a principal civic pedagogy. The most prominent theorists who advocate deliberative civic education include Walter Parker, Diana Hess, and Eamonn Callan. Each thinker differs slightly on the contours of this education.

According to Parker, professor of education at the University of Washington and the author of the influential Teaching Democracy: Unity and Diversity in Public Life, diversity is not only a social fact but a fundamental civic good. Parker aims for “a culturally, racially, and politically diverse society.”233 He argues that diversity is “essential to liberty; it causes liberty.” Yet he insists that we must not ignore our shared political identity, which along with “its context—the commonwealth…secure and nurture our diversity.”234 As a result, citizens must balance their emphases on the two main terms in the early US motto, “pluribus (the many) and unum (the one), [with] an understanding that the two are, in fact, interdepen- dent.”235 In Parker’s conception, citizenship does not require assimilation into a majority culture. It does require active participation in deliberation, which “is the basic activity of creating and sustaining democratic life in a diverse society.” Therefore, “the particular knowledge and habits unique to it should be the possession of citizens from all cultural, linguistic, and racial groups.”236 Citizens must affirm and negotiate differences as they come together in the public square to deliberate public matters—“to listen and talk and reason and decide with others.”237 Because understanding the cultural commitments of fellow citizens is so essential for the deliberation that sustains democracy, Parker argues, “Multicultural education and citizenship education are one thing, not two.”238 He aims to bring together these two fields, which have been “largely distinct discourses, social movements, and professional communities.”239 His program of multicultural citizenship education teaches students the deliberative skills that allow them to engage productively with others, through “a classroom

54 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture climate that is characterized by open discussion, divergent questioning, and freedom to express opinions contrary to that of the instructor.”240

Parker’s former doctoral student Diana Hess is another prominent voice in civic education who celebrates pluralism and advocates a deliberative pedagogy. She is currently on leave as professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Wisconsin to serve as senior vice president of the Spencer Foundation. For Hess, “the heart of the deliberative enterprise is the foundational belief that multiple perspectives are an asset—not a hindrance—to democratic thinking, participation, and governance.”241 To prepare students for deliberation, she advocates incorporating controversial issues, such as abortion or gun laws, into the civic education curriculum. She sets forth this pedagogy and provides empirical data to support its efficacy in Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power Because controversy is inevitable of Discussion.242 Because controversy is inevitable in a diverse democracy, Hess in a diverse democracy, Hess argues that schools should teach stu- argues that schools should teach dents how to “engage in high-quality public talk about controversial politi- students how to “engage in cal issues” in order to prepare them for high-quality public talk about citizenship in such a society.243 Such education makes students “more polit- controversial political issues” ically tolerant and…causes them to in order to prepare them for learn more about important issues.”244 It also habituates students into essen- citizenship in such a society. tial democratic practices, because “the listening and talking that constitute discussion physically represent a core goal of democracy: self-governance among equals.” Such an approach is part of Hess’s larger conviction that “democratic education is a form of civic education that purposely teaches young people how to do democracy.”245 This understanding draws on a Deweyan conception of democratic education and is frequently found in the literature on citizenship education. For instance, an article in the Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth states that “drawing from Dewey’s (1916) assertion that local community is where democracy happens, we conceive of schools as mini polities, or public spaces where, through repeated actions in everyday practices, younger generations learn about and help to define what it means to live in a democratic society.”246

55 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

With colleagues from the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Hess has developed a strategy for civic education centered on fostering in students a “set of skills and motives” dubbed “communication competence,” for which “classroom opportunities encouraging deliberative exchanges are a critical precursor.” Communication competence has media and interpersonal components. The former includes “information search skills; understanding the difference between evidence and inference; [and] distinctions among news, editorial, and public relations or advertising content” while the latter encompasses “forming arguments, expressing opinions, listening to other perspectives, turn-taking, active listening, and willingness to collaborate.”247 Perhaps the leading thinker on how changes in media are impacting citizenship is W. Lance Bennett, professor of political science and communication and director of the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement at the University of Washington. Bennett argues that the rise of social media with low barriers to individuals expressing themselves online, such as Facebook and YouTube, has facilitated a transition in the style of citizenship that young Americans practice, from a model of “dutiful citizenship” (DC) to one of “actualizing citizenship” (AC). DC focused on dutifully becoming informed about civic matters through newspapers and television and then voicing an opinion through official channels. In AC, by contrast, “citizens are motivated by the potential of personally expressive politics animated by social networks…that promote engagement.”248 Like the advocates of “communication competence” but with a greater emphasis on the “new media environment,” Bennett believes that civic education must equip students with skills to navigate different forms of media.249

Like Hess, Stanford professor of education Callan emphasizes the capacity to respect opposing viewpoints as a key skill for civic discussion. But Callan draws this impulse from a deeper philosophical well and frames it in terms of virtue, a concept that has largely disappeared from discussion of civic education. His central argument is that sustaining a liberal polity “require[s] a distinctive education for virtue.”250 He further argues that “the cardinal personal virtue of liberal democratic politics” is “justice as reasonableness,” which “devolves into a cluster of mutually supportive habits, desires, emotional propensities, and intellectual capacities” that engender “imaginative sympathy” for citizens with different political views along with “a respect for reasonable differences and a concomitant spirit of moderation and compromise.”251 The end of citizenship

56 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture education is thus “the reasonable citizen,” who seeks a degree of reci- procity and has the desire to settle differences mutually if others will do the same.252 In Callan’s view, a proper theoretical grounding for civic education must “affirm the importance of respecting the many different ways of life that individuals permissibly choose within the framework of free institutions.”253 Citizens should develop a capacity for “interpretive charity” toward “ways of life that are strange, even repugnant” while yet maintaining “the tough-mindedness of responsible criticism.”254 Perhaps the most controversial element of Callan’s philosophy is his emphasis on autonomy as a liberal political virtue.255 Critics such as Kenneth Strike, professor emeritus of philosophy of education at Cornell University, charge that forcing all citizens to develop a strong bent toward autonomy will disadvantage groups “rooted in some traditional conception of the good,” particularly religious communities.256 For Callan, the quest for the reasonable citizen leads directly to a deliberative pedagogy and the common school. Drawing on the Aristotelian notion “that virtues, like skills, are acquired through their exercise,” he argues that “the exercise of reasonableness presupposes deliberative settings in which citizens with conflicting beliefs and ends can join together to ask how they might live together on terms that all might endorse on due reflection.… The common school is an obvious way of creating the necessary context for that task prior to assuming the duties of citizen.”257

Another emphasis in citizenship education since the mid-1990s considers the ramifications of globalization. Like the pluralists discussed above, education researchers working in this emphasis frequently promote deliberation, along with other pedagogies. One element of globalization that they highlight is the destabilization of national identity, particularly due to increased migration and the greater prominence of transnational institutions. Education researchers working from this paradigm argue that citizenship and citizenship education, historically based on a particular nation-state, must be broadened to include participation in global civil society.258 “This move…entails shifts of emphases in citizenship education away from things like national identity, allegiance, and patriotism to multiple roles and complex skills—such as collaborative problem solving and deliberative capacities—necessary for participation in global civil society.”259 Another fact confronting global citizens is interconnected- ness—actions done in one locale can have tremendous economic and environmental consequences across the globe. Global citizens thus need

57 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

to be aware of the issues surrounding worldwide poverty and ecological degradation.260 Lastly, these educators argue that global citizens need to celebrate diversity, since all people, including ethnic minorities within nations, have a stake in international affairs. Global citizens should seek to incorporate all neglected groups into the ongoing international dialogue. They must, as Noddings argues, “hear the voice of the other.”261 These educators call for new curricula to meet the demands of a global- ized world. One such program, articulated by John J. Cogan and Ray Derricott, is “multidimensional citizenship.” This concept, “while including personal development, also includes a commitment to thinking and acting in ways that take account of local and global communities and their concerns.”262 Its proponents argue “that multidimensional citizenship is not something that can be confined to a specific course, or to classes in civics, or to exhortations to behave properly.”263 It integrates other spheres of the student such as community and family, and has a strong focus on how local actions affect the global environment. Multidimensional citizenship also seeks to teach deliberative skills by having students discuss six ethical questions that its promoters believe facilitate engagement with a diverse and challenging range of topics.264

Several themes have a conspicuously small presence in this literature. One is virtue; there are few substantive discussions of the concept aside from Callan’s. Deliberative theorists often describe empathy, mutual respect, and tolerance as skills. Only some, such as Parker, conceptualize them as virtues, but they still rarely provide a sustained account of civic virtue.265 Perhaps the most surprising underemphasized theme is knowledge.266 Many pluralist civic educators show a lack of interest in, and some even reject, direct forms of teaching about civic structures such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the branches of government, and their underlying philosophical and moral assumptions. Indeed, little of the pluralists’ civic education would help people pass a citizenship test to actually become US citizens. Instead, they seem focused on making citizens of a generic diverse democracy. One explanation is that these educators are often steeped in Deweyan pedagogy and thus critical of a “transmission model of education,” which they believe centers on a teacher transmitting knowledge to students.267 Another is that they are wary of “the current emphasis in many districts and states on concep- tualizing the acquisition of content knowledge that can easily be measured in multiple-choice assessments.”268 In addition, the tendency to decouple

58 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture citizenship from the nation-state, noted in the discussion of globalization above, might discourage a focus on knowledge of civic structures particular to a nation-state.269

Pluralist civic educators also pay minimal attention to the affective and volitional dimensions of the human person. For instance, discussions of deliberation are often rationalistic; they rarely examine what would moti- vate a person to deliberate. They also largely ignore questions of affection for one’s country. Again, Callan is an exception; his Creating Citizens discusses “the affective dimension of citizenship” throughout and contains a whole chapter on patriotism.270 Globalization is a factor in deemphasiz- ing the affective. According to Bates College education professor Stacy Smith, the “move away from an emphasis on the nation state entails shifts of emphases in citizenship education away from things like national identity, Pluralist civic educators also pay allegiance, and patriotism.”271 On this minimal attention to the affective issue, writers on citizenship who are located outside education schools have and volitional dimensions of the a distinctly different focus. A notable human person. They take little collection along these lines is Teaching America: The Case for Civic Education, account of the reality that human edited by David Feith of The Wall Street beings have the capacity to be Journal. In one of its essays, former Bush administration official John Bridgeland moved deeply. writes that “civic literacy does not automatically result in greater attachment to country. Stories, songs, emblems, holidays, and service—which appeal to hearts as well as to minds—are essential to creating active, proud citizens.”272 Despite their focus on pluralism, the educators under consideration give little attention to the ability of cultures or traditions to habituate individuals into particular practices that carry over into efficacious citizenship. Their pedagogical programs generally offer little space for students to deepen in their own traditions, focusing instead on learning about multiple cultures and dialoguing across them.

In contrast to these underemphasized themes, the deliberation/globalization literature has a strong focus on democratic practices, such as learning how to form associations and interest groups,273 developing strategies,274 paying attention to what others are doing,275 learning how to influence

59 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

public policy,276 gaining problem solving skills,277 forming democratic cultures in schools,278 and “mastering the techniques of conflict resolu- tion.”279 Most importantly, almost all theorists who focus on pluralism put teaching deliberative skills as the centerpiece of civic curriculum. This emphasis on technique leads to the final theme among contemporary theorists of citizenship education: the developmental approach.

Development The developmental approach to citizenship education has risen from a minimal presence in the mid-1990s to a prominent place in educational research today, as evidenced by the 2010 publication of the Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth under the guidance of senior editor Lonnie Sherrod, executive director of the Society for Research in Child Development. According to the editors, “the publication of a handbook signals that a field has come of age, that there is a sufficient body of research and a large enough cohort of researchers The developmental approach to to merit a substantial summary of the field. We believe that the field of youth citizenship education has risen civic engagement has come of age.”280 In from a minimal presence in the explaining their field’s rise, they cite the mid-1990s to a prominent place catalytic effect of Robert Putnam’s 1996 article, “The Strange Disappearance of in educational research today. Civic America,” which reported declining levels of civic participation among young people.281 This revelation, along with political change in Eastern Europe following the fall of communism, brought renewed public interest to citizenship education and prompted researchers to seek new ways of understanding and enacting civic formation in youth. Developmental psychologists seized upon this new interest and began linking civic engagement with adolescent socialization.282

Two newly popular theoretical frameworks from the field of human development, life-span (or life-course) perspective and Positive Youth Development (PYD), enabled developmental educators to craft a unique approach to civic engagement. The life-span perspective grew from initial ideas in the 1970s to an increasingly popular theory by the 1990s. It “promotes a view of lifelong plasticity” and “emphasizes a plurality of developmental paths…in contrast to the classic theories of development offered by theorists such as Freud and Piaget, who argue that development has

60 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture a single path and is complete by early adolescence.” Life-span researchers recognize “multiple influences on development, for example, the importance of social-political context,” as opposed to a singular focus on “age- graded or maturational factors.”283 Consequently, these scholars call for “research on citizenship that crosses several developmental periods.”

The other framework, PYD, arose in the 1990s and holds that a youth’s “assets, both internal and external,” promote development. External assets are specific development-promoting features found in contexts such as “families, schools, communities, and societies or nations.” PYD “examines the strengths youth possess—rather than focusing on their risks— and designs policies and programs that are oriented to promoting positive outcomes rather than preventing negative ones.”284 According to PYD, “a young person who is involved in civic service or political action repre- sents an instance of positive development, and the activity contributes to further positive development.”285 With this belief that any kind of civic engagement, no matter to what end, signified “positive development” in a youth, it is easy to see why the rise of PYD drew attention to citizenship. PYD and life-span perspectives provided pathways for youth civic engagement to fit conceptually into developmental theory and practice, thus paving the way for developmental citizenship education.

As the name suggests, these educators are distinguished from other writers on citizenship by their grounding in developmental psychology, and they explain civic engagement through its frameworks. Most notably, they believe that the guided socialization of the child produces a “set of behaviors” called civic engagement. Socialization involves “the person’s interaction with her society and its institutions, relying on underlying basic or natural development in cognition, emotion, or social competencies.”286 The “two core competencies of social development” are “understanding another’s point of view and understanding one’s own,” which means that developmental educators, like their pluralist counterparts, have an interest in deliberative pedagogies.287 Civic education is one of several “agents” that facilitate the socialization process, along with families, “school activities, youth programs, community service and service-learning programs.”288

Developmentalists differ from pluralists by their attention to both motivation and the broader category of “processes” or “mechanisms” that undergird civic behavior. This theme is evident in the work of Judith

61 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

Torney-Purta, co-editor of the Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth and professor of human development in the University of Maryland College of Education. According to a group of researchers including Torney-Purta, “Developmental theory is relevant to research in the field of civic engagement because of the value of understanding the processes behind changes in civic values, motivations, and identities during childhood and adolescence. Understanding the mechanisms that underlie the connection between early development and later engagement is critical to designing programs and policies to promote civic development.”289 One example of such a “mechanism,” taken from social cognitive theory, is cognitive structures. In this perspective, activities such as “discussion and debate in the classroom, exposure to other students’ perspectives, and reflection over different sides of the issue could lead to the adolescent developing…new cognitive structures.”290 Since cognitive development is a principal good in this framework, it follows that citizenship education should consist of activities that foster such development. Another leading concept and “mechanism” in social cognitive theory is “efficacy.” These theorists discuss several types of efficacy, but the central one is self-efficacy, “the confidence in one’s ability to control and execute the actions required to deal with current and future situations.”291 They believe that the sources of “self-efficacy judgments…are likely to contribute to the development of civic or political efficacy.” Torney-Purta and her colleagues believe that “it is likely that efficacy is one of the major links between early and later civic participation.”292

Another concept from developmental psychology that these researchers apply to citizenship is “prosocial reasoning,” which is defined as “beliefs about one’s responsibility to help or aid others through community service or other forms of civic engagement.”293 It is one element in the larger category of “prosocial behavior,” which is “typically defined as voluntary behavior that is intended to benefit another individual.” Some researchers believe that “civic involvement can be seen as a specific type of prosocial activity.” They thus minimize the distinctiveness of citizenship by framing it as one example of a developmental category. They argue that framing citizenship as “prosocial activity” has the advantage of recognizing that “civic, political, and community involvement entail more than just knowledge of the structure of governmental and social institutions,” and that “individuals engage in these actions because they feel motivated or even obligated.”294 In other words, prosocial reasoning motivates civic

62 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture engagement, so programs of citizenship education should draw on psychological knowledge in order to develop young people’s prosocial reasoning and create in them “prosocial attitudes toward those in need.”295

These approaches have a tendency to instrumentalize citizenship as something that is good because it gives youth the opportunity to develop their social and cognitive competencies. Developmental educators are more concerned about individual maturation via civic life then they are about actual social issues such as justice or pluralism. Although they emphasize fostering civic skills such as perspective-taking for deliberation, they nevertheless do so within a developmental framework of individual growth. In other words, developmental theorists largely ignore complex political questions associated with democracy and focus more on the socialization needed for an individual to participate effectively in democratic society.

The same tendency to focus primarily on the individual is found in the work of William Damon, who approaches citizenship from an unusual combination of developmental and traditional frameworks. Damon is a champion of PYD, and his effort to promote that concept outside of developmental psychology is evidenced by his publishing “What is Positive Youth Development?” in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in 2004. He also directs the Stanford Center on Adolescence, which “partners with organizations to support positive youth development in the schools and the everyday lives of adolescents.”296 According to Damon, “The positive youth development perspective emphasizes the manifest potentialities rather than the sup- posed incapacities of young people. The positive youth development approach aims at understanding, educating, and engaging children in productive activities rather than at correcting.”297 A prominent method of PYD that Damon favors is helping a child to cultivate a moral identity: “When a person decides that ‘the kind of person I am’ or ‘the kind of person I want to be’ is dependent upon a moral belief, the person has formed the basis of a moral identity.” Damon believes there is a volitional element to moral identity, since “people who ha[ve] strong moral identities [are] highly committed to moral causes.” Volitional factors are also involved in citizenship, because “civic identity is closely associated with moral identity [and is] acquired through similar developmental processes.” Damon concludes this exhortatory piece by declaring that “acquiring a moral identity as an essential part of [young people’s]

63 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

positive development as future citizens” is “one of their primary developmental challenges.”298

Damon also highlights the volitional and affective dimensions of citizenship in a 2014 report, Youth Civic Development and Education. Written by a Stanford Center on Adolescence team headed by Damon, this document reports the views on which participants arrived at consensus during a 2013 conference co-sponsored by the University of Washington Center for Multicultural Education. These participants included other leading education school figures mentioned in this report, such as Banks and Hess. Developmental language is less evident in this report, while Damon’s other preferred vocabulary, that of character and virtue, takes center stage. The report calls for schools to “cultivate civic character” and the virtues that constitute it. These virtues are closely linked to a particular understanding of democracy and its values, including “liberty, tolerance of diverse perspectives, inclusiveness, [and] collaborative and cooperative problem solving.” Such values “are not developed by teaching young people neutral historical facts and apolitical civic skills,” but by their engagement “in the authentic practices of civic life,” because “committed citizenship comes from a deeply felt attachment to democratic values, from which the individual can find inspiration to take action and the motivation to make personal sacrifices when necessary.” When young people practice democracy, they will find it “emotionally exhilarating.”299 Yet prosocial civic virtues must still be taught as a core component of civic curriculum, as they “are needed for constructive resolutions of political debates through civil communication and deliberative discourse.”300

Damon most fully expounds his civic virtue pedagogy in his book Failing Liberty 101. There he stakes out a narrative similar to other civic educators: He sees a decline in our democracy and civic education, and offers policy prescriptions to rectify it. But Damon differs from them by attributing this decline to a lack of virtues in citizens. For Damon, active virtuous citizens are necessary to foster the social attitudes and institutions that can sustain our democracy. Yet “because of current ill-conceived social and educational policies,” most schools do not teach students the needed virtues. According to Damon, schools “must accept their mandate to educate for character” by “presenting students with standards expressed in a moral language that sharply distinguishes right from wrong.”301 He admires the positive psychology movement, but believes its list of twenty-four virtues

64 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture must be narrowed, because for him, virtues have a “defining feature… the claim to ‘virtuousness’ rests on a dedication to the social and moral good.”302 Though Damon is adamant in advocating virtue education that is socially oriented, he nevertheless does so in individualistic terms, which suggest that the origins of morality are in the child: “In cases where virtue has strong genetic foundations, training and experience are required to turn the inherited early-response systems into effective and reliable moral habits.”303 For Damon, education facilitates the growth of the individual child’s natural proclivity toward virtue; indeed, “moral virtues…are present in every child at birth or shortly thereafter.”304 Despite the ways that Damon’s vision for civic education stands out in contemporary education school discourse, then, it is still beholden to the developmental ideals of positive reinforcement, cultivation of the child’s self, and the celebration of the child’s assets.305

Developmental citizenship educators see their field in its infancy and seek to build upon new research. What makes developmental theorists different from other educators is their emphasis on the individual student’s growth. Whereas the justice and pluralism educators work top down, centering their citizenship curricula on substantial issues about democracy and justice, the developmental advocates begin bottom up by looking first at the individual’s needs in civic and social development.

The Harvard Civic and Moral Education Initiative All three of these approaches—justice, pluralism, and development—are present in the most important institutional setting for citizenship education in a university education school today: the Civic and Moral Education Initiative (CMEI) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE). Funded by the Spencer Foundation, the initiative “was launched in 2008 in order to foster a visible and thriving intellectual community around the themes of civic and moral education among students and faculty.” Through workshops, colloquia, and seminars, CMEI seeks to “support doctoral student and faculty research; and enhance Harvard’s contribu- tion to a lively and vibrant area of contemporary international research, policy, and practice.”306 A notable element of CMEI is its Spencer New Civics Early Career Scholars Program, “designed to train doctoral students for research in civic engagement and civic education” and equip them to develop the New Civics paradigm.307 The Spencer Foundation’s role in CMEI aligns with the mission of its New Civics program: to redefine

65 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

civics as action. New Civics views “civic education not simply as a grounding in historical and procedural knowledge of systems of government, but, more broadly, as education, whether in schools or elsewhere, that develops skills, knowledge, and dispositions that lead to informed and reasoned civic action.”308 A central CMEI Levinson observes that “as the project, “Defining Civic Action,” aims “to break old-style civics’ hold numerous sources of data themselves on our imaginations about what civic attest, it is no secret that civic learning and action truly can be.” It “looks to a 21st century future that is and political knowledge, skill, potentially radically democratized, in efficacy, sense of membership, and which civic action takes place under, with, outside, and beyond the state, participation are distributed in and where participation addresses vastly unequal ways among US real issues of inequality and injustice.”309 CMEI is co-convened by residents and citizens.” three HGSE faculty members: the eminent developmental psychologist Robert Selman, and political theorist Meira Levinson and social scientist Helen Haste, two researchers who combine elements of the justice and pluralism approaches. By analyzing the thought of Levinson and Haste, including Levinson’s rejection of deliberative pedagogy, this section will explore some of the ideas likely being institutionalized through CMEI.

Among the many voices on citizenship education in the United States today, Meira Levinson stands out as one of the most influential writers and institutional innovators. An associate professor at HGSE, Levinson focused on political theory in her doctoral training. Her early writings often tended toward abstract work in that field, but her recent publications have advocated specific educational policies. Throughout her writings, she wrestles with liberalism’s strong commitment to neutrality and democracy’s need for politically competent citizens as she investigates the complexities involved in establishing a civics curriculum for a liberal, diverse educational system. Her experience as a teacher in urban schools influenced her approach to citizenship education by convincing her of the need to empower minority students for civic participation. She therefore argues that citizenship education must not only teach students about democratic processes but must also proactively facilitate their engagement in civic life.

66 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

According to Levinson, good citizens are those who “are informed and thoughtful; have a grasp and an appreciation of history and the fundamental processes of American democracy… participate in their communities through membership in or contributions to organizations…[and] act politically by having the skills, knowledge, and commitment needed to accomplish public purposes.”310 Levinson takes this conception of citizenship from The Civic Mission of Schools, a 2003 report that emerged from a joint venture by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). They “convened a series of meetings involving some of the nation’s most distinguished and respected scholars and practitioners…to determine, based on solid data and evidence, the components of effective and feasible civic education programs.”311 Levinson, one of the con- tributors to this project, employs its conception of citizenship to critically assess the state of civic engagement and education today.

Throughout Levinson’s scholarship, she laments the depressed rates of civic participation among minority student populations. She observes that “as the numerous sources of data themselves attest, it is no secret that civic and political knowledge, skill, efficacy, sense of membership, and participation are distributed in vastly unequal ways among US residents and citizens. There is, however, shockingly little concern about this; rather, it’s accepted as the natural state of affairs.”312 Levinson dubs this “natural state of affairs” the “civic empowerment gap” and argues that it is based on race. For several years, Levinson taught high school in the inner cities of Boston and Atlanta, areas with high concentrations of minority populations. Levinson’s experience in these de facto segregated schools gave her first-hand knowledge of inequalities in the American public school system. In her latest book, No Citizen Left Behind, she builds upon those experiences by critiquing the current state of civics education in schools with large percentages of racial minorities. Her book is not simply a look at the marginalization of civic education in the classroom, but a poignant critique of the way civic education ignores the racial and cultural difference of minority students. She believes that minority students fail to become active citizens because structural forces discriminate against them: “Even in the absence of outright prejudice and discrimination, there is a widespread cultural and hence civic and political bias toward White middle- class norms.… Ethnoracial minority group members who try to engage in civic and political action therefore often find themselves marginalized,

67 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

disrespected, or ignored if they present themselves in culturally nondomi- nant ways.”313 Minority students not only find themselves in a “white” political culture that is vastly different from their own; typical citizenship curricula fail to prepare them for civic engagement. Although changing the dominant political culture might be unrealistic, educating minority students for civic action is a realizable goal. Therefore, civic education, if it is to reengage minority students to be effective citizens, needs to be reconceived in a way that deals with the lived realities of minority groups.

Prior to addressing the civic empowerment gap, Levinson focused much of her academic energy on the implications of liberal political theory for education. Her first book, The Demands of Liberal Education, argues that if a state is truly liberal, it must use public education to help children develop their individual autonomy over and against their parents’ views. In other words, the state can and should override parents’ rights to educate their children how they see fit, for the sake of cultivating autonomy in its citizens. She writes that “in promoting the development of autonomy, the state is…simply trying to right the balance of power by giving individuals the ability in their adult lives to do what they could not do as children—specifically, to determine their own values and to adopt a conception of the good with which they identify.”314 Levinson’s advocacy for student autonomy appears at first to contradict her desire for robust civic engagement. But as she sees it, the political ideals of autonomy go hand in hand with the goal of civic education since liberal autonomy, in order to flourish, needs a democratic state with democratic institutions containing democratic citizens. She argues “that children’s development of autonomy and acquisition of civic virtue are compatible, and even in some ways mutually reinforcing, aims.… The skills, habits, dispositions, and knowledge central to autonomy are to a large degree coextensive with those central to civic virtue.”315 Yet, in light of the drastic disparities between different minority populations, the skills needed for citizenship will require, according to Levinson, a specific type of civic education that overcomes racial barriers.

Levinson conceives of democratic society in a way that directly influences her approach to civic education. Popular conceptions of democratic pro- ceedings often emphasize debate and equal participation, yet Levinson repeatedly states that such notions are false at best and harmful at worst. For instance, she argues that “one reason that equal participation does not

68 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture necessarily translate to equal appropriate consideration within a deliberative setting is that minority groups may have such different experiences from the majority group that they come to understand how the world works in a way that is significantly different from, and even incompre- hensible to, members of the advantaged majority.”316 Her perception of incommensurability between groups leads her to reject deliberative forms of democracy that privilege dialogue and understanding. Instead, Levinson argues forcefully for what she calls “adversarial democracy,” which privileges power over consensus. This model suggests that individuals, especially minorities, must learn the dominant language of power. More importantly, it “requires…individuals [to] master the technologies of power—building alliances, gaining media exposure, lobbying effectively, voting strategically, etc.”317 For Levinson, the adversarial nature of democracy implies that citizenship education must teach these techniques. Only then will marginalized populations gain the needed tools for effective civic participation, but “all students might learn the same skills of employing the technologies of power, regardless of their identity or minority status, and be encouraged to use these technologies to influence politics, achieve their political aims, and strive for liberal democratic justice.”318

This prescription reflects Levinson’s overall conviction that civic education ultimately must be about doing and empowering, rather than just learning about civics. She thus promotes a program called “action civics,” which “is defined to create ‘an engaged citizenry capable of effective participation in the political process, in their communities and in the larger society.’ Through this model, students do civics and behave as citizens by engaging in a cycle of research, action, and reflection about problems they care about personally while learning about deeper principles of effective civic and especially political action.”319 Levinson takes this definition from the National Action Civics Collaborative (NACC), which she helped to found in 2010. NACC is a joint effort of six citizenship advocacy organizations, with seed funding from the McCormick Foundation.320

In addition to action civics, Levinson argues that teaching about role models and teaching history in a particular way can empower minority students to engage in civic participation. She evaluates the efficacy of teaching about extraordinary civic heroes like Martin Luther King Jr. and concludes that to inspire active emulation, it is often more effective to teach

69 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

about ordinary heroes, whom she also calls role models. Indeed, “There is already some empirical evidence of the promise of this approach.”321 She believes heroes can be taught effectively if they are placed in their larger community context, which is essential for a major goal of her civic project: that “students should learn about collective action as an essential lever of power in civic life. Ordinary role models and even extraordinary heroes are rarely lone actors. Collective action by scores, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people frequently underlie the success of an appar- ently individual civic actor.” Another strength of ordinary role models, Levinson believes, is their ability to represent specific goals that collective action seeks to realize. Their tangibility gives more life to a movement.322

Levinson places great importance on the need for citizenship education to “inspire” students for active public participation. She argues that one method for doing so is to teach history in a particular way: “An inspiring historical narrative centered on the achievements and progress of American democracy will…increase students’ political and personal efficacy, and presumably also their civic and political involvement…To tell a story of the United States as a redeemably flawed instantiation and a symbol of a number of inspiring ideals is both historically legitimate and potentially inspiring for many people. The problem is the assumption that this is the only or even most historically legitimate interpretation of American and world history, as well as the assumption that this narrative could be an inspiring and unifying force for all Americans if only schools would teach it right.”323 Indeed, she “argue[s] that the traditional, mod- erately triumphalist narrative about U.S. history taught in most schools reinforces many students’ alienation and disempowerment. U.S. history education must be reformed to help students construct and engage with a multiplicity of historically accurate and empowering civic counternarra- tives—many of which may shock the conscience of those who were raised on stories of American exceptionalism. We should stop searching for or assuming the truth of one unified American story.”324

Despite Levinson’s confidence both in action civics and her approach to role models and history, she believes that institutional forces, such as high- stakes testing, ultimately limit her civic project. Yet her commitment to public education as the central place for citizenship formation remains steadfast. Indeed, it underpins her mistrust of other forms of education, particularly religious and home schools. She insists that children must be

70 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture exposed to a plurality of beliefs, especially religious ones, and argues that “public schools should innovate in ways to attract minority religious families.” In her eyes, religious and home schooling are poor conduits for this kind of diversity. She argues that “private religious schools should not be aided in attracting [religious minorities] or other religious families to them, as vouchers would presumably do.”325 She also dismisses home schooling, since it “almost by definition…works against the kinds of diversity that we, with many others, deem important.”326 Whether such schools suc- ceed academically misses the point, since she believes they are by nature incapable of engendering autonomy as she defines it. On the other hand, her conception of civic education is not necessarily antithetical to home schools. If they could foster the kind of civic empowerment that she wants so strongly, would that legitimize their existence? Unfortunately she does not address this question. Regardless, for Levinson, education for civic life and autonomy should ultimately be a matter of state educational policy.

Levinson’s colleague Helen Haste came to Harvard after a long career at the University of Bath, where she is now professor emerita. Haste’s citizenship research centers on how contemporary political and social movements affect civic understanding and participation. Trained as a social scientist, Haste relies heavily on survey data to assess the mood, thinking, and motivations of young citizens today. She combines these findings with an analysis of the contemporary social and political climate to advocate for an educational program similar to Levinson’s. In observing modes of civic engagement, Haste notes that “the young people [surveyed] do care quite strongly about a number of social issues “such as health care and racism,” and “would like to influence the government in relation to” them.327 This approach to political engagement, in Haste’s view, reflects trends that do not register on typical indices of civic life such as voting. One reason is that “recent developments in personal communication devices and networks have greatly expanded the scope of political activism.”328 Additionally, Haste observes that there is a weakening “relationship between values and party affiliation” for young people, which indicates the declining “relevance of a Right–Left spectrum, and increasing focus on single issues.”329 As old forms of civic identity erode, new ones can emerge. One such trend that Haste cites is the rise of “eman- cipatory politics”—“political movements that reflect the moralization of politics, driven by a rhetoric based on justice or on responsibility.”330 She believes this trend is important because one’s political identity, historically

71 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

separated from private life, is now a central feature of one’s moral identity. In other words, the political has indeed become personal.

Haste believes that this shift fundamentally changed the nature of civic engagement and motivation. Now, “‘Citizenship’ comprises consider- ably more than voting, and…understanding motivation to engage with the civic domain is only partly addressed if voting is taken as the primary behaviour.”331 Rather, “Identity emerges as central to engagement. To become involved requires that one have a sense of ownership of the issue.”332 Such ownership often occurs with “issues that have a moral connotation,” which “engage the individual through compassion, anger, or moral outrage.” The consequence for civic education is that “civic knowledge is not enough; such knowledge has to become salient to the individual through the experience of participation in relevant action.”333 Therefore, “Educators need to shift their perspectives away from the top- down conduit model in which the teacher facilitates and scaffolds how and what children learn. Instead they need to use a more bottom-up model in which the teacher is the choreographer of children working col- laboratively and critically, as agents in their own learning.”334 Haste thus centers her educational program on experiential civic identity formation: “it is through praxis, whether in the school or in the community, that the young person gains an identity as an active citizen, and the skills and efficacy to become one.”335 Although Haste comes at citizenship education from a different angle than Levinson, she arrives at a similar prescription of focusing civic curricula on acquiring the needed skills for public engagement.

72 VI. Conclusion

Elite university education schools in the United States today have few overt programs that train future teachers and administrators to form children as moral persons. Instead, education schools’ moral concern is oriented largely toward systemic issues. Specifically, education schools aim to create moral systems of education. Since the mid-1990s, this quest has given rise to a terminology of social justice that is now ubiquitous in education schools’ mission statements, program descriptions, faculty recruitment materials, and publications. In this framework, a primary purpose of education schools is to train future teachers and administrators to be advocates for social justice. These articulations of social justice rarely specify any foundations for it. Furthermore, the term “social justice” does not seem to have a uniform meaning across the multitude of uses employed by education schools. One thing the frequent invocation of social justice suggests is that its proponents envision schools more as instruments for social equality than as sites for forming intellectually and morally excellent persons.

Educational psychology is one field within university schools of education that consistently addresses the formation of moral persons, although it typically does so as a small part of either an introductory course or an upper-level course on a topic such as adolescence or developmental psychology. Textbooks for these courses display a remarkable unanimity in defining moral formation in terms of cognitive and emotional development. They generally ignore both the ends to which individuals direct their improved cognitive and emotional capacities and the underlying beliefs that shape those ends and thus make true moral formation possible. Moreover, educational psychology frequently deploys concepts that flatten notions of personhood and the good. This literature rarely speaks in terms of how to form a good child. Instead, psychologists discuss how educators and parents can teach children “prosocial” behavior and values. Many educational psychologists also believe that the key to forming a

73 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

moral child is to instill the child with a strong “moral identity”—a concept of the self as a moral person. On this view, the individual will behave morally because failing to do so could compromise the integrity of the self. Helping a child to cultivate a moral identity is one technique of “positive youth development,” a prominent new approach among developmental psychologists. All these trends downplay the importance of a child being formed through habituation in the practices of a moral community.

Education schools are increasing their activity in one area related to moral education: citizenship education. Even within this topic, though, specific concern to form moral persons is limited, as attested by the sparse references to virtue in this literature. Instead, the emphasis is frequently on providing students with specific skills described as vital for citizenship. This emphasis on action is reflected in the widespread use of the term “civic engagement,” as well as in programs of “action civics.” Another key feature of contemporary citizenship education is the influence of democratic theory. In particular, three democratic theories that have arisen since the 1960s—participatory, deliberative, and adversarial democracy—have shaped citizenship education. They have especially influenced discussions of pluralism, which form the most prominent approach to citizenship in university schools of education. Two other notable approaches are based on the social justice and developmental psychology frameworks.

This overview of university education schools’ activity in the field of moral education, then, suggests that there is ample space for alternative approaches, particularly ones that focus on the formation of moral persons and the vital role of traditions and community practices in that process.

74 VII. Bibliography

Textbooks assigned for psychology courses in eight elite education schools, 2012–13 and Fall 2013. Section II, Moral Formation as Cognitive and Emotional Development, is based on a study of these books. n Alexander, Patricia A. Psychology in Learning and Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2006. n Anderson, John R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1980. n Berk, Laura E. Child Development. 3rd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1994. n Berk, Laura E. Child Development. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2012. n Berk, Laura E. Infants and Children: Prenatal Through Middle Childhood. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2011. n Bodrova, Elena, and Deborah J. Leong. Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2007. n Cohen, Dorothy H., Virginia Stern, Nancy Balaban, and Nancy Gropper. Observing and Recording the Behavior of Young Children. 5th ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2008. n Cohen, David. How the Child’s Mind Develops. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. n Elkind, David. The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2001. n Elkins, David N. Beyond Religion: A Personal Program for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion. Wheaton, IL.: Quest Books, 1998.

75 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Diamond, Jared. The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.

n Galinsky, Ellen. Mind in the Making: The Seven Essential Life Skills Every Child Needs. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.

n Garrod, Andrew, Lisa Smulyan, Sally I. Powers, and Robert Kilkenny. Adolescent Portraits: Identity, Relationships, and Challenges. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012.

n Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.

n Greene, Joshua D. “Fruit Flies of the Moral Mind.” In What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science: Original Essays from a New Generation of Scientists, edited by Max Brockman, 104–115. New York: Vintage Books, 2009.

n Gross, Dana. Infancy: Development from Birth to Age 3. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2010.

n Hart, Tobin. The Secret Spiritual World of Children. Makawao, HI: Inner Ocean, 2003.

n Harris, Paul L. The Work of the Imagination. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

n Harris, Paul L. Trusting What You’re Told: How Children Learn from Others. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2012.

n Roopnarine, Jaipaul, and James E. Johnson. Approaches to Early Childhood Education. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing, 1987.

n Maccoby, Eleanor E. The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

n Mardell, Ben, and Mona M. Abo-Zena. “Kindergarteners Explore Spirituality.” In Child Growth and Development Annual Edition, edited by Ellen N. Junn and Chris J. Boyatzis, McGraw-Hill, 2012.

n Meier, Scott T., and Susan R. Davis. The Elements of Counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1989.

n Meier, Scott T., and Susan R. Davis. The Elements of Counseling.7th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2011.

76 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Meyer, Elizabeth J. Gender, Bullying, and Harassment: Strategies to End Sexism and Homophobia in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009. n Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. n Miller, Judith S. Direct Connection: Transformation of Consciousness. Danbury, CT: Rutledge Books, 2000. n Myers, David G. Exploring Social Psychology. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. n Nelson, Charles A. “Neural Plasticity and Human Development.” In Reflections on Learning. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. n Newberg, Andrew, Eugene D’Aquili, and Vince Rause. Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. n Newman, Barbara M., and Philip R. Newman. Theories of Human Development. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. n Oldenski, Thomas, and Dennis Carlson. Educational Yearning: The Journey of the Spirit and Democratic Education. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. n Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis. Essentials of Educational Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2006. n Rogoff, Barbara. The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. n Santrock, John W. Adolescence. 14th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. n Schunk, Dale H. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. n Shaffer, David R. Social and Personality Development. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1988. n Shaffer, David R. Social and Personality Development. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009.

77 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Siegel, Daniel J. The Developing Mind: Toward a Neurobiology of Interpersonal Experience. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.

n Siegel, David J., and Mary Hartzell. Parenting from the Inside Out. New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

n Siegler, Robert, Judy DeLoache, and Nancy Eisenberg. How Children Develop. 3rd ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2011.

n Steinberg, Laurence. Adolescence. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.

n Steinberg, Laurence. Adolescence. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.

n Steiner, Rudolf. The Child’s Changing Consciousness and Waldorf Education. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1988.

n Wagner, William G. Counseling, Psychology, and Children. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008.

n Woolfolk, Anita. Educational Psychology. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

n Woolfolk, Anita. Educational Psychology. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2012.

n Zimbardo, Philip. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House, 2007.

Texts assigned for William Damon’s “Moral Education” course at Stanford Graduate School of Education, Spring 2013. Section III, Moral Education, draws on these texts.

n Colby, Anne, and William Damon. Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitment. New York: Free Press, 1992.

n Damon, William. The Moral Child: Nurturing Children’s Natural Growth. New York: Free Press, 1988.

n Damon, William, ed. Bringing in a New Era in Character Education. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2002.

78 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Garrod, Andrew, ed. Approaches to Moral Development: New Research and Emerging Themes. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. n Haidt, Jonathan. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108 (2001): 814–834. n Hoffman, Martin L. Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. n Kristjánsson, Kristján. “Measuring Self-Respect.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour37 (2007): 225–242. n Kristjánsson, Kristján. “Virtue Development and Psychology’s Fear of Normativity.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 32 (2012): 103–118. n Killen, Melanie, and Judith G. Smetana, eds. Handbook of Moral Development. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. n Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1999. n Renninger, K. Ann, and Irving E. Sigel, eds. Child Psychology in Practice, vol. 4 of Handbook of Child Psychology, ed. William Damon and Richard M. Lerner. New York: Wiley, 2006. n Shweder, Richard A. Why Do Men Barbecue? Recipes for Cultural Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. n Sommers, Christina Hoff. The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. n Wilson, James Q. The Moral Sense. New York: Free Press, 1997.

Section III, Moral Education, also draws on these works by Joan Goodman: n Goodman, Joan. “Students’ Choices and Moral Growth.” Ethics and Education 1 (2006): 103–115.

79 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Goodman, Joan. “School Discipline in Moral Disarray.” The Journal of Moral Education 35 (2006): 213–230.

n Goodman, Joan, and Howard Lesnick. Moral Education: A Teacher- Centered Approach. New York: Pearson, 2004.

n Goodman, Joan. “Responding to Children’s Needs: Amplifying the Caring Ethic.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42 (2008): 233– 244.

n Goodman, Joan, and Howard Lesnick. The Moral Stake in Education: Contested Premises. New York: Longman, 2001.

n Goodman, Joan, and Usha Balamore. Teaching Goodness: Engaging the Moral and Academic Promise of Young Children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2003.

Section IV, Social Justice, draws on the following works:

General books

n Allen, Danielle, and Rob Reich, eds. Education, Justice, and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

n Apple, Michael W. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006.

n Apple, Michael W. Ideology and Curriculum. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004.

n Ayers, William, Jean Ann Hunt, and Therese Quinn, eds. Teaching for Social Justice. New York: Teachers College Press, 1998.

n Ayers, William, Therese Quinn, and David Stovall, eds. Handbook of Social Justice in Education. New York: Routledge, 2008.

n Blankenstein, Alan M., and Paul D. Houston, eds. Leadership for Social Justice and Democracy in Our Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2011.

n Bogotch, Ira, Floyd Beachum, Jackie Blount, Jeffrey S. Brooks, and Fenwick English. Radicalizing Educational Leadership: Dimensions of Social Justice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2008.

80 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Calabrese Barton, Angela. Teaching Science for Social Justice. New York: Teachers College Press, 2003. n Darling-Hammond, Linda, Jennifer French, and Silvia Paloma Garcia-Lopez, eds. Learning to Teach for Social Justice. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002. n Delpit, Lisa. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press, 2006. n Fennimore, Beatrice S., and A. Lin Goodwin, eds. Promoting Social Justice for Young Children. New York: Springer, 2011. n Gordon, Edmund W. Education & Justice: A View from the Back of the Bus. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. n Howe, Kenneth R. Understanding Equal Educational Opportunity: Social Justice, Democracy, and Schooling. New York: Teachers College Press, 1997. n Ladson-Billings, Gloria. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. n Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and William F. Tate, eds. Education Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action, and Policy. New York: Teachers College Press, 2006. n Lipman, Pauline. The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City. New York: Routledge, 2011. n Marshall, Catherine, and Maricela Oliva. Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. n Michelli, Nicholas M., and David Lee Keiser. Teacher Education for Democracy and Social Justice. New York: Routledge, 2005. n Miller, sj, and David E. Kirkland, eds. Change Matters: Critical Essays on Moving Social Justice Research from Research to Policy. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. n Milner, H. Richard, IV. Culture, Curriculum, and Identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

81 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Schultz, Brian D. Spectacular Things Happen Along the Way: Lessons from an Urban Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 2008.

Educational Researcher Articles

n Anderson, James D. “Race-Conscious Educational Policies Versus a ‘Color-Blind Constitution’: A Historical Perspective.” Educational Researcher 36 (2007): 249–257.

n Apple, Michael. “Theory, Research, and the Critical Scholar/ Activist.” Educational Researcher 39 (2010): 152–162.

n Apple, Michael. “Some Lessons in Educational Equality.” Educational Researcher 41 (2012): 230–232.

n Banks, James. “Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age.” Educational Researcher 37 (2008): 129–139.

n Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. “The New Teacher Education: For Better or for Worse?” Educational Researcher 34, no. 7 (2005): 3–17.

n Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Mary Kim Fries. “Sticks, Stones, and Ideology: The Discourse of Reform in Teacher Education.” Educational Researcher 30, no. 8 (2001): 3–15.

n Darling-Hammond, Linda. “Securing the Right to Learn: Policy and Practice for Powerful Teaching and Learning.” Educational Researcher 35, no. 7 (2006): 13–24.

n Glass, Ronald David. “On Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education.” Educational Researcher 30, no. 2 (2001): 15–25.

n Gruenewald, David A. “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place.” Educational Researcher 32, no. 4 (2003): 3–12.

n Kumashiro, Kevin K. “‘Posts’ Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Education in Social Studies, English, Mathematics, and Science Classrooms.” Educational Researcher 30, no. 3 (2001), 3–12.

n Henderson, James G. “Deepening Democratic Curriculum Work.” Educational Researcher 30, no. 9 (2001): 18–21.

82 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools.” Educational Researcher 35, no. 7 (2006): 3–12. n Leonardo, Zeus. “The Agony of School Reform: Race, Class, and the Elusive Search for Social Justice.” Review of Education and Democratic Theory: Finding a Place for Community Participation in Public School Reform, by A. Belden Fields and Walter. A Feinberg, and The Color of School Reform: Race, Politics, and the Challenge of Urban Education, by J. Henig, R. Hula, M. Orr, and D. Pedescleaux. Educational Researcher 32, no. 3 (2003): 37–43. n Leonardo, Zeus. “Critical Social Theory and Transformative Knowledge: The Functions of Criticism in Quality Education.” Educational Researcher 33, no. 6 (2004): 11–18. n Leonardo, Zeus. “A Response to Michael W. Apple’s ‘Theory, Research, and the Critical Scholar/Activist.’” Educational Researcher 39 (2010): 161–162. n McLaren, Peter, and Ramin Farahmandpur. “Reconsidering Marx in Post-Marxist Times: A Requiem for Postmodernism?” Educational Researcher 29, no. 3 (2000): 25–33. n Mertens, Donna M. “Social Justice Research: The Power to Reveal Hidden Agendas.” Educational Researcher 37 (2008): 102–104. n Milner, H. Richard, IV. “Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen.” Educational Researcher 36 (2007): 388–400. n Mirón, Luis and Pradeep Dhillon. “Liberal-Democratic Theory, Education, and the State.” Review of The Demands of Liberal Education, by Meira Levinson, and Citizenship and Education in Liberal-Democratic Societies: Teaching for Cosmopolitan Values and Collective Identities, by Kevin McDonough and Walter Feinberg. Educational Researcher 33, no. 5 (2004): 32–37. n Paris, Django. “Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed Change in Stance, Terminology, and Practice.” Educational Researcher 41 (2012): 93–97.

83 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Popkewitz, Thomas S. “The Denial of Educational Change: Systems of Ideas in the Construction of National Policy and Evaluation.” Educational Researcher 29, no. 1 (2000): 17–29.

n Popkewitz, Thomas S. “A Changing Terrain of Knowledge and Power: A Social Epistemology of Educational Research.” Educational Researcher 26, no. 9 (1997) 18–29.

n Riegle-Crumb, Catherine, and Barbara King. “Questioning a White Male Advantage in STEM: Examining Disparities in College Major by Gender and Race/Ethnicity.” Educational Researcher 39 (2010): 656–664.

n Shannon, Patrick. “A Response to ‘Social Justice Research,’ by Donna M. Mertens.” Educational Researcher 37 (2008): 104–105.

n Tate, William F, IV. “‘Geography of Opportunity:’ Poverty, Place, and Educational Outcomes.” Educational Researcher 37 (2008): 397– 411.

American Education Research Journal Articles

n Alvermann, Donna E., Josephine P. Young, Colin Green, and Joseph M. Wisenbaker. “Adolescents’ Perceptions and Negotiations of Literacy Practices in After-School Read and Talk Clubs.” American Educational Research Journal 36, (1999): 221–264.

n Anderson, Gary L. “Toward Authentic Participation: Deconstructing the Discourses of Participatory Reforms in Education.” American Educational Research Journal 35 (1998): 571–603.

n Baker, Bernadette. “The Dangerous and the Good? Developmentalism, Progress, and Public Schooling.” American Educational Research Journal 36 (1999): 797–834.

n Hemmings, Annette. “High School Democratic Dialogues: Possibilities for Praxis.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (2000): 67–91.

n Hollingsworth, Sandra. “Learning to Teach Through Collaborative Conversation: A Feminist Approach.” American Educational Research Journal 29 (1992): 373–404.

84 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Marsh, Herbert W. “Failure of High-Ability High Schools to Deliver Academic Benefits Commensurate with Their Students’ Ability Levels.” American Educational Research Journal 28 (1991): 445–480. n Nicholls, John G., and Theresa A. Thorkildsen. “Intellectual Conventions versus Matters of Substance: Elementary School Students as Curriculum Theorists.” American Educational Research Journal 26 (1989): 533–544. n O’Connor, Carla. “Dispositions toward (Collective) Struggle and Educational Resilience in the Inner City: A Case Analysis of Six African-American High School Students.” American Educational Research Journal 34 (1997): 593–629. n Petronicolos, Loucas, and William S. New. “Anti-Immigrant Legislation, Social Justice, and the Right to Equal Educational Opportunity.” American Educational Research Journal 36 (1999): 373–408. n Pineau, Elyse Lamm. “Teaching Is Performance: Reconceptualizing a Problematic Metaphor.” American Educational Research Journal 31 (1994): 3–25. n Poole, Wendy L. “The Construction of Teachers’ Paradoxical Interests by Teacher Union Leaders.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (2000): 93–119. n Serow, Robert C. “Students and Voluntarism: Looking into the Motives of Community Service Participants.” American Educational Research Journal 28 (1991): 543–556. n Smyth, John. “Teachers’ Work and the Politics of Reflection.” American Educational Research Journal 29 (1992): 267–300. n Stage Frances K., and Sue A. Maple. “Incompatible Goals: Narratives of Graduate Women in the Mathematics Pipeline.” American Educational Research Journal 33 (1996): 23–51. n Strike, Kenneth A. “Professionalism, Democracy, and Discursive Communities: Normative Reflections on Restructuring.” American Educational Research Journal 30 (1993): 255–275.

85 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Strike, Kenneth A. “The Moral Role of Schooling in a Liberal Democratic Society.” Review of Research in Education 17 (1991): 413–483

n Young, Michelle D. “Multifocal Educational Policy Research: Toward a Method for Enhancing Traditional Educational Policy Studies.” American Educational Research Journal 36 (1999): 677–714.

Other Articles

n Furman, Gail C., and David A. Gruenewald. “Expanding the Landscape of Social Justice: A Critical Ecological Analysis.” Educational Administration Quarterly 40 (2004): 47–76.

n Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.” Teachers College Record, 97, (1995): 47–68.

n McKenzie, Kathryn Bell, Dana E. Christman, Frank Hernandez, Elsy Fierro, Colleen A. Capper, Michael Dantly, Maria Luisa Gonzalez, Nelda Cambron-McCabe, and James Joseph Scheurich. “From the Field: A Proposal for Educating Leaders for Social Justice.” Educational Administration Quarterly 44, (2008): 111–138.

n McKenzie, Kathryn Bell, Linda Skrla, and James Joseph Scheurich. “Preparing Instructional Leaders for Social Justice.” Journal of School Leadership, 16 (2006): 158–170.

n Rodriguez, Mariela A., Terah Venzant Chambers, Maria Luisa Gonzalez, and James Joseph Scheurich. “A Cross-Case Analysis of Three Social Justice-Oriented Education Programs.” Journal of Research on Leadership Education 5 (2010): 138–153.

n Scheurich, James Joseph, and Kathryn Bell McKenzie. (2006). “The Continuing Struggles for Social Justice.” Education Policy 20 (2006): 8–12.

n Skrla, Linda, Kathryn Bell McKenzie, James Joseph Scheurich. “Concluding Reflections on ‘Leadership for Learning in the Context of Social Justice: An International Perspective.’” Journal of Educational Administration 45 (2007): 782–787.

86 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Skrla, Linda, James Joseph Scheurich, Joseph F. Johnson, and James W. Koschoreck. “Accountability for Equity: Can State Policy Leverage Social Justice?” International Journal of Leadership in Education 4 (2001): 237–260. n Ukpokodu, Omiunota Nelly. “Preparing Socially Conscious Teachers: A Social Justice-Oriented Teacher Education.” Multicultural Education 15 (2007): 8–15.

Texts for Teacher Education 250, “Human Diversity, Power, and Opportunity in Social Institutions,” at Michigan State University: n Adams, Maurianne, Warren J. Blumenfeld, Carmelita (Rosie) Castaneda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena Zuniga, eds. Reading for Diversity and Social Justice. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. n Ayers, William, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Gregory Michie, and Pedro A. Noguera, eds. City Kids, City Schools: More Reports from the Front Row. New York: The New Press, 2008. n Banks, James A., and Cherry A. McGee Banks. Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. n Conchas, Gilberto Q. The Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth. New York, Teachers College Press, 2006. n Johnson, Allen G. Privilege, Power and Difference. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. n Lareau, Annette. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. n Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, 2nd Edition with an Update a Decade Later. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2011. n Lee, Enid, Deborah Menkart, and Margo Okazawa-Rey, eds. Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti Racist, Multicultural Education & Staff Development. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Teaching for Change, 2008.

87 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Lew, Jamie. Asian Americans in Class: Charting the Achievement Gap Among Korean American Youth. New York: Teachers College Press. 2006.

n MacLeod, Jay. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2008.

n Noel, Jana. Developing Multicultural Educators. 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2008.

n Rothstein, Richard. Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.

n Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. Manufacturing Hope and Despair: The School and Kin Support Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth. New York: Teachers College Press, 2001.

n Thompson, Gail L. Through Ebony Eyes: What Teachers Need to Know But Are Afraid to Ask About African American Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.

The following books are assigned for other key classes at Michigan State University:

n Ayers, William, and Ryan Alexander-Tanner. To Teach: The Journey, in Comics. New York: Teachers College Press, 2010.

n Kinloch, Valeri. Harlem on Our Minds: Place, Race and the Literacies of Urban Youth. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009.

n Hill, Marc Lamont. Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life: Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009.

n Michie, Gregory. Holler If You Hear Me: The Education of a Teacher and His Students. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009.

n Michie, Gregory. See You When We Get There: Teaching for Change in Urban Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.

88 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Olsen, Laurie. Made in America: Immigrant Students in Our Public Schools. New York: The New Press, 2008. n Valdés, Guadalupe. Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 2001. n Winn, Maisha T. Girl Time: Literacy, Justice, and School-to-Prison Pipeline. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011.

Section V, Citizenship, draws on the following texts: n Benninga, Jacques, ed. Moral Character, and Civic Education in the Elementary School. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991. n Bixby, Janet S., and Judith L. Pace, eds. Educating Democratic Citizens in Troubled Times: Qualitative Studies of Current Efforts. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2008. n Ben-Porath, Sigal R. Citizenship under Fire: Democratic Education in Times of Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006. n Ben-Porath, Sigal. “Civic Virtue Out of Necessity: Patriotism and Democratic Education.” Theory and Research in Education5 (2007): 41–59. n Bedolla, Lisa García. “Latino Education, Civic Engagement, and the Public Good.” Review of Research in Education 36 (2012): 23–42. n Callan, Eamonn. “Democratic Patriotism and Multicultural Education.” In Education, Democracy, and the Moral Life, edited by Michael S. Katz, Susan Verducci and Gert Biesta, 59–70. New York: Springer, 2009. n Callan, Eamonn. Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. n Callan, Eamonn. “Teaching Evidence-Based Citizenship.” In K–16 Education and Evidence-Based Decision Making, edited by Alice Noble, 51–57. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2009.

89 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Damon, William. Failing Liberty 101: How We Are Leaving Young Americans Unprepared for Citizenship in a Free Society. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2011.

n Duncan-Andrade, Jeff, and Ernest Morrell. “Critical Pedagogy and Popular Culture in an Urban English Classroom.” In Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now?, edited by Joe Kincheloe and Peter McLaren, 183–199. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.

n Duncan-Andrade, Jeffrey and Ernest Morrell. The Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban Schools. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.

n Furhman, Susan, and Puckett, John, eds. Institutions of Democracy: The Public Schools.New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

n Gaudelli, William. “Heuristics of Global Citizenship Discourses Towards Curriculum Enhancement.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 25 (2009): 68–95.

n Gaudelli, William, and Elizabeth Heilman. “Reconceptualizing Geography as Democratic Global Citizenship Education.” Teachers College Record 111 (2009): 2647–2677.

n Gibbs, John C. Moral Development & Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

n Gibson, Cynthia, and Peter Levine. The Civic Mission of Schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation, 2003.

n Haste, Helen, and Amy Hogan. “Beyond Conventional Civic Participation, Beyond the Moral-Political Divide; Young People and Contemporary Debates about Citizenship.” Journal of Moral Education 35 (2006): 473–493.

n Haste, Helen. “Citizenship Education: A Critical Look at a Contested Field.” In Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, edited by Lonnie R. Sherrod, Judith Torney-Purta, and Constance A. Flanagan, 161–192. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010.

n Haste, Helen. “Constructing the Citizen.” Political Psychology 25 (2004): 413–439.

90 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Hess, Diana. Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. New York: Routledge, 2009. n Hess, Diana. “Principles that Promote the Discussion of Controversial Issues in the Curriculum.” In Engaging Young People in Civic Life, edited by James Youniss and Peter Levine, 59–77. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009. n Hess, Diana. “Teaching about Same-Sex Marriage as a Policy and Constitutional Issue.” Social Education 73 (2009): 344–349. n Hess, Diana. Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. New York: Routledge, 2009. n Hess, Diana. “Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Social Studies?” Social Education 70 (2006): 8–13. n Knight, Michelle Georgia. “‘It’s already happening’: Learning from Civically Engaged Transnational Immigrant Youth.” Teachers College Record 113 (2011): 1275–1292. n Knight, Michelle Georgia. “Where and How do ‘We’ Enter: (Re) imagining and Bridging Culturally Relevant Civic Engagements of Teacher Educators, Teachers and Immigrant Youth. Teacher Education & Practice 24 (2011): 32–365. n Kubow, Patricia, David Grossman, and Akira Ninomiya. “Multicultural Citizenship: Educational Policy for the 21st Century.” In Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, edited by John J. Cogan and Ray Derricott, 115–134. London: Kogan Page, 1998. n Kunzman, Robert. Grappling with the Good: Talking about Religion and Morality in Public Schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006. n Levinson, Bradley and Edward Brantmeier, “Secondary Schools and Communities of Practice for Democratic Civic Education: Challenges of Authority and Authenticity.” Theory and Research in Social Education 34 (2006): 324–246 n Levinson, Bradley. “Bringing in the Citizen: Culture, Politics, and Democracy in the U.S. Anthropology of Education.” Tsantsa: The Swiss Review of Anthropology 10 (2005): 4–17.

91 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Levinson, Bradley. “Citizenship, Identity, Democracy: Engaging the Political in the Anthropology of education.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 36 (2005): 329–340.

n Levinson, Meira. No Citizen Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

n Levinson, Meira. The Demands of Liberal Education.New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

n Levinson, Meira. “Challenging Deliberation.” Theory and Research in Education 1 (2003): 23–49.

n Levinson, Meira. “‘Let Us Now Praise…?’Rethinking Heroes and Role Models in an Egalitarian Age.” In Philosophy of Education in the Era of Globalization, edited by Yvonne Raley and Gerhard Preyer, 129–161. New York: Routledge, 2009.

n Levinson Meira, and Sanford Levinson. “‘Getting Religion’ in Religion, Diversity, and Community in Public and Private Schools.” In Wrestling with Diversity, edited by Sanford Levinson, 94–123. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003.

n Lockwood, Alan. “Blending Civic Decency and Civic Literacy.” International Journal of Social Education 16 (2000): 55–61.

n Marri, Anand R., Meesuk Ahn, Jeffery Fletcher, Tang T. Heng, and Thomas Hatch, “Self-Efficacy of US High School Teachers Teaching the Federal Budget, National Debt and Budget Deficit: A Mixed- Methods Case Study.” Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 11, no. 2 (2012): 105–120.

n Marri, Anand. “Closing the Civic Opportunity Gap: The Imperative for Teacher Education.” Teacher Education & Practice 24 (2011): 354–358.

n Marri, Anand. “Creating Citizens: Lessons in Relationships, Personal Growth, and Community in One Social Studies Classroom.” Multicultural Perspectives 11 (2009): 12–18.

n Marri, Anand R. “Connecting Diversity, Justice, and Democratic Citizenship: Lessons from an Alternative U.S. History Class.” In Educating Democratic Citizens in Troubled Times: Qualitative Studies of Current Efforts, edited by Janet S. Bixby and Judith L. Pace, 58–80. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2008.

92 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture n Marri, Anand. “Social Studies, Race, and the World Wide Web.” In Critical Race Theory Perspectives on the Social Studies: The Profession, Policies, and Curriculum, edited by Gloria Ladson-Billings, 247–269. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2003. n Marrie, Anand, and Christina Morado, and Christopher Zublionis. “Third World Conditions in a First World Country: Using Economics to Understand Events Before and After the Levees Broke.” In Teaching the Levees, edited by Margaret Smith Crocco, 77–84. New York: Teachers College Press, 2007. n Marri, Anand, Sara Michael-Luna, Maria Scott Cormier, and Patrik Keegan. “Urban Pre-Service K–6 Teachers’ Conceptions of Citizenship and Civic Education: Weighing the Risks and Rewards.” The Urban Review, 46 (2013): 1–23. n McLeod, Jack, Dhavan Shah, Diana Hess, and Nam-Jin Lee. “Communication and Education: Creating Competence for Socialization into Public Life.” In Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, edited by Lonnie Sherrod, 363–391. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010. n Mintrop, Heinrich, and Bruno Losito. “Teaching Civic Education.” In Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries, edited by Judith Torney-Purta, Rainer Lehmann, Hans Oswald and Wolfram Schulz, 157–171. Amsterdam: IEA, 2001. n Mirra, Nicole, and Ernest Morrell, “Teachers as Civic Agents: Toward a Critical Democratic Theory of Urban Teacher Development.” Journal of Teacher Education 62 (2011): 1–14. n Morrell, Ernest. “Teaching Became a Revolution.” In Dear Paulo: Letters from Those Who Dare Teach, edited by Sonia Nieto, 102–103. New York: Paradigm, 2008. n Morrell, Ernest. “Youth Participatory Action Research, Civic Engagement, and Educational Reform: Lessons from the IDEA Seminar.” In Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion, edited by J. Cammarrota and M. Fine, 155–185. New York: Routledge, 2008.

93 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

n Morrell, Ernest, and Jeffery Duncan-Andrade. “Comin’ from the School of Hard Knocks: Hip and the Revolution of English Classrooms in City Schools.” In City Kids, City Schools: More Reports from the Front Row, edited by William Ayres, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Gregory Michie, and Pedro A. Noguera, 197–207. New York: New Press, 2008.

n Mosher, Ralph, Robert A. Kenny Jr., and Andrew Garrod. Preparing for Citizenship: Teaching Youth to Live Democratically. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.

n Noddings, Nel, ed. Educating Citizens for Global Awareness. New York: Teachers College Press, 2005.

n Oyler, Celia. Actions Speak Louder than Words: Social Action as Curriculum. New York: Routledge, 2011.

n Parker, Walter C. Teaching Democracy: Unity and Diversity in Public Life. New York: Teachers College Press, 2003.

n Schmidt, Sandra. “Making Space for the Citizen in Geography Education.” Journal of Geography 110 (2011): 107-119.

n Schmidt, Sandra. “Queering Social Studies: A Query of the Space for Sexual Orientation and Identity in the Social Studies.” Theory and Research in Social Education 38 (2010): 314-335.

n Schmidt, Sandra. “Practicing Critical Democracy.” Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 2 (2008): 38–55.

n Stevick, E.D. and B. Levinson. Reimagining Civic Education: How Diverse Societies Form Democratic Citizens. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

n Stoddard, Jeremy and Diana Hess. (2011). “9/11 and the War on Terror in Curricula and in State Standards Documents.” In The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement Fact Sheet. Tufts University, 2011.

n Taylor, Ashley M. and Anand R. Marri, “Making Sense of Citizenship: Urban Immigrant Middle and High School Students’ Experiences with and Perspectives on Active and Engaged Democratic Citizenship.” Ohio Social Studies Review 48 (2012): 33–44.

94 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

Endnotes

1 Nel Noddings, “Foreword,” in Peter Smagorinsky and Joel Taxel, The Discourse of Character Education: Culture Wars in the Classroom (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005), xii. She made a similar point in Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 2002), 73, where she cites Dewey’s 1897 essay “Ethical Principles Underlying Education” as the source of his insight. 2 Anita Woolfolk, Educational Psychology, 4th edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 107. 3 Dale Schunk, Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 6th edition (Boston: Pearson, 2012), 229. 4 Anita Woolfolk, Educational Psychology, 12th edition (Boston: Pearson, 2013), 44. 5 Schunk, Learning Theories, 231. 6 Barbara M. Newman and Philip R. Newman, Theories of Human Development (Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007), 102, emphasis added. 7 Patricia A. Alexander, Psychology and Learning Instruction (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2006), 52. 8 Laura E. Berk, Child Development, 3rd edition (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1994), 482. 9 Ibid., 481. 10 David R. Shaffer, Social and Personality Development, 6th edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009), 362. Emphasis original. 11 “Carol Gilligan…took Kohlberg to task on the issue of gender bias. She argued that the use of a male standard devalues the concern for others that females exhibit in their reasoning. Consequently, women are more apt to be judged as developmentally inferior, plateauing at Kohlberg’s Stage 3. As a counterpoint of Kohlberg’s theory, Gilligan examined the moral reasoning of females from various walks of life.” Alexander, Psychology in Learning and Instruction, 55. 12 “Another criticism is that stage 6 reasoning is biased in favor of Western, libertar- ian values that emphasize individualism. In cultures that are more family centered or group oriented, the highest moral value might involve putting the opinions of the group before decisions based on individual conscience.” Woolfolk, Educational Psychology, 4th ed., 107. 13 “Such extreme cases [of moral deviance in youth] do not figure in the psychological literature on moral development, as Piaget and other leading theorists wrote it…we are faced again with the possibility that the leading theories on offer are not so much wrong as just out of date.” David Cohen, How the Child’s Mind Develops, 2nd edition (New York: Routledge, 2013), 73.

95 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

14 John W. Santrock, Adolescence, 14th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 229.

15 The only exception is William Wagner’s Counseling, Psychology, and Children, but this textbook is primarily concerned with counseling rather than childhood development. 16 Santrock, Adolescence, 231. 17 Woolfolk, Educational Psychology, 12th ed., 103. 18 Berk, Child Development, 3rd ed., 478. 19 William G. Wagner, Counseling, Psychology, and Children, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008), 27. 20 Robert Siegler, Judy DeLoache, and Nancy Eisenberg, How Children Develop, 3rd ed., (New York: Worth Publishers, 2011), 565. 21 David R. Shaffer, Social and Personality Development, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1988), 343. 22 Schunk, Learning Theories, 30, 62. 23 Joshua D. Greene, “Fruit Flies of the Moral Mind,” in Max Brockman, ed., What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science: Original Essays from a New Generation of Scientist (New York: Vintage Books, 2009), 106. 24 David Siegel and Mary Hartzell, Parenting from the Inside Out (New York: Penguin Books, 2003), 178. 25 Charles A. Nelson, “Neural Plasticity and Human Development,” in Reflections on Learning, 3rd ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008), 37. 26 Tobin Hart, The Secret Spiritual World of Children (Makawao, HI: Inner Ocean, 2003), 4. 27 David N. Elkins, Beyond Religion: A Personal Program for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion (Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1998), 238, emphasis original. 28 Thomas Oldenski and Dennis Carlson, “Yearnings of the Heart: Education, Postmodernism, and Spirituality,” in Oldenski and Carlson, eds., Educational Yearning: The Journey of the Spirit and Democratic Education (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 6. Elsewhere, the authors quote UCLA professor Peter McLaren, renowned for his application of critical theory to education: “As Peter McLaren reminds us, ‘We need to teach dangerously, but to live with optimism. We need to be outrageous, but to temper our outrage with love and compassion. We need to be warriors for social justice.” Ibid., 7. 29 Ben Mardell and Mona M. Abo-Zena, “Kindergarteners Explore Spirituality,” in Ellen N. Junn and Chris J. Boyatzis, eds., Child Growth and Development Annual Editions (McGraw-Hill, 2012), 83, 80.

96 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

30 Laurence Steinberg, Adolescence, 9th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 299. 31 Ibid., 302. 32 Laura E. Berk, Child Development, 9th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2012), 503. The material about religion was added for the 8th edition in 2008. 33 Berk, Child Development, 3rd ed. 502, emphasis added. 34 Santrock, Adolescence, 237. 35 William Damon, The Moral Child: Nurturing Children’s Natural Growth (New York: Free Press, 1988), xii. 36 William Damon, “Introduction,” in Bringing in a New Era in Character Education, ed. William Damon (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2002), viii. 37 http://coa.stanford.edu/, accessed 21 October 2013. 38 Christina Hoff Summers, “How Moral Education is Finding Its Way Back into America’s Schools,” in Bringing in a New Era in Character Education, ed. Damon, 34. 39 Daniel K. Lapsley and Darcia Narvaez, “Character Education,” in Child Psychology in Practice, ed. K. Ann Renninger and Irving E. Sigel, vol. 4 of Handbook of Child Psychology, ed. William Damon and Richard M. Lerner (New York: Wiley, 2006), 257. 40 Jonathan Haidt, “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment,” Psychological Review 108, no. 4 (2001): 814. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., 828. 43 Damon, The Moral Child, 146. 44 Anne Colby and William Damon, Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitment (New York: Free Press, 1992), 296, emphasis original. 45 Ibid., 197. 46 Damon, The Moral Child, 119. 47 Ibid., 118. 48 Ibid., 83. 49 Ibid., 31. 50 Ibid., 118-119. 51 Marvin W. Berkowitz, “The Science of Character Education,” in Damon, ed., Bringing in a New Era in Character Education, 48, emphasis original.

97 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

52 http://ace.nd.edu/directory/daniel-lapsley-phd, accessed 26 March 2014. 53 Lapsley and Narvaez, “Character Education,” 250. 54 Ibid., 251. 55 Kristján Kristjánsson, “Virtue Development and Psychology’s Fear of Normativity,” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 32 (2012): 104, emphasis added. 56 Kristján Kristjánsson, Virtues and Vices in Positive Psychology: A Philosophical Critique (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 23. 57 William Damon, “Introduction,” in Damon, ed., Bringing in a New Era in Character Education, xiv. 58 Joan Goodman, “Students’ Choices and Moral Growth,” Ethics and Education 1 (2006): 103. 59 Ibid., 108. 60 Ibid., 106. 61 Ibid., 104. 62 Joan Goodman, “School Discipline in Moral Disarray,” The Journal of Moral Education 35 (2006): 26–27. 63 Ibid., 27. 64 Joan Goodman, Moral Education: A Teacher-Centered Approach (New York: Pearson, 2004), 126. 65 Ibid., 8. 66 Joan Goodman, “Responding to Children’s Needs: Amplifying the Caring Ethic,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42 (2008): 234. 67 Ibid., 233. 68 Goodman, Moral Education, 8. 69 Goodman, “Responding to Children’s Needs,” 246. 70 Goodman, Moral Education, 8. 71 Ibid., 96. 72 Goodman, “School Discipline,” 8. 73 Goodman, “Student’s Choices,” 107. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., 114, emphasis added.

98 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

76 http://www.gse.harvard.edu/academics/catalogue/display_course_popup. shtml?vcourse_id=H611A&vtermcode=2013-2S, accessed 21 October 2013.

77 http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=making_caring_ common&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup160892, accessed 12 September 2013. 78 http://education.msu.edu/te/phd/current-students/courses-for-spring-2012. asp#TE982b, accessed 5 August 2013. 79 Alan L. Lockwood, The Case for Character Education: A Developmental Approach (New York: Teachers College Press, 2009), vii. 80 Ibid., xiv. 81 Ibid., 43. 82 Ibid., 66. 83 Ibid., 70. 84 Jack Demick, EDUC 1260 syllabus, Brown University, 2011. 85 Noddings, Educating Moral People, xiii. 86 The impact of the philosophy of education field is limited, as most education schools have few faculty and courses in that area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that only a minority of teacher certification programs require a philosophy of education course.

87 Nel Noddings, Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). 88 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/, accessed 22 August 2013. 89 For example, http://www.education.miami.edu/ep/contemporaryed/Nel_ Noddings/nel_noddings.html, accessed 21 August 2013. 90 Noddings, Educating Moral People, xiii. 91 Ibid., 8. 92 Ibid., 2. 93 Ibid., 23. 94 Ibid., 8. 95 Ibid., 13. 96 Ibid., 16. 97 Ibid., 17. 98 Ibid., 20.

99 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

99 Ibid., 21. 100 Peter Smagorinsky and Joel Taxel, The Discourse of Character Education: Culture Wars in the Classroom (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005), xi-xii.

101 Ibid., 13. 102 Ibid., xv. 103 Ibid., 8. 104 Ibid., 350. 105 Ibid., 346. 106 Ibid., 350. 107 Barbara S. Stengel and Alan R. Tom, Moral Matters: Five Ways to Develop the Moral Life of Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006), 5. 108 Barbara Stengel, “Feelings of Worth and the Moral Made Visible,” in Character and Moral Education: A Reader, ed. Joseph L. DeVitis and Tianlong Yu (New York: Peter Lang, 2011), 324. 109 Deron Boyles, “Would You Like Values with That? Chick-fil-A and Character Education,” in Character and Moral Education: A Reader, ed. DeVitis and Yu, 90. 110 Ibid., 96. 111 Teachers College [catalog], 2011-2012. 112 http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000757750-01, accessed 24 December 2012. 113 http://www.ashe.ws/?page=120, accessed 26 December 2012. 114 http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000753567-01, accessed 3 November 2012. 115 https://www.h-net.org/jobs/job_display.php?id=45812, accessed 10 November 2012. 116 http://www.iwu.edu/iwujobs/Ed_Studies_Director_13_14.pdf, accessed 5 June 2013. 117 http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000789468-01, accessed 13 August 2013. 118 http://www.higheredjobs.com/search/details.cfm?JobCode=175767691&Title=A ssistant%20Professor%20Educational%20Foundations, accessed 8 August 2013. 119 Connie E. North, “What is All This Talk About ‘Social Justice’? Mapping the Terrain of Education’s Latest Catchphrase,” Teachers College Record 110, no. 6 (2008): 1182–1206. 120 Celia Oyler, “Preparing Teachers of Young Children to be Social Justice-Oriented Educators,” in Promoting Social Justice for Young Children, ed. Beatrice S. Fennimore and A. Lin Goodwin (New York: Springer, 2011): 148.

100 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

121 Catherine Riegle-Crumb and Barbara King, “Questioning a White Male Advantage in STEM: Examining Disparities in College Major by Gender and Race/Ethnicity,” Educational Researcher 39 (2010): 657; Frances K. Stage and Sue A. Maple, “Incompatible Goals: Narratives of Graduate Women in the Mathematics Pipeline,” American Educational Research Journal 33 (1996): 42. 122 William Ayers, “Trudge Toward Freedom: Educational Research in the Public Interest” in Education Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action, and Policy, ed. Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006), 88. 123 Christine Sleeter, “Teacher Education, Neoliberalism, and Social Justice,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. William Ayers, Therese Quinn, and David Stovall (New York: Routledge, 2009), 611. 124 Morva McDonald and Kenneth M. Zeichner, “Social Justice Teacher Education,” in Handbook of Social in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 597. 125 Deron Boyles, Tony Carusi, and Dennis Attick, “Historical and Critical Interpretations of Social Justice,” in Handbook of Social Justice, ed. Ayers et al., 37. 126 Ibid., 38. 127 Oyler, “Preparing Teachers,” 148. 128 William F. Pinar and C.A. Bowers, “Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives,” Review of Research in Education 18 (1992): 163-190. On the Frankfurt School see Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973). 129 Zeus Leonardo, “Critical Social Theory and Transformative Knowledge: The Functions of Criticism in Quality Education,” Educational Researcher 33 (2004): 13. 130 Ibid., 12. 131 Ronald David Glass, “On Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education,” Educational Researcher 30 (2001): 16. 132 Ibid., 18. 133 Pinar, “Politics of Curriculum,” 163. 134 Michael W. Apple et al., “Mapping Critical Education,” in The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education, ed. Michael W. Apple, Wayne Au, and Luis Armando Gandin (New York: Routledge, 2009), 3. 135 Michael W. Apple, “Theory, Research, and the Critical Scholar/Activist,” Educational Researcher 39 (2010): 2.

101 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

136 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Toward+a+Critical+Race+Theory++o f+Education&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C47&as_sdtp=, accessed 21 March 2014.

137 Gloria Ladson-Billings, “Race Still Matters: Critical Race Theory in Education,” in The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education, ed. Michael W. Apple et al., 112. 138 Ibid., 113. 139 Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate, “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education,” Teachers College Record 97 (1995): 60. 140 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18218800901097449980&as_ sdt=5,47&sciodt=0,47&hl=en, accessed 26 March 2014. 141 Gloria Ladson-Billings, “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,” American Educational Research Journal 32 (1995): 469 142 Ibid., 474. 143 Zeus Leonardo, “Reading Whiteness: Antiracist Pedagogy Against White Racial Knowledge,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 231. 144 Ibid., 232. Also see Zeus Leonardo, “Pale/ontology: The Status of Whiteness in Education,” in The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education, ed. Michael W. Apple, et al. 145 A.A. Akom, “Critical Race Theory Meets Participatory Action Research: Creating a Community of Black Youth as Public Intellectuals,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 510. 146 Ibid., 512. 147 Ibid., 513. 148 http://education.msu.edu/, accessed 25 March 2014. 149 Descriptions of Courses 1990–91, MSU publication; Descriptions of Courses 1993, MSU publication. 150 Apple, “Theory, Research, and the Critical Scholar/Activist,” 2. 151 Lisa Delpit, Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom(New York: The New Press, 1995), xxvi. 152 Lisa Delpit c.v., http://education.fiu.edu/, accessed 19 March 2014. 153 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=12031068589683793276&as_ sdt=5,47&sciodt=0,47&hl=en, accessed 25 March 2014. 154 Lisa Delpit, “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children,” Harvard Educational Review 58 (1988): 282. 155 Delpit, Other People’s Children, xxvi.

102 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

156 Delpit, “Silenced Dialogue,” 293. 157 Ibid., 296. 158 Delpit, Other People’s Children, 26. 159 Social justice educators do not agree on the nature of the hegemonic culture—it is White according to Leonardo, liberal and middle class according to Delpit. Leonardo, “Reading Whiteness,” 231; Delpit, Other People’s Children, 28. 160 Pepi Leistyna, “Preparing for Public Life: Education, Critical Theory, and Social Justice,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 52. 161 Ibid., 53. 162 Leonardo, “Reading Whiteness,” 231. 163 http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2014/01/the_2014_rhsu_ edu-scholar_public_influence_rankings.html, accessed 25 March 2014. 164 “Annual Report,” Educational Researcher 27.6 (Aug.–Sep. 1998): 32. 165 “Annual Report,” Educational Researcher 29.6 (Aug.–Sep. 2000): 50. 166 Michael W. Apple, Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2006 [2001]), 9. 167 Ibid., 11. 168 Ibid., 39. 169 Gustavo E. Fischman and Eric Haas, “Critical Pedagogy and Hope in the Context of Neo-Liberal Globalization,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 567. 170 Apple, Educating the “Right” Way, 25. 171 David Hursh, “Beyond the Justice of the Market: Combating Neoliberal Educational Discourse and Promoting Deliberative Democracy and Economic Equality,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 158. 172 Fazal Rizvi and Laura C. Engel, “Neo-Liberal Globalization, Educational Policy, and the Struggle for Social Justice”, in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 32. 173 Apple, Educating the ‘Right’ Way, 95. 174 Ibid., 96. 175 Angela Calabrese Barton et al., Teaching Science for Social Justice (New York: Teachers College Press, 2003), 5. 176 Ibid., 6.

103 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

177 Eric (Rico) Gutstein, “Developing Social Justice Mathematics Curriculum from Students’ Realities: A Case of a Chicago Public School,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 692. 178 See Linda Darling-Hammond, Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006). 179 Linda Darling Hammond, “Learning to Teach for Social Justice,” in Learning to Teach for Social Justice, ed. Linda Darling Hammond, Jennifer French, and Silvia Paloma Garcia-Lopez (New York: Teachers College Press, 2003), 2. 180 Linda Darling-Hammond, “Educating a Profession for Equitable Practice,” in Learning to Teach for Social Justice, ed. Darling-Hammond et al., 201. 181 Ibid., 203–204. 182 John Smyth, “Teachers’ Work and the Politics of Reflection,” American Educational Research Journal 29 (1992): 299. 183 Sleeter, “Teacher Education, Neoliberalism, and Social Justice,” 613. 184 http://chronicle.com/article/New-Education-Dean-Takes/139207/, accessed 27 March 2014. 185 Kevin Kumashiro, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, rev. ed. (New York: Routledge, 2009 [2004]), xxxvii. 186 Kevin Kumashiro, “‘Posts’ Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Education in Social Studies, English, Mathematics, and Science Classrooms,” Educational Researcher 30 (2001): 9. 187 Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Joan Barnatt, Randall Lahann, Karen Shakman, and Dianna Terrell, “Teacher Education for Social Justice: Critiquing the Critiques,” in Handbook of Social Justice in Education, ed. Ayers et al., 626. 188 Leistyna, “Preparing for Public Life,” 56. 189 Ayers, “Trudge,” 88. 190 Apple, Educating the “Right” Way, xxi. 191 Leonardo, “Reading Whiteness,” 234. 192 Fischman, “Critical Pedagogy and Hope,” 572. 193 Cochran-Smith et al., “Teacher Education,” 625. 194 Gail C. Furman and David A. Gruenewald, “Expanding the Landscape of Social Justice: A Critical Ecological Analysis,” Education Administration Quarterly 40 (2004): 7–8. 195 North, “Talk About ‘Social Justice,’” 1201. 196 W. Norton Grubb and Marvin Lazerson, The Education Gospel: The Economic Power of Schooling (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

104 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

197 Richard M. Battistoni, Public Schooling and the Education of Democratic Citizens (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 4; cf. Peter Levine and James Youniss, “Introduction: Policy for Youth Civic Engagement,” in Youniss and Levine, eds., Engaging Young People in Civic Life (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009), 4. 198 Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6, no. 1 (1995): 65–78; Robert D. Putnam, “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America,” The American Prospect 7, no. 24 (Winter 1996): 34–48; Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000); Theda Skocpol, “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy,” Social Science History 21, no. 4 (Winter 1997): 455–479; Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina, eds., Civic Engagement in American Democracy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and Russell Sage Foundation, 1999). 199 Jeffrey M. Duncan-Andrade and Ernest Morrell, The Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban Schools (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2008), 1. 200 Celia Oyler, Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Community Activism as Curriculum (New York: Routledge, 2012), 153. 201 Nicole Mirra and Ernest Morrell, “Teachers as Civic Agents: Toward a Critical Democratic Theory of Urban Teacher Development,” Journal of Teacher Education 62, no. 4 (2011): 409–411. 202 Ibid., 411. 203 Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, The Art of Critical Pedagogy, 31. 204 Oyler, Actions Speak Louder, 153.

205 Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, The Art of Critical Pedagogy, 23. 206 Benjamin R. Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). 207 Oyler, Actions Speak Louder, 6. 208 Sonia Nieto, Dear Paulo: Letters from Those Who Dare Teach (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008), 111. 209 Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, The Art of Critical Pedagogy, 23. 210 Mirra and Morrell, “Teachers as Civic Agents,” 412–413. 211 Oyler, Actions Speak Louder, 1. 212 Ibid., 144.

105 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

213 Harry C. Boyte, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at Augsburg College and senior fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, has developed the concept of civic agency most extensively. Boyte has defined civic agency as “self-organizing, collective citizen efforts to solve problems and create public things in open settings without tight prior scripts.” Civic Agency and the Cult of the Expert (The Kettering Foundation, 2009), 1. Civic agency is the centerpiece of a new participatory politics that he intends as an alternative to both liberalism and communitarian- ism, which he believes “place citizens in the roles of spectators to the operations of politics and power.” “A Different Kind of Politics: John Dewey and the Meaning of Citizenship in the 21st Century,” The Good Society12.2 (2003), 14n.21. In Boyte’s “public-work framework,” citizens are depicted as “potential problem-solvers and co-creators of public goods” rather than “voters, volunteers, clients, consumers, or aggrieved and powerless outsiders.” The Citizen Solution: How You Can Make a Difference (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2008), 15. Mirra and Morrell draw on Boyte’s work, particularly his notion of civic engagement as productive politics. Oyler does not cite Boyte, but like him, she makes much of emphasizing what a citizen does rather than who counts as a citizen. Boyte does not use the programmatic terminology of social justice, but his approach to citizenship, like Oyler’s and Morrell’s, is grounded in a version of participatory politics. 214 Oyler, Actions Speak Louder, 4. 215 Ibid., 3-4. 216 Mirra and Morrell, “Teachers as Civic Agents,” 410 217 Ibid., 413. 218 Ibid., 409.

219 http://www.fordfoundation.org/about-us/grant-maker/jeannie-oakes, accessed 11 February 2014. 220 Mirra and Morrell, “Teachers as Civic Agents,” 414. 221 Mirra and Morrell, “Teachers as Civic Agents,” 417; Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine, “Youth Participatory Action Research: A Pedagogy for Transformational Resistance,” in Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine, eds., Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research (New York: Routledge, 2008). 222 Cammarota and Fine, “Youth Participatory Action Research,” 5. 223 Ibid, 6. 224 Ibid, 1–2. 225 Ernest Morrell, “Six Summers of YPAR: Learning, Action, and Change in Urban Education,” in Cammarota and Fine, eds., Revolutionizing Education, 183.

106 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

226 Madeline Fox, Kavitha Mediratta, Jessica Ruglis, Brett Stoudt, Seema Shah, and Michelle Fine, “Critical Youth Engagement: Participatory Action Research and Organizing,” in Lonnie R. Sherrod, Judith Torney-Purta, and Constance A. Flanagan, ed., Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010). 227 Danielle S. Allen, Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 20; E. Doyle Stevick and Bradley A.U. Levinson, “Introduction: Cultural Context and Diversity in the Study of Democratic Citizenship Education,” in Reimagining Civic Education: How Diverse Societies Form Democratic Citizens, ed. E. Doyle Stevick and Bradley A.U. Levinson (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 9; Walter C. Parker, Teaching Democracy: Unity and Diversity in Public Life (New York: Teachers College Press, 2003), 30–31. 228 Allen, Talking to Strangers, 102. 229 Richard Battistoni, Public Schooling and the Education of Democratic Citizens (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 4. 230 Klas Roth and Nicholas C. Burbules, “Introduction: Understanding the Meaning of Citizenship Education,” in Changing Notions of Citizenship Education in Contemporary Nation-states, ed. Klas Roth and Nicholas Burbules (Boston: Sense Publishers, 2007), 2. 231 Jack McLeod et al., “Communication and Education: Creating Competence for Socialization into Public Life,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 373. 232 Parker, Teaching Democracy, 108; Diana E. Hess, Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion (New York: Routledge, 2009), 5. 233 Parker, Teaching Democracy, 1. 234 Ibid., 2; italics original. 235 Ibid., 1, cf. 11, 13. 236 Ibid., 108. 237 Ibid., 11. 238 Ibid., 13. 239 Ibid., 2. 240 Walter Parker et al., “Making it Work: Implementing Multidimensional Citizenship,” in Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, ed. John J. Cogan and Ray Derricott (London: Kogan Page, 1998), 145–146. 241 Hess, Controversy in the Classroom, 77.

107 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

242 Hess is not the first educational researcher to advocate this pedagogy; it has been represented in the literature since at least the 1960s. For a summary of the older research on this topic, see Carole L. Hahn, Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998), esp. 177–182. 243 Hess, Controversy in the Classroom, 5. 244 Ibid., 12, cf. 31. 245 Ibid., 15; italics original. 246 Constance Flanagan et al., “Schools and Social Trust,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 312; italics original. 247 McLeod, “Communication and Education,” 369. 248 W. Lance Bennett, Deen Freelon, and Chris Wells, “Changing Citizen Identity and the Rise of Participatory Media Culture,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 397. 249 Ibid., 417. 250 Eamonn Callan, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3. 251 Ibid., 8. 252 Ibid., 175, cf. 177. 253 Ibid., 12. 254 Ibid., 133. 255 Ibid., 11, 132. 256 Kenneth A. Strike, “Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy by Eamonn Callan; Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice by Bent Flyvbjerg,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 172. 257 Callan, Creating Citizens, 177. 258 Roth and Burbules, “Introduction,” 4; Stacy Smith, “Deliberating Publics of Citizens: Post-national Citizenship amidst Global Public Spheres,” in Changing Notions of Citizenship Education, ed. Roth and Burbules, 31. 259 Smith, “Deliberating Publics of Citizens,” 44. 260 Nel Noddings, “Global Citizenship: Promises and Problems,” in Educating Citizens for Global Awareness, ed. Nel Noddings (New York: Teachers College Press, 2005), 5, 9.

108 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

261 Ibid., 16; Patricia Kubow, David Grossman, and Akira Ninomiya, “Multidimensional Citizenship: Educational Policy for the 21st Century,” in Citizenship for the 21st Century, ed. Cogan and Derricott, 117. 262 John J. Cogan, “Citizenship Education for the 21st Century: Setting the Context,” in Citizenship for the 21st Century, ed. Cogan and Derricott, 1–2. 263 Kubow et al., “Multidimensional Citizenship,” 119. 264 “1. What should be done in order to promote equity and fairness within and among societies? 2. What should be the balance between the right to privacy and free and open access to information in information-based societies? 3. What should be the balance between protecting the environment and meeting human needs. 4. What should be done to cope with population growth, genetic engi- neering, and children in poverty? 5. What should be done to develop shared (universal; global) values while respecting local values? 6. What should be done to secure an ethically based distribution of power for deciding policy and action on the above issue?” Parker et al., “Making it Work,” 148. 265 Parker, Teaching Democracy, xviii, 12. 266 Parker acknowledges this criticism but says that “careful” scholars do not downplay the importance of knowledge. Ibid., 18. 267 Flanagan writes that teachers should not “compromise or abandon their job of teaching students disciplinary content,” but such teaching is often underemphasized among pluralist civic educators. Flanagan, “Schools and Social Trust,” 313. 268 Diana Hess, “Principles that Promote Discussion of Controversial Political Issues in the Classroom,” in Engaging Young People in Civic Life, ed. James Youniss and Peter Levine (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009), 69. 269 William Damon, Failing Liberty 101 (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2011), 13–14. 270 Callan, Creating Citizens, 178; see chap. 5 on patriotism. 271 Smith, “Deliberating Publics of Citizens,” 44. 272 John M. Bridgeland, “Civic Nation: My White House Mission after September 11,” in Teaching America: The Case for Civic Education, ed. David Feith (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011), 48. 273 Peter Levine and James Youniss, “Introduction: Policy for Youth Civic Engagement,” in Engaging Young People in Civic Life, ed. Youniss and Levine, 3. 274 Elizabeth Beaumont, “Political Agency and Empowerment: Pathways for Developing a Sense of Political Efficacy in Young Adults,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 547. 275 Parker, Teaching Democracy, 22. 276 Ibid., 30.

109 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

277 Nel Noddings, “What Have We Learned?” in Educating Citizens for Global Awareness, ed. Noddings, 124. 278 Stevick and Levinson, “Introduction,” 2. 279 Noddings, “What Have We Learned?” 122. 280 Lonnie R. Sherrod, Judith Torney-Purta, and Constance Flanagan, “Introduction: Research on the Development of Citizenship: A Field Comes of Age,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 1. 281 Putnam, “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America,” 34–48. 282 Sherrod et al., “Research on the Development of Citizenship,” 2. 283 Ibid., 3. 284 Ibid., 4. 285 Ibid., 5. 286 Ibid., 11. Many developmental civic educators use the more specific terminology of “political socialization”; see Hugh McIntosh and James Youniss, “Toward a Political Theory of Political Socialization of Youth,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al.; Britt Wilkenfeld, James Lauckhardt, and Judith Torney-Purta, “The Relation between Developmental Theory and Measures of Civic Engagement in Research on Adolescents,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al. 287 McIntosh and Youniss, “Political Socialization of Youth,” 33. 288 Sherrod et al., “Research on the Development of Citizenship,” 11. 289 Wilkenfeld et al., “Developmental Theory and Measures,” 195. 290 Ibid., 198; Sherrod et al., “Research on the Development of Citizenship,” 11. 291 Wilkenfeld, et al., “Developmental Theory and Measures,” 195. 292 Ibid., 196. 293 Aaron Metzger and Judith G. Smetana, “Social Cognitive Development and Adolescent Civic Engagement,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 222. 294 Ibid., 223. 295 Ibid., 226. 296 Heather Malin et al., Youth Civic Development and Education: A Conference Consensus Report (Stanford, CA: Stanford Center on Adolescence, 2014), 31. 297 William Damon, “What is Positive Youth Development?” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591 (2004): 15.

110 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

298 Ibid., 23. 299 Malin et al., Youth Civic Development, 15. 300 Ibid., 17. 301 William Damon, Failing Liberty 101 (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2011), 63. 302 Ibid., 25. 303 Ibid., 29. 304 Ibid., 21. 305 Damon, “What is Positive Youth Development?” 17. 306 http://cmei-harvard.ning.com/page/about-us, accessed 14 October 2013. 307 http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/ecsp, accessed 27 March 2014. 308 http://www.spencer.org/content.cfm/the_new_civics, accessed 27 March 2014. 309 http://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty- detail/?fc=52261&flt=l&sub=all, accessed 14 October 2013. 310 Meira Levinson, No Citizen Left Behind (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), 43–44. 311 http://www.civicmissionofschools.org/the-campaign/civic-mission-of-schools- report, accessed, 14 October 2013, 4. 312 Levinson, No Citizen Left Behind, 46.

313 Ibid., 75. 314 Meira Levinson, The Demands of Liberal Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 49. 315 Ibid., 102. 316 Meira Levinson, “Challenging Deliberation,” Theory and Research in Education 1 (2003), 28. 317 Ibid., 44. 318 Ibid., 45. 319 Levinson, No Citizen Left Behind, 224. 320 http://actioncivicscollaborative.org, accessed 13 October 2013. 321 Meira Levinson, “‘Let Us Now Praise...?’ Rethinking Heroes and Role Models in an Egalitarian Age,” in Yvonne Raley and Gerhard Preyer, eds., Philosophy of Education in the Era of Globalization (New York: Routledge, 2009), 34.

111 Moral Education in Elite University Education Schools

322 Ibid., 38. 323 Levinson, No Citizen Left Behind, 112. 324 Ibid., 55–56. 325 Meira Levinson and Sanford Levinson, “‘Getting Religion’ in Religion, Diversity, and Community in Public and Private Schools,” in Sanford Levinson, ed., Wrestling with Diversity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003), 113. 326 Ibid., 120. 327 Helen Haste and Amy Hogan, “Beyond Conventional Civic Participation, Beyond the Moral-Political Divide: Young People and Contemporary Debates about Citizenship,” Journal of Moral Education 35 (2006): 486. 328 Helen Haste, “Citizenship Education: A Critical Look at a Contested Field,” in Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, ed. Sherrod et al., 162. 329 Haste, “Beyond Conventional,” 483. 330 Helen Haste, “Constructing the Citizen,” Political Psychology 25 (2004): 414. 331 Haste, “Beyond Conventional,” 475. 332 Haste, “Constructing the Citizen,” 433. 333 Ibid. 334 Haste, “Citizenship Education,” 177. 335 Haste, “Constructing the Citizen,” 435.

112

University of Virginia P.O. Box 400816 • Charlottesville, VA 22904-4816 (434) 924-7705 • [email protected]