Do the Morals of a Teacher
Matter?
Sally Kleinknecht
“Teachers
themselves often overlook the moral dimensions of their work, but that
failing must be treated as a problem to be solved, rather than as evidence
of the amorality of teaching itself. There is no doubt that one can teach
without giving thought to the transformative significance of what he or she is
doing. But whether it should be so performed is another question entirely.
Moreover, though the teacher may pay no attention whatsoever to such matters, we
must ask if they are thereby eliminated as a class of outcomes. The
well-known phenomenon of unintended
consequences, sometimes referred to as “incidental learnings” when they
take place within the context of a classroom, leads us to suspect that the
delivery of moral messages and actions of transformative significance may often
take place whether the teacher intends them to or not. Indeed, it is far
more interesting to ask whether such outcomes are inevitable, which is
equivalent to asking whether all teachers are ultimately working within the
transformative tradition whether they realize it or not (Jackson, 1986, p. 128-129).”
Philip
Jackson describes two types of learning in his book, The Practice of Teaching: mimetic and transformative. The mimetic
style of teaching is basically the transmission of information from the teacher
to the student. The teacher, who is the expert, has the knowledge and transmits
it to the student through various mediums. The metaphor that
The
transformative style of teaching involves an intended metamorphosis of the student through modeling of the
teacher and the relationship between the student and the teacher. The potter
shaping the clay is the metaphor he uses to describe the transformative style -
the same style as Jesus and Socrates. Teachers using this style are actually
trying to change the student himself
– to make the student a better, more virtuous person. In fact,
A
good majority of the teachers that I have had, for the most part, use the
mimetic style in teaching. They are the expert and they have certain knowledge
that they are required to pass on. A teacher knows if this transfer has taken
place if the student is able to reproduce the knowledge in some form of
assessment. I see this very clearly in my own teaching. However, I also know
that I am intentionally modeling
other qualities that I hope the students will pick up. Two examples of this
are: I am well prepared for my class and I think aloud, logically working
through problems. Nevertheless, what am I not intentionally modeling – what unintended
consequences are taking place with my students in my classroom? Before we answer
that question, we need to discuss how morals are taught.
Aristotle
says that virtue “consists of two kinds, intellectual virtue and moral virtue.”
(Aristotle, 1999, p. 33). Moral virtues are not instilled by nature, but by
habit. One learns how to be just by doing just actions in the same way a
violinist learns to play the violin well by practicing (Aristotle, 1999, p.
34),. I think Aristotle is saying that moral virtue cannot be taught, but that
one learns by doing. Plato also believed that virtue could not be taught. He
says (through Socrates in “Meno”) “virtue would be neither an inborn quality
nor taught, but comes to those who possess it as a gift from the gods which is
not accompanied by understanding” (Plato, 1976, p. 31). The reason Socrates thinks
that virtue cannot be taught is because he could not find any teachers of virtue. He knew many
virtuous men, but none had taught
their sons virtue. Socrates’ example shows that a teacher can teach morals, but that does not mean the
student will learn them. We purposely teach our students many things, but they
learn only a small amount – usually those things that interest them. I think
just teaching morals, mimetic style,
is probably the least effective way to instill morals. So how are morals taught?
Most probably, morals are taught through our words and our actions –
through the teacher’s modeling and then by the student performing. Therefore, if students learn by modeling, am I
modeling virtues and vices whether I intend to or not? As
Speaking
as a parent now and not a teacher, I would say a resounding ‘yes!’ My husband, Paul,
and I set out to teach many good
moral things to our daughter so that she would grow to be a woman of character.
She has acquired many of them such as integrity, perseverance and
trustworthiness. However, what she also acquired were things we did not want to
teach her – the other things she caught from watching us. Being
disrespectful at times to us as parents was one of these things. It did not
come out often, but I wondered for the longest time where that came from. I
could blame it on the media, but eventually we had to look closer to home. We
realized that we had been disrespectful many times to Paul’s parents who lived
next door to us. I think Sarah observed our disrespect over the years and saw a
pattern of how one should treat one’s parents. This (and many other
idiosyncrasies) convinced me that not only do “actions speak louder than words,”
but also body language and the tone of voice speak volumes! Due to the amount
of time a student spends in a classroom, I would think teachers would have the same
effect on students.
Therefore,
a teacher is placed in a role similar to a parent – especially in the
elementary years. The elementary teacher is with her students up to eight hours
a day for 180 days. Even the middle school and high school teacher is engaged
with their students at least an hour a day if not more. Common sense tells us
that the student will learn much more from the teacher than just knowledge. In the
book, The Moral Life of Schools, it
is stated, “the teacher is the most important person in the room, bar none,
from both an instructional and a moral viewpoint.” (Jackson, Boostrom,
& Hansen, 1993, p. 121). The teacher is given much power in the classroom
to wield for good or bad. “This means that teachers are in a position to be
kind or cruel, fair or unfair, considerate or inconsiderate, domineering or
cooperative, as their fancy or their moral temperament suits them.” (Jackson et
al., 1993, p. 173). Do teachers (do I?) have any idea what kind of influence
they have unintentionally on their students? I think not. However, if these
“outcomes are inevitable,” what changes could be made to protect the students
who are essentially powerless in the classroom (Jackson, 1986, p. 129)? What
does this information mean for the teachers themselves, for the parents, and
for the educators of future teachers?
Teachers
need to be aware first of the impact of their words, body language, and actions
on their students. Emerson said, “We pass for what we are. Character teaches
above our wills. Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by
overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.”
(Jackson et al., 1993, p. 34). I do not think that we (I am now including
myself as a teacher) have any idea that everything we say or do had a moral
impact on the student – that is a terrifying thought. Teachers need “to become
more conscious of their own potential as moral agents.” (Jackson et al., 1993,
p. 288). Also, as we evaluate ourselves (how we presented the lesson, did the
students understand, what would we do differently), we need to step back and
look at the whole picture. We need “to view all that goes on within classrooms
in expressive terms” (Jackson et al., 1993, p. 288). To view in expressive terms means to look beyond what
is being taught or even how it is being taught (the method). It views
the teacher’s expressions (facial and body), her tone, her actions, etc. and it
views the physical classroom itself. I think that for me it would be helpful to
have a loving, close friend observe me for a while and let me know what she
sees beyond the obvious. I would like to know what I am saying that I do not mean to be saying
to my students. We, as teachers, need to be critical of ourselves for the sake
of our students and be willing to be observed by others for our improvement
since teaching is such a “moral enterprise” (Jackson et al., 1993, p. 277).
What
does this information mean to me as a parent? Since we do not have school-age
children anymore (and when we did, I home schooled them), I can only speculate
what I would do. First, I think that parents are ultimately responsible for
their children’s education – whether they decide to put their children in
private school, public school, charter school, or keep them home. Because of
this philosophy, I think it is the parent’s responsibility to observe what kind
of moral influence the teachers are exhibiting in the classroom. One
constructive way of doing this is volunteering at school in the child’s
classroom. The goal would be not to “spy” on the teacher, but to get to know
the teacher, to be an encouragement to her, and to begin to understand the
dynamics of the classroom. Most teachers
care very much for their students, but many times feel overwhelmed with the task.
An involved parent that comes along side of the teacher to be a helper can be a
great encouragement.
What
of the pre-service teachers - what is being done to train them to view their
“classroom in expressive terms?” I am in the Transition to Teaching program and I can say that this paper has
helped me begin to look at this powerful tool. However, I do not think this
kind of information is being taught to pre-service teachers. From what I have
observed, the goals of teacher training programs are that the teacher would
have adequate knowledge of his subject area and would have acquired appropriate
methods to teach that knowledge. Since teaching is a “moral enterprise,” helping
pre-service teachers be aware of their awesome responsibility as moral leaders
in the classroom would be well worth the time spent. Most pre-service teachers
complete 20 or more hours of observation in the classroom and then student
teach for 15 weeks. It would be helpful if the pre-service teachers were put
into small groups to study the book, The
Moral Life of Schools, while they were doing their observations in the
classroom. As they were observing they would journal their thoughts, seeing the
classroom in expressive terms. Each week they would come together in their
groups to discuss the moral implications of what they observed. Then, during
the pre-service teacher’s student teaching, his supervisor (either the
classroom teacher or the education professor) would observe him. He would meet weekly with his supervisor to
discuss his expressions that she
observed so that he could understand the impact he was having on the students.
This would be a difficult and time-consuming process, but would have many
rewards in the future, both for the pre-service teacher and the supervisor.
Do
the morals of a teach matter? Absolutely! They matter more than we realize in
students’ lives, as evidenced by the lack of attention to our own expressions
in the classroom and the lack of training of pre-service teachers in this area. As teachers, we need to educate ourselves so
that we can be the most effective in our classrooms. The power given us (as a
potter with the clay) is an awesome responsibility. However, with this
responsibility also comes a great opportunity to pass on not only our expertise
and knowledge to the next generation, but also to help shape their morals so
that they can become virtuous men and women. Moreover, in that process, “We (as teachers) teach ourselves.” (Jackson
et al., 1993, p. 284).
References
Aristotle (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. (M. Ostwald,
Trans.).
paperback ed.).
Plato (1981). Meno (2nd ed.). (G.M.A. Grube,
Trans.).