Invited Commentary

As important as moral education is for society, we have been surprisingly reluctant to invest in moral education programs in either schools or prisons. Perhaps we believe that expertise is not really needed and that simple discipline really works. Yet teachers struggle to maintain order in the classroom, and those working in correctional institutions are beset with high recidivism rates. Moral development theory challenges our commonsense belief that by making moral expectations more salient and the violations of those expectations more costly, we can help individuals to become more morally mature. Developmentalists, such as Kohlberg (1981) and Gibbs (2010) maintain that moral failures often have cognitive roots. Moral developmental theory suggests that relying on punishment and the threat of punishment may “confirm” immature and distorted patterns of thinking. For example, using the threat of punishment to motivate rule-following behavior may well reinforce a Stage 2 focus on consequences for the self or even a more primitive notion of “might making right.” Educational interventions based in moral developmental theory address the cognitive frameworks of children and criminal offenders. Rather than perpetuating the environmental conditions that sustain preconventional, Stage 1 and Stage 2 thinking, they counter immature and distorted patters of thinking by raising questions, evoking empathy, and raising a concern for others (e.g., Jennings, Kilkenny, if you had it in your arms, wouldn’t you be thinking about stealing it?” Jill believed not only that the victim was at fault for her carelessness but that other members of the community would agree with her attribution of blame.From a moral development perspective, it is difficult to convince a person like Jill that there is something wrong with her thinking as long as she is convinced that others think as she does. Unfortunately, in most schools students will not take issue with Jill even though they may disagree with her. In my writing about moral atmosphere (e.g., Power, Higgins, I experienced a miracle of moral community. I came to the CBCF as a quizzical stranger and was welcomed with genuine warmth and hospitality. Seasoned staff and novice residents graciously responded to my questions with openness and honesty. They all valued what they were achieving together at the CBCF. The recognized that the CBCF was special not simply because the treatment program was superior or the staff was exceptional or even because the residents were ready to change their lives. What made the CBCF so special was that staff and residents were working together to create a therapeutic community that would not be possible without everyone’s full participation. Residents as well as staff mastered a complex taxonomy of thinking errors and carefully designed programs for social skills training and anger management; and they readily engaged in personal reflection and interpersonal counseling. Residents had become so adept in their use of program terminology, that I sometimes thought that I was visiting a counselor education program.I refer to the CBCF as a miracle because it reveals a possibility for human interaction well beyond our ordinary expectations. As extraordinary as the CBCF is, however; it does not have be an isolated beacon shining in the darkness. It can and should inspire similar other efforts and deepen our praxis about human transformation and development. It should also challenge us to commit to well-designed, collaborative research-based moral education interventions.While in college, I spent several hours a week for 2 years visiting with juvenile delinquents, who had been sentenced to a sprawling complex of cottages in Shady Grove, one of the oldest “reform schools” in the country. I confess to feeling a mix of anxiety and sadness every time I took the 45 minute trip to the facility. I ever felt that I fully connected to the teenage boys to whom I had been assigned. They always seemed pleased by the attention, but I knew that they were less interested in seeing me than in enlisting my help in getting them released. Occasionally, I did put a good word in for one of my charges, but I cannot say that it made that much of a difference. I came to believe that if I was doing anything helpful at all, it was affirming that these young men had worth and potential and did not have to be defined by their past.I discovered, however, that their past lives continued to define their present in spite of the “rehabilitative” program at Shady Grove. The boys maintained contacts with families and friends in their neighborhoods, and I overheard many conversations about the exploits of their gangs back in the city. In many ways, life at Shady Grove resembled life on the streets. There was a well-known hierarchy based partly on past reputation and partly on physical prowess and an to all of the boys whom I knew had from to see who a the It seemed to me that all of the boys had a of either or Although my and I to that from time to we their need for the of was to together in which also a of connection and peer as I to what the of the had They a as a to the of which were institutions in of on discipline and punishment to and for The of the believed that was the of life and that if they the they the The was based on the ideal of not In fact, the of the approach to led to with which also with some many Shady Grove was in the far from the atmosphere of the had who were as to the of the “rehabilitative” were supposed to create a in the and to as much warmth and as They were also to maintain of the behavior and to report all violations to from what I Although it made in theory, it seemed to in for at two as I the peer culture was in many and very and the seemed to in the that one might for in for I spoke with a who that it was difficult to find enough of the were simply I the boys about their I received I was were others were and others were in on the It did not take me long to who was I had back that the was not only because it was difficult to find the of but also because the seemed to the For better or these young men had their and had the life of in need of and most had at for whom the What the young men in Shady Grove needed were not but moral who help them to the needed to become responsible that Kohlberg’s educational approach was in the making and had to be to correctional Yet I had no that those involved in corrections had the resources or to a at Shady Grove me to the of moral education by a Shady Grove was it was not because the focus on culture was wrong but because simply the physical of the and were I to moral I with the the that Kohlberg, and had at the a correctional for in & Kohlberg and with the staff in one of the cottages to what the Just Community Approach. Kohlberg the staff to community within the of about group which on and among the inmates and The moral stage theory as a for the and the of the treatment all of the inmates were to at a Stage not only in the moral to their moral stage but also in interpersonal within the In fact, and went so far as to that the inmates had a Stage 2 peer culture within the The discipline with on staff of by a of and only that Stage 2 Kohlberg and to the stage of the culture by moral and by the inmates in making and their a to the process was the inmates a of were to take responsibility for that came up in the and to share responsibility for The to was to the inmates and staff in about the behavior and that were and to them in about what they should do as a community to the and that many group inmates to care about other and to a culture based on that personal with the Just Community approach led me from and to applying what was being in to the Cluster School, the first of the Just community high The that I had at Shady Grove and and convinced me of the of small of people together to morally group Kohlberg also believed that the of the group was less on of help than on a community believed that student in just community would if the of the program got also recognized that students had a need to to more in which they share more personal and for the community with about students in which on a the community the Just Community to the Just Community to on an culture of community. as Kohlberg, Higgins, and I of it was an and a of education Higgins, & Kohlberg, It was an insofar as members of the school to in a community in which all of the members other as friends and took responsibility for the It was a insofar as the culture members to think and act in that their development. individuals other or even others took The process everyone in the group to responsibility for a of community and the The role in the community was to act as an for the ideal of community by students to and to the consequences of their for group as a years I my of the Cluster School, the first of the Community schools Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989), I had the to a Just Community program in an school in the teachers in the school me to as a they me that they were using a not the one I had at Shady Grove. I them about the Just Community they me that they had been been trained to use a very approach in which there was no for community. The to their approach was the of the to the They believed that the a teacher to student teacher for every would the that these students had experienced in conventional the approach to juvenile delinquents, the approach made Although most of the students in this program had not of they were all as had been to to the all came from and a high of the students had had from other students to As expected, they were in school. they did to they were often and teachers who volunteered for this program had been very many were who had with their share of the As it turned out, they were not for with a program of the teachers me the they me that they to the Just Community a They that the simply did not and they were enough to that they had not so much the Just Community as they had the I was to within their as we about how the student would Although the teachers were about students I was more about a culture of community in a school program in which all of the students problems. Cluster had more than share of students who were not in school and who had behavioral problems. But Cluster also had a strong of students who were in school and who help their had Cluster was small and student to teacher to the of the a very strong community culture in the of a culture led to more community as students and teachers in their for what they the The behavior also They in their than students in the and other discipline were their and they so valued their education that all of them to was as as it it had the most of all of the other Just Community is to focus on the of culture we to what we by the moral atmosphere and moral culture Higgins, & Kohlberg, Although Gibbs and do not define culture in precisely the we share a similar for power for change or for as I have it Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989), should be from other of the or such as the treatment or educational program or the of the makes this by into and social of institutions all to the of community. For example, the among individuals for moral and group As I the Just Community programs are The RAC are even They are made up of no more than members who are together in a Yet small does not guarantee that a culture of community will does small in with to other such as the expertise of the staff and moral and the social to about a but they do not the The culture is the of the of the group members time. of a group the culture and in by the culture they It took a to the of and shared responsibility that community It took a of time to a culture of care at the CBCF. simply without or In educational with and residents to the and the CBCF I visited at the Franklin County CBCF to about the RAC program me one carefully on the culture and that I did. I came to CBCF at the of my and who me to the program there from the of the Just Community Approach. me the of the to about the RAC Although I had I felt to be a me that how to and sustain moral as well as or better than whom I had ever of the of community came of many years of working in as well as with my and Gibbs and the of peer culture and moral in my view, what is of in and the social as might think of this as but that would be a is a It the interaction in a and on is a What I at the CBCF was something I recognized the influence of the EQUIP and moral development I the on peer I even of and the Just Community approach. What I experienced at this CBCF not be to or even to the of leader. The culture there had on a life on and it was staff and It was as if the from theory to was as much the culture as it was the efforts of often our social in the of our understanding of it. for at the and to what is the of individuals within a I not a to the notion of a group or a but I do think it that we that group cannot be to the influence of in of these and in to them for the good of those in the I find it helpful to of group it would be a to think of such as that can be like the or the group which is another of about a an at the personal if it is to be in any It is possible for if we may them to by the threat of punishment or the of Yet on do not the individuals within them as individuals of a responsible culture by the residents of the CBCF as responsible even though they have that children and are in the for and be those They however, that the to responsibility is to those in their care as though they were of the needed for responsible There is an which be if our moral educational efforts are to be In a at the of that were a process of much like the process of are up to that the of might a without the however, act without and or moral cannot be in an It has to be of a as it I in my the with many of those who up in is that they have to responsibility or or They not only feel to do but actually others for their the Just Community and the RAC responsibility they do so in The Just Community makes students responsible by them a in community The RAC approach makes residents responsible by them skills for helping one these approaches have in is that they that students and are responsible for their even though they may not that The of responsibility be within In order to become individuals have to be as though they are The that many conventional moral in to responsibility to those who responsibility is to act in that them in their RAC approach to to with their by a staff and peer culture to the of personal the of the RAC approach are the small RAC members in throughout the CBCF and and throughout the I visited with several of these and can to strong of and CBCF from the RAC to the EQUIP is on and a just how the CBCF is at I the inmates who had the were I see from the on that did not like my responded with a of are these people it because they training or was it because they the The of RAC is to moral responsibility What the CBCF from other moral education programs that I with was the and of moral educational staff and residents themselves to one moral is to it. CBCF for and training and but these are The at the CBCF is to address the thinking errors and behavioral patterns that led to incarceration and to the moral development of something like the RAC approach that moral discussion was not a of moral thought that a approach to moral education would making institutions just In of schools to high for schools which is a & Kohlberg, Kohlberg to in the of the Just Community had in a much than the one in most of and In the and the Kohlberg as a process of and as a for the of In what by a Just Kohlberg’s notion of came to the of a an ideal of life in which members of a group are in to Kohlberg’s ideal of the Just Community and ideal of a responsible culture is an in a social in which all of the are engaged in moral reflection and the Just Community and RAC approaches not only that a of time be on a to moral development but that moral development have a all Kohlberg of that schools have a and that the teachers cannot moral all the other was that at the schools in that often the in and social For example, school students for but school a of and into life and as a group on the to which the community have much to my that school to be to moral they can find time in their for moral community and staff many of those who do moral and education programs them as or but to invest the time needed to The CBCF gives us an of what can a The CBCF also gives us an of what it to be to moral education at an the RAC and Just Community approaches share many of the they put an on moral of the most the approaches is that RAC does not the residents in about CBCF and Although the CBCF community in which residents can about and all with the RAC on community within the RAC themselves and not the RAC to within the CBCF. within the CBCF would at the of the influence of the RAC the residents in may also them from the of their patterns of thinking and RAC of community is not based on a to the RAC group or CBCF as a but to the members of the RAC In the Just Community we to the community as and we students to personal for the The RAC in is a therapeutic one in which is on and members of the RAC group are the skills to act as a for the Just Community and RAC approaches have much to do with their and The therapeutic RAC approach is for the patters of in a corrections The Just Community is for for in an educational school What me far more than their is the in which the RAC and Just Community approaches the entire community in a moral