Customer Reviews

Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: And What We Can Do About It

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book makes its point without self-righeousness or preaching of any kind. The author argues that the mission of schools has changed from building character and citizenship to addressing social problems (i.e. drug and sex education, multi-culturalism), and the focus has changed from conveying a shared culture to a focus on the process of learning itself. The author argues that virtues can be taught by offering up heroes to emulate through classics, song, and story, as an antidote to relative values. The last section of the book contains suggested children's literature, by age group. I found this book to be riveting and profound, offering a unique perspective, evenly and logically presented with no trace of fanatacism (religious or otherwise) such as might be expected in a book of this sort.

While I originally borrowed this book, I had to buy it to keep it's valuable list of recommended readings on hand. I am a child psychologist who, like Dr. Kilpatrick, is totally disillusioned with the misapplication of "expert psychotherapeutic principles" to our school-aged children. The problems that most children exhibit are not due to "blocked feelings" or an overly strict conscience. Rather, by virtue of their age, most children have underdeveloped consciences. It is our job, as adults, to strengthen children's characters, rather than assume they have some "innate wisdom" that will automatically lead them to do what is right. I have successfully used story-telling in my work as a child psycholgist because it gets messages across in a compelling, easily digested way. As a parent, I will look forward to exposing my daughters to the recommended readings in the extensive bibliography. (I can use some inspiration by re-reading many of these books too.)

I saw the author of this book speak on C-SPAN, and also this book was recommended to me, as I am researching educational issues. This book explained so many things that I heretofore did not understand. If you are disturbed by the erosion of morality in this country, then read this book. Do you wonder about the effectiveness of drug prevention programs? Do you suspect that sex education actually increases sexual activity and pregnancy among teens? Well, it does, and the author tells how and why, in an objective, clear way. Does your child have a "psychologized classroom," with unearned self-esteem as the main goal? This book will tell you the full details on educational theory and practice in this country and the far-reaching consequences. Funny thing--social science supports many of the things traditionalists have been saying. I warn you, though, after reading this you may want to put your child in a private or home school, instead of allowing him or her to be at the mercy of educational experimenters who use our children to try out the latest intellectual fashions, with diasatrous results.

For decades a swelling chorus of journalistic lament and breastbeating has decried the lack of morality in America. Whether one considers the Charles Keating-style con-artists who subverted the Savings and Loan industry or beholds the teenagers "wilding" and "whirlpooling" in our urban jungles, something is clearly askew in America's morality. But exactly what's lacking, exactly why we're so troubled, is generally more obscured than clarified in TV and newspaper presentations.
To help remedy this vacuum in the public's understanding, a professor of education at Boston College, William Kilpatrick, has published Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the Case for Character Education (New York: Simon and Schuster, c. 1992), providing a probing and disquieting analysis.
What we face is a crisis of moral illiteracy which overrides the crisis of cultural illiteracy (or simple illiteracy, for that matter). We live in a society where increasing numbers of men and women have little sense of propriety, minimal confidence in moral standards beyond their own personal constructions, no belief in moral absolutes. In part, this results from the growing influence the popular media, especially music and television, exert on impressionable youngsters. Far more deeply than the precepts of parents, teachers or preachers, the media saturate the minds and shapes the hearts of our kids. In the judgment of Kenneth Myers, a TV critic, "'Television is . . . not simply the dominant medium of popular culture, it is the single most significant shared reality in our entire society. . . . In television we live and move and have our being'" (p. 264).
In addition, today's moral decay results from secular educators' misguided efforts to "teach" morality through non-directive strategies such as "values-clarification." Drawing upon the work of psychologists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, who emphasized non-directive counseling techniques and the importance of "self-actualization," educators sought to elicit moral standards through free-flowing group discussions and subsequent individual decisions. (Importantly, Maslow disavowed much that popularizers did with his "self-actualiza¬tion" insights. He insisted his approach, rightly under¬stood, applies only to adults, for youngsters have not "'learned how to be patient; nor have they learned enough about evil in themselves and others . . . nor have they generally become knowledgeable and educated enough to open the possibility of becoming wise; nor have they generally acquired enough courage to be unpopular, to be unashamed about being openly vir¬tuous, etc.'" (p. 33).)
But educators dashed ahead, undeterred by Maslow's considered caution. They insisted on treating children as adults (as moral decision makers) and proceeded on the assumption that freeing the young to clarify their "feelings" on various issues would enable them to live rightly. Could children only "feel good" about themselves they would then "feel right" about moral issues and thus "do good." So elementary teachers, one researcher found, "'are being taught to concern themselves with children's feelings of self worth and not with the worth of hard work . . ." (p. 41). To deal with the problem of drug abuse, for example, "drug education" programs such as "Smart," "Here's Looking at You," and "Quest," were instituted. The "experts" who directed such programs proposed to "facilitate" discussions which would enhance "self-esteem" and automatically equip teens to deal wisely with addictive substances. Unfortunately, follow-up studies reveal that such drug education programs almost unfailingly lead to in¬creased drug experimentation rather than avoidance.
It seems that in free-flowing group discussions, youngsters doing drugs or experimenting with alcohol appear more adventurous and grown-up than their peers; they are often more assertive in such discussions, giving their views a more authoritative air; they rarely admit, if they even understand, the potentially disastrous consequences of their behavior. The "facilitating" teacher, refusing to impose norms, ends up allowing the drug education class to encourage experimentation!
The same applies to sex education. (I've developed a positively Pavlovian presentiment whenever I hear discussions which deal with this nation's sexual chaos--"more education" is always proposed as its sole solution!) Yet the more sex education classes we institute in the public schools the more unrestrained and self-destructive becomes our young peoples' sexual behavior. Indeed, "a Lou Harris poll, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, revealed that teenagers who had had comprehensive sex education had significantly higher rates of sexual activity than their peers who had not had sex education" (p. 54). Amazingly, in the state of Virginia, "school districts that instituted comprehensive sex education showed a 17 percent increase in teen pregnancies, while schools that were not teaching it had an average of 16 percent decrease during the same period" (p. 54).
This becomes understandable when you consider the materials used in sex education classes. Consider the message of a text used in junior high and high school, Changing Bodies, Changing Lives: "'If you feel your parents are overprotective . . . or if they don't want you to be sexual at all until some distant time, you may feel you have to tune out their voice entirely'" (p. 53)
So ignore you parents! Ignore your religious instruction as well: "'Many Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims believe sex outside marriage is sinful,' says Changing Bodies. 'You will have to decide for yourself how important these massages are for you'" (p. 53). The adults kids should trust, it seems, are limited to educators and authors of sex education texts! What one learns (or should learn) from the failure of such programs is clear: you don't "teach" morality through non-directive values-clarification bull-sessions, which do little more than elicit random "feelings" concerning proper behavior. In actual class discussions, teachers have discovered students are as likely to "feel" that cheating in class is as OK as sleeping around--an unexpected turn of events which usually displeases teachers more than the sexual permissiveness which they often applaud!
Educators looking for an alternative to the "values clarification" approach have often embrace the "critical thinking" or "moral reasoning" exercises proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg and his co¬horts; yet they too fail to actually establish morality. The Socratic method, as adopted by Kolhberg (ignoring the fact that Plato reserved such strategies for folks above the age of 30) poses ethical "dilemmas" which encourage students to weigh the options and reach rational conclusions. His "moral reasoning" assumes the reality of Kant's "categorical imperative"--an accurate, universal, inner "sense of ought" which gives all persons moral guidance. Posing questions, in the manner of Socrates, enables students to think and make decisions of ethical consequence with confidence. Having often used this approach, I know how effectively it gets students' attention and engenders discussion. We all like to debate hypothetical situations. Yet, even for college students, I confess that "After being faced with quandary after quandary of the type that would stump Middle East negotiators, students will conclude that right and wrong are anybody's guess. They will gain the impression, as Cornell professor Richard Baer has pointed out, 'that almost everything in ethics is either vague or controversial . . . '" (p. 85).
Remarkably, Kohlberg ultimately admitted the limitations of his own method. After trying to implement moral reasoning in actual students, Kohlberg confessed that "'the educator must be a socializer teaching value content and behavior, and not only a Socratic or Rogerian process-facilitator of development . . . I no longer hold these negative views of indoctrinative moral education and I believe that the concepts guiding moral education must be partly "indoctrinative"'" (p. 92). Morality, Kohlberg and others have discovered, involves the habitual character of persons as well as their discrete actions. In the past, educators sought to encourage character development by telling the stories of saints and heroes, by insisting on the development of self-discipline, by supplementing the educational efforts of home and church. That John Dewey and his legions of professional educators sought to establish an educational system without reference to home or family goes a long way in explaining why Johnny can't tell right from wrong, for in fact they afford the sole na¬tural environment for moral development.
What kind of a person will I be? Whom will I emulate? These are the real ethical questions, for they are questions of character. History, literature, Scripture, all rooted in the reality of human experience, provide better sources for character development than the artificial in¬tellectual exercises. Authentic morality begins, as did Charles Dickens' David Copperfield with this important perspective: "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."
To give us guidance in attaining that end, we'd do well to embrace the words of Dostoevsky's Alyosha, in The Brothers Karamazov, "'You must know that there is nothing higher and stronger and more wholesome and useful for life in after years than some good memory, especially a memory connected with childhood, with home. People talk to you a great deal about your education, but some fine, sacred memory, preserved from childhood, is perhaps the best education. If a man carries many such memories with him into life, he is safe to the end of his days, and if we have only one good memory left in our hearts, even that may sometime be the means of saving us'" (p. 142). Given such a "sacred memory," one may become a moral person, able to live wisely and well. Given such a "sacred memory," one may then learn to live righteously, nurtured in the traditions of virtuous behavior. Parents especially can contribute to this process. First of all, they must stay mar¬ried! Restoring the integrity of marriage, staying true to the marriage vow, is basic to the develop¬ment of morality in children.
Then parents must also impose discipline upon and encourage self-discipline in their children. Just as musicians must submit to rigorous discipline in their early years before becoming self-directed and creative professionals, so children must submit to moral discipline before discovering the liberty of maturity. Kids who do chores, who feel important in maintaining the family's operation, become adults with self-esteem and self-confidence. Parents with religious con¬vic¬tions who insist their children participate in their spiritual life further enhance their moral development. Parents must, finally, take control of the TV. The stories children hear must be healthy, uplifting, morally-enhancing. This means the TV must be housed in a remote corner rather than the center of the home. Moms and dads must begin the ancient process of reading the right stuff to their kids (as well as to themselves). "Reading and listening to the right sort of stories creates a primitive emotional attachment to behavior that is good and worthy; it implants a love and desire for virtue in the child's heart and imagination; it helps to prevent moral blindness" (p. 267).
If the schools would contribute to childrens' moral development, the development of good character, they must expose students to good art, good music, good literature, complementing the parents' nurturing endeavors. This means studying the right stories . . . stories rooted in truth of reality, not the "idyllic imagination" espoused by the likes of Joseph Campbell (the mythologist who influenced popular productions such as Star Wars. Parents and teachers interested in finding the stories which encourage moral development will be pleased with Kilpatrick's final chapter, a "guide to great books for children and teens," a fifty-five page annotated bibliography suggesting age-appropriate books ranging from Laura Ingalls Wilder to J.R.R. Tolkien. This chapter alone makes Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong worth perusing!

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. Proverbs 22:6

In recent years, a plethora of books, many of them excellent reading, have been published on the decline of moral ethics and intellectual knowledge, both in our educational establishment and within society at large. However, if one wants to focus specifically on the decline of moral discipline on the modern American scene, one could do worse than to read _Why_Johnny_Can't_Tell_Right_from_Wrong_ by William Kilpatrick .

Kilpatrick is (oddly enough) a professor of education at Boston College. (At least that strikes me as peculiar because I have difficulty envisioning any sensible person working in Boston.) He uncovers in detail the history of moral relativism's introduction into the curriculum, the rationalizations for the implementation of various programs, and the philosophical mindset or what Germans call _Weltanschauung _(worldview) of their respective proponents. These are dissected and discredited tartly but without rancor within the limited confines (not including notes and index) of 315 pages.

_Why_Johnny_Can't_Tell_Right_from_Wrong_ begins by describing pedagogic techniques, comparing those methods proven by experience and fashionable fads that stir up a brief flutter of excitement only to be discarded or renamed. Just as phonics was replaced by look-say methods with corresponding deterioration in scholastic achievement, so "character education" has been supplanted by approaches called variously "decision making" or "moral reasoning" to name two. The objective in this switch was ostensibly to enable children to make moral decisions with greater understanding and self-discovery rather than to learn them by rote. Much of the methodology focuses on "New Age" quasi-religious sensibilities and intimidation techniques designed to break down family bonds and loosen cultural inhibitions. The result has been instead, the raising of a generation that is unable to distinguish reasonable moral arguments from mere rationalizations. These future citizens are aware of their own "feelings" but are wholly ignorant and often contemptuous of concepts of absolute right and wrong.

Kilpatrick illustrates these points in subsequent chapters. Narcotics awareness education, for example, situates students in a "bull session" in which those having engaged in drug usage describe their experiences. This gives classroom dominance to the users and places nonusers in an awkward and unresponsive position. Sex education has demonstrated tremendous propensity to encourage sexual activity among unmarried school-age adolescents and by so doing transforming a deeply personal and intimate sharing between couples into a casual recreation. In a still later chapter, the devolution of contemporary "music" receives its share of deserved criticism.

The author goes on to describe two schools of thought currently enamored in schools: one emphasizing personal feelings, the other on moral dilemmas. The first, such as _Quest_ which focuses on "self-esteem", turns teachers into "facilitators" and encourages children to explore a develop their _own_ values and morals. The second, often labeled "values clarification" confuses children into believing that all morality is problematic. Instead of being taught clear examples of right and wrong, immature minds are presented with quandaries that would stupefy Middle East negotiators. The impression children are then left with from either of these exercises is that morality is relative.

The effects of multicultural education are also dissected. When American society is fractionalized, no transcendent themes or common commitments can emerge--merely a collection of groups bickering over snout privileges at the collective feeding trough--the opposite of the American goal of assimilation. Without an understanding of America's moral imperative, historical and even current events lack context. A highschool teacher in Virginia polled his students in three classes and fifty-one out of fifty-three saw no moral difference between the American and Soviet systems of government. The two who could see a difference were both Vietnamese boat children.

Kilpatrick notes that most of us learn moral values from stories and not from ab-stract definitions. He writes, "Morality needs to be set within a storied version if it is to remain morality. Conceived as rule keeping... it never works for long. Instead, it withers into something cold and cautious and, all too often, into self-righteousness. It is, of course, important to keep the rules, but the spirit in which they are kept is equally important." In _Orthodoxy_, G. K. Chesterton confessed, "I have always felt life first as a story." (This probably explains why _A_Book_of_Virtues_ by William Bennett was a best-seller.) Virtue, described in this way, is not simply a matter of abiding by regulations, but on acting in a heroic fashion. It matters, of course, what kind of stories are read. The idyllic vision of the nihilistic 1960s era remains attractive to many. Joseph Campbell represents a facet of this thought by offering an undemanding mythology of pantheistic nature worship. The discipline demanded in Judaeo-Christian ethics is less appealing to the self-indulgent--precisely all the more reason such values must be taught in our society, especially to the young.

The author concludes by admonishing parents to read to their children and providing a list of entertaining stories and novels from which to select. He ends his next-to-last chapter with a quotation from Jim Trelease, "I read because my father read to me. And because he'd read to me, when my time came I knew intuitively there is a torch that is supposed to be passed from one generation to the next. And through countless nights of reading I began to realize that when enough of the torchbearers--parents and teachers--stop passing the torches, a culture begins to die." It is in the hands of parents that ultimately the future learning of children is held. Without that active guidance, the spiritually neglected descendants of our heritage may be morally crippled from productive participation in the world at large--of benefit to neither man nor God. Fortunately, Professor Kilpatrick has given some insight into the problems and the remedies for this calamity, and _Why_Johnny_Can't_Tell_ deserves to be on the reading list of every parent and teacher.

I have taught in pubic school, private school, and home school. This is one of the few books I have ever read that changed my life and made me just want to jump off the couch and become an agent for change. The author got the inspiration for his title from the famous book, Why Johnny Can't Read, written years earlier, which also sounded the alarm about systemic problems within the public school system and the ivory tower world of the liberal education professors. The educational establishment, though perhaps often well-intentioned, is steeped in group-think, and fails to stick to real evidence of results when deciding to use a particular educational approach. Rather, they cling to favorite ways of teaching and favorite program simply because they like them, because they appeal to them personally (rather than because they get results and produce desired student outcomes), or because they have some kind of political or philosophical agenda they are trying to impose. You may not agree with every point, and some information may be becoming out of date as the years go by, but this is still an eye-opening must-read for everyone! [...]

This is a great book and should be required reading for elementary educators. The basic theme is simple.....instead of plopping kids down in front of a computer, gameboy, videos, etc., lets get back to the number one basic - reading! Sounds simple enough. I loved this book. Values, morals, ethics are learned and if Johnny sees nothing but violent video games and reads nothing of virtue and heroes that's how he'll develop.

Kilpatrick addresses moral development in youth. The description on the cover describes the book as "hard-hitting and controversial". I agree with this assessment. I personally agreed with some of what Kilpatrick had to say. He quotes valuable studies and experts. However, he generalizes about public schools leading the reader to believe that "public school sex education programs", "lifestyle" curriculums, and Values Clarification courses ..suggest that they reflect a commitment to moral relativism and a rejection of traditional values." p. 253. This has not been my experience in the schools. I strongly disagree with the statement that traditional values are rejected in public schools in general. He holds up Military schools as exemplary institutions that foster moral growth. Military schools are very authoritarian, not authoritative. Authoritarian discipline may force compliance, and a fixation at a very low stage of moral development (anywhere between "I better obey or I will get punished", or "I better obey because it's the rule. It doesn't matter what other factors are involved." Military schools are currently dealing with sexual harassment legal cases, and are well known for hazing (another word for bullying.) I feel there is a great deal of good in military schools. I have seen them turn some kids around for the better, but they are not the answer to the moral and character problems in our schools today. They may be a part of the answer. He also advocates all male high schools taught only by men...definitely controversial!