Perhaps the most frequently raised challenge to proposed moral education programs is "Whose values". Polls (民意调查) consistently reveal that the vast majority of Americans support moral education in the public schools, but when a specific proposal is made in a specific community, it invariably raises concerns about the content of the education. Some mistake moral education for education. Others fear it will be a form of religious education. Some fear moral education will be a form of strict mind control. Three basic approaches have been identified in dealing with this issue. The first approach assumes a justified content and the goal of it is to acquire this content, typically highlighting a list of values or virtues that serve as the core of the courses. It proposes to teach the code of ethical behavior, list of values or character traits etc. by a variety of methods. Traditional character education approaches tend to fall in this category. In the second approach, the individual is assumed to have an innate (固有的) tendency to develop into a moral agent; the role of education is to provide the necessary context in which this natural "flowering" can occur. Imposing a specific content is strongly opposed by this approach. The third approach focuses on the construction of moral reasoning capacities, which are understood to be a product of the interaction of innate qualities with one’’s experience in the physical and social worlds. Content is largely ignored as the focus is on reasoning structures and decision- processes. Proposed courses do not support specific content; rather they provide the opportunity to apply one’’s reasoning to a variety of contents. Here content is used as the medium for producing development. All three approaches have been "accused" of being too idealistic and they tend to "accuse" each other of the same failing. It should be noted that these positions tend to represent the wording more than the practice of moral education. Which of the following statement is NOT true according to the passage