|
There is some evidence that the
traditional ways of tackling irresponsible behaviour (sex education,
drugs, education, vandalism education, to name just a few) are not
working. The people charged with making a difference seem lost –
not sure what to do.
Values education is slowly being
recognised as having a beneficial effect in getting youngsters to behave
more responsibly. However, explaining just what values education is and
how it differs from the traditional “educations” is proving difficult.
There is a real need and considerable scope for philosophers of
education to help.
For example, for me, values
education is:
an activity which can take place
in any organisation during which people are assisted by others, who may
be older, in authority or more experienced, to make explicit those
values underlying their own behaviour, to assess the effectiveness of
these values and associated behaviour for their own and others' long
term well-being and to reflect on and acquire other values and behaviour
which they themselves recognise as being more effective for long term
well-being of self and others.
You’ll agree that the definition
is quite a mindful. I would like to see values education become a proper
school subject with the usual fifty-minute time slot, three or four
times per week. During this time, the group (teacher and pupils) would
reflect on and discuss in detail, a particular value such as respect,
honesty, and caring, or a values issue such as teenage pregnancy, drug
abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, euthanasia and vandalism, to name
only a few. One can easily see the need for philosophical input when
discussing these topics.
Values education classes would
differ considerably from the way many traditional subjects are taught in
at least five ways.
1.
Just what values are reflected
upon, by the group (teachers and young people together) is decided by
the group. The teacher (or more experienced person) may offer options as
guidelines but must be willing to examine an option (even one not
originally offered by the teacher) chosen by the group. Consequently,
values education does not have a content as other subjects do. The
content is the process - that is, the oral expression of individuals'
thoughts and views. A wide range of values issues collected from the
content of traditional subjects taught in the school, from newspapers
and television, and from religious texts, for example, could be the
basis for discussion. However, as yet, there is no body of knowledge.
Again, clearly expressing one’s arguments and thoughts is a
philosophical task.
2.
Just what "well-being", "responsibleness",
and "good human relationships" mean is decided individually by each
person during the class. At the end of the class or a series of classes,
a consensus may emerge, but this is not forced by the teacher. In
addition, the consensus view is not forced, explicitly or implicitly, on
any young person, who does not agree. In a values education class pupils
are asked to philosophise.
3.
The teacher's views carry no more
authority than the young people's. Any member of the group is entitled
to state a view as long as it is supported by reasoned discussion.
Teachers are also required to be philosophers to do values education
effectively.
4.
The mode of discussion is one of
mutual respect where pre-agreed rules do not permit, mocking, insulting,
shouting and swearing, and encourage listening and giving reasons for
one's views.
5.
People are not told how to think
or behave in relation to any values issue. Of course, all participants
in the discussion would be expected to abide by pre-agreed rules for
discussion.
In summary, values education
involves evaluating the values (and the potential behaviours that would
arise from holding such values) as expressed by individuals, for their
effect on the well-being of all. There is no code of values to be
promoted or inculcated. Values education classes involve learning by
joint exploration with participants supporting one another. Everyone
recognises they are struggling together to find answers to sensitive,
emotive and perhaps controversial issues. In values education, there is
recognition of equal human worth (ontological worth).
Values education as just described
has favourable implications for philosophy of education. Firstly, the
teaching method is one of doing philosophy. Educators involved in
philosophy in schools and philosophy for children are already to some
extent doing values education. Values education, will ultimately
encourage children from an early age to undertake philosophical analysis
of what it means to be human - of existential ontology (philosophical
anthropology).
Secondly, as soon as one begins
researching in the field of values education, it becomes evident that
the indiscipline of many researchers in using terminology hinders
dialogue. For example, many colleagues can't or refuse to define what
they mean by values education. Similarly, many researchers do not define
what they mean by the "educations". Some claim that generally acceptable
definitions are not possible.
Another aspect
of the undisciplined use of terminology is that the same "education" is
given two or three different names. For example, it seems as if
multicultural education is also called "intercultural education",
"multiethnic education" and "antiracist education". I say
"seems" because at times authors using these terms do not define them.
In addition, to understanding
values education, one has to grapple again with concepts such as
subject, theme, dimension, cross-curricularity and indoctrination.
Surely, making sense of all this is a job for philosophers of education?
Bill Robb is a management and
education consultant based in Aberdeen, Scotland. For more information
and resources on values education or to invite Dr Robb to speak at your
event go to
www.valueseducation.co.uk. This article was originally
published in the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
Newsletter, pp23-244, 1996. |
