Values in Education: Post-Traditional and Radical Centre Approaches
Author: Professor Lorraine M Ling, Dean of Education, La Trobe University, Australia.
A paper presented at University College Dublin - February 2009
When I was invited to give this lecture and to choose a topic, I selected to speak about Values in Education for a number of reasons. I have been involved in research into this topic for many years and this research has been in Australia as well as internationally and it is still a topic of my research. Apart from that, I have become increasingly convinced that, in an era where choice is everywhere, values are central to making intelligent and informed choices. This era has been referred to by Giddens (1994) as “manufactured uncertainty” and Giddens claims that this is an “as if world of scenarios where choice has become obligatory” (p.76). Some firm basis is required for choices to be made, and schools and teachers will inevitably take a value position and influence values. It is impossible to be value free or even value neutral. In a context of fractured values, almost infinite choice, global tensions and challenges to fundamental and traditional positions, the place of values in education becomes even more critical. Given that schools and teachers will inevitably and of necessity influence values, such influence needs to be exerted in a conscious, reflective and systematic way and to be based on sound theoretical concepts. In order to address some of these issues I intend in this paper to outline some of the research in which I have been involved, to discuss some of the recent government initiatives with regard to values in education in Australia and also to review some of the critical literature which informs the field of values in education internationally.
Between 1993 and 1998 an international study was conducted which began in Australia with a study I undertook in conjunction with 2 colleagues. This study took place at a time when the curriculum of schooling had moved from one where social justice was a central agenda, to one where economic reform was a central agenda. We had moved from the 1970s and part of the 1980s where social justice and the redress of disadvantage were underpinning values of education, to an era where economic rationalism and the neo-liberal agenda had taken charge of curriculum, schooling policies and the values for which they stood. In such an era, schooling becomes a tool for economic reform and the place of values in the curriculum is a contested one. It is probably true to say that the place of values in a curriculum is always contested and contentious but schooling by nature, has more closely been associated with provision of life chances, attempts (however unsuccessful) to redress inequality and disadvantage and the act of teaching has been seen as involving empathy, pastoral care and empowerment. The values which underpin the policy of schooling and thus teacher education as well, will reflect a particular discourse of the time. The discourse of economic rationalism espouses such values as competition, competencies, market forces, doing more with less through rationalisation of resources, and reform of society by economic rather than social means. When these values are translated into education policy we see competition between students and schools, league tables of schools and students, national comparative tests, corporate sponsorship of schools and school activities, and a general instrumentalism which pervades the curriculum such that education is a means to an end rather being an end in itself.
In Australia, the history of values education can be traced back to 1885 when a subject “morals and manners” was part of the course of study. In 1905 in Queensland “civics and morals” was added to the syllabus. Sweetman et al (1992) claim however that in the curriculum of the State ofVictoria values education has been somewhat neglected. If values have been taught it has mostly been as part of other subjects notably social education (Johnson, 2000). It was the economic rationalist era of the 2000s which led to a rise in interest in civics and citizenship. Espousing civics and citizenship suits those who currently hold power and wealth. In light of this the interest in values in education grew (Newell and Rimes, 2002). Each statement of national goals for education in Australia has incorporated statements about values in education but as was noted in our study of six countries and their teaching of values, “the values that were espoused in the rhetoric of policy or curriculum documents were not necessarily those that were lived in the practical classroom context” (Ling et al, 1998, p.46).
At the time the Australian study began in 1993, teachers were grappling with an agenda of economic rationalism reflected in policies which directed their work, but were still clinging to personal philosophies which favoured the social justice elements of education. This resulted in a high degree of teacher stress as this incompatibility between individuals and the system became more pronounced and obvious. In interviews with teacher education students to ascertain what they were witnessing in schools with regard to the teaching of values it was clear that there was a vast array of different activities occurring in the name of values in the curriculum or alternatively in some schools, there was an almost total lack of attention to the issue of values in the curriculum.
In the second phase of the study when classroom teachers were interviewed they were asked to name five predominant cultural issues which exert a major influence on the values dimension of curriculum and this was something which the teachers found difficult to discuss.
This was one point which exemplified the problem some educators experience in having any clear or broad basis for the consideration of values education. Educators are frequently able to discuss what happens in a micro-context such as a school, or a classroom, but they are less comfortable about attempting to anchor or ground those perceptions in a broader socio-cultural context (Stephenson, Ling, Burman, Cooper, 1998, p.58).
The recommendations which emerged from the Australian study were that in both pre-service and in-service courses of teacher education there needed to be a more structured and reflective basis for the values dimension of the curriculum.
In an era of economic rationalism, of the four aspects of curriculum – knowledge, skills, values and attitudes – it is the first two which are more easily taught, measured, ranked and sorted. Thus the values and attitudes dimension is likely to get scant attention. However, there was reasonable consensus about some key values which need to underpin curriculum. The key values that educators in Australia regarded as important were: mutual respect and respect for the individual; tolerance; honesty; fairness and justice; respect for student background; freedom of speech and belief; equality; and the right of all to basic education.
Following the first phase of the Australian study, it was replicated in the IrishRepublic, Israel, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK and USA. Within the Irish study the most frequently cited principles which teachers consider essential in making decisions regarding the teaching and development of values were: democratic values, honesty/truth/integrity; equality/equity; care for others; respect for others; religious values; children’s needs, fairness; liberal values/tolerance. It was found in the Irish study that religious values and general social values have traditionally been considered as synonymous and thus teachers in Ireland were not familiar with the concept of values education as a separate curriculum area (Killeavy, 1998).
Across the various countries in which this study was undertaken there were some clear common findings and this reflects the current era of globalisation where traditional national and international boundaries are blurred and broken and where events on one side of the world are instantaneously seen and felt in all other parts of the world. This is an era where traditions are being challenged and changed and could be referred to as a post-traditional era. Giddens (1994) claims that
Tradition is effectively a way of settling clashes between different values and ways of life… Tradition incorporates power relations and tends to naturalize them. The world of “traditional society” is one of traditional societies, in which cultural pluralism takes the form of an extraordinary diversity of mores and customs – each of which however exists in privileged space (p.104).
In a post-traditional era values will be challenged and power bases will change and be changed. Giddens (1994) notes that “In the post-traditional order cultural pluralism, whether this involves persisting or created traditions, can no longer take the form of separated centres of embedded power” (pp.104-5). Consonant with this, it emerged from our international study that educators appeared to lack a discourse to express ideas about values in education and that they have little theoretical basis for decisions regarding values in education.
Since the international study in which we engaged, the Australian government has embarked upon an effort to make values a core part of schooling and has allocated $29.7 million over the years 2004 – 2008 for the Values Education program. Out of this program has emerged a National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools which claims to provide “a blueprint for a consistent approach to the implementation of values education in Australian schools”. In this Framework 9 values for Australian schooling are articulated:
1Care and compassion – care for self and others
2Doing your best – seek to accomplish something worthy and admirable, try hard, pursue excellence
3Fair Go – Pursue and protect the common good where all people are treated fairly for a just society
4Freedom – Enjoy all rights and privileges of Australian citizenship free from unnecessary interference and control, and stand up for the rights of others
5Honesty and Trustworthiness – be honest, sincere and seek the truth
6Integrity – Act in accordance with principles of moral and ethical conduct, ensure consistency between words and deeds
7Respect – Treat others with consideration and regard, respect another’s point of view
8Responsibility – be accountable for one’s own actions, resolve differences in constructive, non-violent and peaceful ways, contribute to society and to civic life, take care of the environment
9Understanding, Tolerance, Inclusion – Be aware of others and their cultures, accept diversity within a democratic society, being included and including others.
In the course of this national values program much consultation was held and many research projects and case study activities were engaged in with critical friends from Universities involved in working with schools across Australia. The cluster with which I was involved consisted of a primary school, a special school and a secondary school in and around Melbourne. The schools were required to undertake a case study and engage in research or a project of some kind which focused upon a specific element of values. In working with the schools it was clear that schools and teachers require a significant level of support and resources to carry out a major program of this kind. The schools involved in the Australian National Values Project claimed that the most predominant needs are for time release, a range of teacher and student resource materials, timely and relevant professional development of teachers, involvement of parents, and access to other research and data collection instruments about values in education.
The issue of effectively measuring outcomes of values and citizenship education is problematic but it is noted that the Australian National Assessment of Civics and Citizenship, is a government project to “monitor and report on student performance against the National Goals for schooling and measures both knowledge and dispositions. The first national survey testing Civics and Citizenship Education (for Years 6 and 10 students) occurred in 2004 and further assessments will take place at three yearly intervals. (Values for Australian Schooling Professional Learning Resources – Secondary, 2005, p.60). Here we see the economic rationalist imperative to measure and test coming through all aspects of schooling and a definite government agenda to ensure that the “correct” understandings of what it means to be an Australian citizen are taught and tested in Australian schools.
This notion of what values schools should teach and who decides what those are has been the focus of much writing. Hooper (2003) has undertaken an extensive literature review as part of the Australian National Values Education study and claims that “the values education landscape seems to have several features that seem to frustrate attempts at achieving clarity and consensus, and any attempt to promote and develop definitive values in a plural context appears fraught with difficulties… it is impossible to reach consensus on anything but moral fundamentals in a pluralistic society. Fleischer (1994) and Holme and Bowker (1994) have concluded there is still no agreement on whether there are universal values that transcend such a society (p171). In fact Taylor (2000) questions whether a prescribed list of values “is an appropriate activity for government and its agencies in a liberal plural society (p.173)”. This raises questions about who decides on what it means to be a citizen of a particular country and how one would effectively test that quality. There is also the question of the values a school puts forward and how they fit with out-of-school values that impact on students. Halstead (1996, p.9) argues when discussing lists of values that “there is no shortage of lists but often little agreement between them”. Halstead (1996) also notes “that more didactic approaches to values education pay too little attention to, and may be in direct conflict with, the values children learn outside school (p.173)”.
In the international study in which we were involved from 1993, we claimed that teachers were not adequately prepared to teach values and also that pre-service teacher education on values in education is limited. Teachers should be presented with models against which they can look at their own value system and attempt to equate it with one based on a recognised theoretical framework (Ling, et al 1998). “Lovat (2000) suggests “there is a need for a professional ethical base for the teaching profession before any effective school-based values education can begin (p.175)”. In 2001, Reynolds conducted a survey in Western Australia. The survey investigated how pre-service teachers were introduced to the theory and practice of values education. In terms of the values held by third year teacher education students it was found
that the values consistently rated low by students were ‘those fundamental to an appreciation of the significance of societal structures and the values of a civil society’ (p.47). Students appear to come to university with personal and societal values largely unexamined, [yet as Reynolds argues] the successful teaching of subjects that have values embedded, depends on young professionals having such a perspective themselves. Professional preparation should include theoretical perspectives that enable practitioners to understand ‘the why and how’ of their practice (p175).
In such a highly contested area as values education where it is acknowledged that teachers require a great deal of time for reflection, knowledge of the theories that underpin values education, professional development in the curriculum of values education and also a clear set of personal values to drive their teaching, what does the future hold? All of the studies discussed in this paper have pointed to similar issues but despite national frameworks for values in schools which attempt to mandate the teaching of values, we still appear to have an extremely ad hoc situation where the rhetoric and the reality are far apart.
We have reflected on the social justice era where the Old Democratic Left flourished along with the values it espoused. We have also seen the impact of an economic rationalist era with New Right or Neo-liberal values which drive education policy along paths towards economic reform of society. The values which citizens are called upon to espouse and to live are thus directed within a nation state, by the prevailing political agenda which drives public policy within that state. One may wish to espouse values which reflect a social justice era, but be working within a system which is directed by policy which reflects and promotes and economic rationalist agenda. This is where there is a legitimacy crisis for states when the citizenry is at odds with the prevailing political ideology. Giddens (1998) along with other commentators and politicians predicted a movement towards a more radical centre, sometimes referred to as the “Third Way”. In this movement we see elements of the Old Democratic Left blending with elements of the New Right to form a Third Way. This movement calls for greater transparency of government and administration at all levels, democratisation rather than democracy, a renewed sense of community with new relationships between individuals and the community. Giddens (1998) claims
The overall aim of the Third Way should be to help citizens to pilot their way through the major revolutions of our time: globalization, transformations in personal life and our relationship to nature. Third Way politics should take a positive attitude towards globalization… Third Way politics should preserve a core concern for social justice, while accepting that the range of questions which escape the left/right divide is greater than before (p.66)