The teaching system that was “focussed preponderantly on the more academically
selective portion of the population, on the learning and cultural preference of the hegemonic
white, largely Anglo-Celtic population, on the essential literacies of language, mathematics,
science, history and the arts” (Lovat, 2005a, p. 2) has now changed. Schools are now
involved, to a greater degree, in a social agency role, which involves some transmission of
values. The need for schools to increase their role in Values Education has been caused by a
number of factors. These include the need for any society to undertake measures to protect its
values when they come under threat and the changing structure of Australia’s families.
Societies that are being placed under pressure by rapid changes will often reminisce,
usually through rose-coloured glasses, about the good old days and the values that were an
essential part of those times. In reinforcing these traditional values societal groups often hope
to relive these ‘golden’ days. In recent decades Australia has also seen a dramatic change in
the structure of its families. There has been a decline in extended families with “a
corresponding loss of supervision and support for young parents” (Australian Institute of
Criminology, 1991, p. 293). In the new millennium there is a higher number of families
where both parents work and subsequently there are now fewer mothers staying home to do
housework and childcare (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003a, ¶ 1). There has also been an
increase of 53% in the number of one-parent families between 1986 and 2001compared to an
increase of only 3% in the number of couple families with children (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2003b, ¶ 1). Due to these changes in family structures it is reasonable to assume
that a student’s school life is often the most stable part of their environment and because of
this stability school life is increasingly influential in the formation of a student.
Research undertaken in the 1990s also stressed the importance of teaching in the
formation of students. This research discovered that teachers, through quality teaching, could
effect real change in their students regardless of their students’ backgrounds (Lovat, 2005a, pp. 3-4). As Terence Lovat (2005a) states, research into quality teaching involves more than
factual learning but involves the engaging of “the whole person in depth of cognition, social
and emotional maturity, and self-knowledge” (p. 5). This will involve personal and social
values inculcation (Lovat, 2005a, p. 8). With this increased recognition of the importance of
quality teaching in students’ lives came changes in government policy related to the roles of
schools in Values Education.
The first noticeable, published change which indicated a Government move towards
secular schools taking an increased role in Values Education is to be found in the National
Curriculum framework on SOSE (Curriculum Corporation, 1994). For the first time, in a key
education policy document aimed at teachers in public schools as well as
independent/Catholic schools, outcomes dealing with morals were listed. In the strand of
Culture, two outcomes listed under “Personal, group and cultural identity” are:
6.9 Analyses the core values of groups and societies
8.9 Evaluates moral and ethical issues and justifies personal positions (p. 6).
Some state education authorities started to look at Values Education around this time (Hill,
2004, p. 9). From these beginnings in the 1990s there has been an increased push during the
early stages of this millennium for values to be taught in secular as well as religious schools.
These specific policy movements will be commented on below.
Approaches to teaching values
Schools and teachers have chosen different approaches to the teaching of values.
The Values Education Study: Final report (2003) gives little information on the ways values
have been taught to Australian school children in recent years, but it does state that many schools that took part in its study “sought a synthesis of two contrasting views” (p. 9). These
two views are:
Advocates of the character education or more prescriptive approach primarily
argue that schools should play a more extensive role in the teaching of societal values
and favour instilling values via direct instruction, often using specifically-designed
programmes.
Cognitive-developmental theorists have argued that values or moral education
should be promoted through the development of reasoning, and hence advocate such
teaching methods as moral reasoning using moral dilemmas to develop students’
moral judgements and values clarification. (Values Education study: Final report,
p. 9)
The first method involves schools using direct instructional techniques through their
teaching. Certain values are placed before the students as being necessary. This would be
classified by Straughan (1988) as “Value transmission”, which would also include the
everyday transmission of values by teachers through their words and actions, which affect
children’s beliefs and behaviours (pp. 13-15). The second method, mentioned above, would
seem to draw heavily on the work of Lawrence Kohlberg on moral reasoning in which he
theorises that people in all cultures progress through a set pattern of stages of moral
development (Straughan, p. 18). This method promotes the development of reasoning in
students through teaching methods such as using moral dilemmas. These dilemmas assist in
the development of students’ moral reasoning and enable them to clarify their values and
those around them. As Straughan (p. 22) states, it must be remembered that Kohlberg
himself changed some of his views on the education of students in morals, “The educator
must be a socializer, teaching value content and behaviour, not merely a Socratic facilitator
of development” (Kohlberg, 1978, p. 84). Generally, critics encourage a whole school approach to the education of values. This
involves the teaching of values across all the curriculum areas, including English, as well as a
curriculum area implemented for the specific teaching of values (Cooper, Burman, Ling,
Razdevsek-Pucko & Stephenson, 1998, p. 163, Straughan, 1988, p. 126). In a Catholic school
this approach would be seen as part of the Religious Education syllabus while in nonreligious
schools it might go under the title of “Civics and Citizenship” or something similar.
While the Values Education study: Final report (2003) does not suggest a specific Values
Education curriculum subject area it does suggest, “Schools apply their Values Education
priorities to their overall curriculum provision ” (p. 14). The National Framework for Values
Education in Australian schools (2005) states that schools should be “ensuring values are
incorporated into school policies and teaching programmes across the key learning areas” (p.
3). In recent Federal Government publications it is now suggested that schools should have
co-curricular programmes in Values Education (A whole school approach: Values Education
for Australian schooling poster, 2006).
Values Education in Tasmanian schools
Catholic schools are specifically established to promote Catholic values, which are
seen as an essential part of a Catholic school’s curriculum. Individual subjects, in a Catholic
school, are aimed not only at teaching knowledge but also at “the acquisition of values and
the discovery of truth” (The Catholic school, 1977, p. 34). “Every curriculum area or subject
that is taught within a Catholic school has a religious dimension, a capacity to assist students
to examine the world of human culture and the world of religion, providing knowledge and
skills, and fostering attitudes and values that are life-giving and that assist young people to
search for meaning and truth” (GNFL, 2005, p. 25). While values influence all aspects of a Catholic school they are particularly relevant
to the specific Religious Education curriculum of a Catholic school. The Religious Education
curriculum for the Catholic Archdiocese of Hobart, which covers all Catholic schools in
Tasmania, recognises the importance of values in Religious Education in Schools. This
curriculum, entitled Good News for Living (GNFL) (2005), emphasises the importance of
teaching values to students as a necessary component of an education in a Catholic school.
Among the core values and purposes listed as being essential to learning in a Catholic context
are:
• understanding, accepting and valuing differences among people personally, culturally,
spiritually and religiously.
• responding to situations with compassion and care for others.
• valuing the dignity of each person.
• being in solidarity with those who suffer.
• valuing and practising forgiveness and reconciliation.
• developing an informed moral conscience.
• being able to lead others, using the gifts of enterprise and innovation.
• seeking, speaking and living the truth.
• acting with an attitude of compassion and service towards others.
• upholding and protecting the most vulnerable lives.
• empathising with those who are poor, needy or marginalised.
• responding proactively to those who are poor, needy or marginalised.
• responding with compassion to those who are sick or in need.
• respecting the sanctity of life.
• valuing the freedom of all people.
• valuing human rights.
working for a just and compassionate society. (GNFL, pp. 86-87)
selective portion of the population, on the learning and cultural preference of the hegemonic
white, largely Anglo-Celtic population, on the essential literacies of language, mathematics,
science, history and the arts” (Lovat, 2005a, p. 2) has now changed. Schools are now
involved, to a greater degree, in a social agency role, which involves some transmission of
values. The need for schools to increase their role in Values Education has been caused by a
number of factors. These include the need for any society to undertake measures to protect its
values when they come under threat and the changing structure of Australia’s families.
Societies that are being placed under pressure by rapid changes will often reminisce,
usually through rose-coloured glasses, about the good old days and the values that were an
essential part of those times. In reinforcing these traditional values societal groups often hope
to relive these ‘golden’ days. In recent decades Australia has also seen a dramatic change in
the structure of its families. There has been a decline in extended families with “a
corresponding loss of supervision and support for young parents” (Australian Institute of
Criminology, 1991, p. 293). In the new millennium there is a higher number of families
where both parents work and subsequently there are now fewer mothers staying home to do
housework and childcare (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003a, ¶ 1). There has also been an
increase of 53% in the number of one-parent families between 1986 and 2001compared to an
increase of only 3% in the number of couple families with children (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2003b, ¶ 1). Due to these changes in family structures it is reasonable to assume
that a student’s school life is often the most stable part of their environment and because of
this stability school life is increasingly influential in the formation of a student.
Research undertaken in the 1990s also stressed the importance of teaching in the
formation of students. This research discovered that teachers, through quality teaching, could
effect real change in their students regardless of their students’ backgrounds (Lovat, 2005a, pp. 3-4). As Terence Lovat (2005a) states, research into quality teaching involves more than
factual learning but involves the engaging of “the whole person in depth of cognition, social
and emotional maturity, and self-knowledge” (p. 5). This will involve personal and social
values inculcation (Lovat, 2005a, p. 8). With this increased recognition of the importance of
quality teaching in students’ lives came changes in government policy related to the roles of
schools in Values Education.
The first noticeable, published change which indicated a Government move towards
secular schools taking an increased role in Values Education is to be found in the National
Curriculum framework on SOSE (Curriculum Corporation, 1994). For the first time, in a key
education policy document aimed at teachers in public schools as well as
independent/Catholic schools, outcomes dealing with morals were listed. In the strand of
Culture, two outcomes listed under “Personal, group and cultural identity” are:
6.9 Analyses the core values of groups and societies
8.9 Evaluates moral and ethical issues and justifies personal positions (p. 6).
Some state education authorities started to look at Values Education around this time (Hill,
2004, p. 9). From these beginnings in the 1990s there has been an increased push during the
early stages of this millennium for values to be taught in secular as well as religious schools.
These specific policy movements will be commented on below.
Approaches to teaching values
Schools and teachers have chosen different approaches to the teaching of values.
The Values Education Study: Final report (2003) gives little information on the ways values
have been taught to Australian school children in recent years, but it does state that many schools that took part in its study “sought a synthesis of two contrasting views” (p. 9). These
two views are:
Advocates of the character education or more prescriptive approach primarily
argue that schools should play a more extensive role in the teaching of societal values
and favour instilling values via direct instruction, often using specifically-designed
programmes.
Cognitive-developmental theorists have argued that values or moral education
should be promoted through the development of reasoning, and hence advocate such
teaching methods as moral reasoning using moral dilemmas to develop students’
moral judgements and values clarification. (Values Education study: Final report,
p. 9)
The first method involves schools using direct instructional techniques through their
teaching. Certain values are placed before the students as being necessary. This would be
classified by Straughan (1988) as “Value transmission”, which would also include the
everyday transmission of values by teachers through their words and actions, which affect
children’s beliefs and behaviours (pp. 13-15). The second method, mentioned above, would
seem to draw heavily on the work of Lawrence Kohlberg on moral reasoning in which he
theorises that people in all cultures progress through a set pattern of stages of moral
development (Straughan, p. 18). This method promotes the development of reasoning in
students through teaching methods such as using moral dilemmas. These dilemmas assist in
the development of students’ moral reasoning and enable them to clarify their values and
those around them. As Straughan (p. 22) states, it must be remembered that Kohlberg
himself changed some of his views on the education of students in morals, “The educator
must be a socializer, teaching value content and behaviour, not merely a Socratic facilitator
of development” (Kohlberg, 1978, p. 84). Generally, critics encourage a whole school approach to the education of values. This
involves the teaching of values across all the curriculum areas, including English, as well as a
curriculum area implemented for the specific teaching of values (Cooper, Burman, Ling,
Razdevsek-Pucko & Stephenson, 1998, p. 163, Straughan, 1988, p. 126). In a Catholic school
this approach would be seen as part of the Religious Education syllabus while in nonreligious
schools it might go under the title of “Civics and Citizenship” or something similar.
While the Values Education study: Final report (2003) does not suggest a specific Values
Education curriculum subject area it does suggest, “Schools apply their Values Education
priorities to their overall curriculum provision ” (p. 14). The National Framework for Values
Education in Australian schools (2005) states that schools should be “ensuring values are
incorporated into school policies and teaching programmes across the key learning areas” (p.
3). In recent Federal Government publications it is now suggested that schools should have
co-curricular programmes in Values Education (A whole school approach: Values Education
for Australian schooling poster, 2006).
Values Education in Tasmanian schools
Catholic schools are specifically established to promote Catholic values, which are
seen as an essential part of a Catholic school’s curriculum. Individual subjects, in a Catholic
school, are aimed not only at teaching knowledge but also at “the acquisition of values and
the discovery of truth” (The Catholic school, 1977, p. 34). “Every curriculum area or subject
that is taught within a Catholic school has a religious dimension, a capacity to assist students
to examine the world of human culture and the world of religion, providing knowledge and
skills, and fostering attitudes and values that are life-giving and that assist young people to
search for meaning and truth” (GNFL, 2005, p. 25). While values influence all aspects of a Catholic school they are particularly relevant
to the specific Religious Education curriculum of a Catholic school. The Religious Education
curriculum for the Catholic Archdiocese of Hobart, which covers all Catholic schools in
Tasmania, recognises the importance of values in Religious Education in Schools. This
curriculum, entitled Good News for Living (GNFL) (2005), emphasises the importance of
teaching values to students as a necessary component of an education in a Catholic school.
Among the core values and purposes listed as being essential to learning in a Catholic context
are:
• understanding, accepting and valuing differences among people personally, culturally,
spiritually and religiously.
• responding to situations with compassion and care for others.
• valuing the dignity of each person.
• being in solidarity with those who suffer.
• valuing and practising forgiveness and reconciliation.
• developing an informed moral conscience.
• being able to lead others, using the gifts of enterprise and innovation.
• seeking, speaking and living the truth.
• acting with an attitude of compassion and service towards others.
• upholding and protecting the most vulnerable lives.
• empathising with those who are poor, needy or marginalised.
• responding proactively to those who are poor, needy or marginalised.
• responding with compassion to those who are sick or in need.
• respecting the sanctity of life.
• valuing the freedom of all people.
• valuing human rights.
working for a just and compassionate society. (GNFL, pp. 86-87)
No comments:
Post a Comment