Conceptions of Values and Moral Education
In a separate research that I have yet to conclude, one of my findings is that our school teachers have different conceptions of Values and Moral Education. Of the 201 respondents, 43 % believe that Values and Moral Education is critical thinking about evaluative issues, 32 % believe that its function is to transmit a ready set of non-religious values, and 17 % believed that it is a case of inculcating in the students a ready set of religious values. In sum, 49 % of the 201 respondents believe that Values and Moral Education is basically values transmission, inculcation, or indoctrination. The rest, or the remaining 8 %, thought that their notions of Values and Moral Education are not reflected in any of the given definitions.
You are probably asking now: What does this mean? Should the finding that schoolteachers have different notions of Values and Moral Education be a problem? Yes, it is a problem.
The lack of uniformity in AIMS, CONTENT, and PEDAGOGY is often raised about Values and Moral Education. It is said to have no stable, singular identity, and this is a problem that cannot be raised about Math and Science as the conduct of education in these areas of study are more or less stable and uniform in the modern schools.
As we all know, Science education has factual claims to offer and examine. Knowledge in Science, furthermore, is generated by way of inductive thinking and reasoning. In this area, a sound knowledge claim is grounded in material or observed evidence. So, when you say, for instance, to state the Law of Inertia, “A body will remain in its state unless it is acted upon by an outside force,” you are not saying this as though it is true in itself, as though it is a doctrinal truth. Galileo arrived at this general formulation after gathering first the relevant data from which he based his generalization that is the Law of Inertia. Meanwhile, in Mathematics, one cannot just claim that a mathematical proposition, say, 2+2 is 4, is true for no reason at all. There has to be a reason why such proposition is true. The truth of which is demonstrable by appeal to mathematical evidence. Now, the key word in Math and Science is REASON. The use of which is a necessary condition in order for Math and Science to exist the way they do in the context of formal education. And there simply is no quarrel about this among the teachers of Math and Science. The agreement as to the role of Math and Science education--that is to develop the critical, cognitive, inductive, and deductive reasoning abilities of students--remains the same, and there is no impending quarrel as to the meaning of such elements of formal education.
Values transmission
Such is not the status of Values and Moral Education as it comes in many forms. Allow me to discuss what I believe to be the most familiar version of Values and Moral Education. This is Values and Moral Education in the form of values transmission, indoctrination, or inculcation. These expressions suggest the kind of aims, content and pedagogy of Values and Moral Education when it is conceived as a formal education component whose purpose is to transmit selected doctrines which are, more or less, thought to be universal or trans-cultural values. The proponents and those who share this version of Values and Moral Education see no problem in transmitting values that are believed to be the requisites of living a good or righteous life. The set of values, despite the belief of many that it is universally accepted, of course, could vary from one school to another. But the endorsers of certain values are, more or less, dominated by the attitude that what they preach, if adopted, will transform a human being into a morally upright person.
Moral and evaluative reasoning in Values and Moral Education
What should Values and Moral Education be? Just like Math and Science, Values and Moral Education should place equal premium on critical thinking, rational doubting, reasoning, and logical skepticism. Specifically, because it should deal with rational thinking, Values and Moral Education should aim to cultivate the moral or evaluative reasoning abilities of the students. Only through this approach could we possibly maintain the thesis that Values and Moral Education is as meaningful as Math and Science. Only when Values and Moral Education places the same value on the use of reason, when addressing a certain problem or issue, will it count as a legitimate equal of Math and Science.
Will Values and Moral Education then be so useful in real-life situation if it is going to be chiefly concerned with the cultivation of the moral reasoning and other intellectual abilities of the students? Yes, of course. Let me give some examples where having a good deal of training and education in moral and evaluative reasoning is practically valuable.
In any country where the people are supposed to have the freedom to CHOOSE their local and national leaders, good moral and evaluative reasoning is highly important. What will happen to a country whose electorate is composed of voters who are dismally lacking in sophisticated rational VALUATION skills is not difficult to tell. We don’t have to look at other countries in order to say that it will be easy for the incompetent politicians to take those voters who are not capable of reasoned valuation for a ride. Let me give some names: Erap, Noli De Castro, Jaworski, Sotto, Jinggoy Estrada, Lapid, the Revillas, and Freddie Webb. They are a bunch of proofs that a huge number of our voting population lack the capacity to rationally evaluate and choose our national leaders. I think I don’t have to go as far as naming some more clowns that many voters chose to represent them at the House of Representatives. Please pay attention to the word “CHOOSE” because valuing is an instance of choosing. We value by choice. And again the question is, “Do our voters choose or value by rational means?”
Just imagine if all our voters are capable of making highly rational choices. Of course, I am not meaning to suggest that all those who voted for the likes of Lito Lapid and Bong Revilla are stupid valuers. But neither do I mean to say, and I will never do, that most of Lapid’s and Revilla’s supporters are highly rational valuers like you. Did you ever ask yourselves why the likes of Lapid and Revilla will never ever campaign for their candidacy in academic institutions like the University of the Philippines? Yes, because it is not easy to take rational, educated, or well-schooled valuers for a ride. Rational valuers cannot be persuaded by a simple appeal to emotion and popularity, which is what actors- and actresses-turned-politicians are usually doing during the campaign period. Rational valuers can only be persuaded by appeal to reason.
Aside from this, of course, we need a good deal of abilities to do evaluative and moral reasoning if we wish to arrive at a resolution to important value or moral issues. Some of such issues are the following: (1) Should I continue with my pregnancy even if I don’t have the means to support my child? (2) Should we re-activate the death penalty? (3) Is it right for parents to have their child baptized long before the child could make his/her own choice? (4) Should I leave the country and work for the people of other countries? (5) Is it right to legalize same sex marriage? (6) Should we allow divorce? All of these are important value issues for which rational answers are hard to come by when the valuer was schooled in the tradition of VALUES INDOCTRINATION. What the valuer needs, to be a rational solver of value issues, is a solid training in moral and evaluative reasoning.
I'll begin with the aims of Values and Moral Education in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment