DISCUSSION: If public schools teach values, whose values will they teach?"

[Mling]

I went to public school back in the 50s, when everything was supposedly so wonderful. I don't remember any kind of "values" lessons. I don't see how this can even be a pedagogical issue.

People develop a value system from their upbringing, from examples they observe, and from their life experiences. Classroom didactics have little or nothing to do with it.

True that values are more "absorbed" than "learned," but children spend an enormous amount of time in school, and the time spent there, apart from its quantity, is highly important (it is the place in which children are in the mindset of "need to absorb, need to learn" even if they hate being in that mindset, and even if it is just to pass the next test, they are still in it). "Upbringing" does not just happen at home--it includes the atmosphere of anyplace children spend a good deal of time--school being one of the most important places.
Lecturing on values may not have much impact, but simply including moral lessons in everday experience could.

For example, I read an online cartoon, drawn by somebody who often works lessons he's learned in his own life into the character's lives. One running theme, that he has said is absolutely from his own experience, is bullying in schools--the little geek goes to school being geeky. He get's shoved in a trashcan by a jock. When he talks to the principal, he is told that he is getting beaten up because he refuses to conform, and if he would stop provoking the bully by being a geek, the beatings would end. That is a whole slew of moral lessons, for both the victim and the bully--conformity is superior to individuality. Violence is acceptable if used to promote conformity. "Healthy, red-blooded Americans" act in a certain way (the jocks) and to act otherwise is inherently pathological. Those in authority will/(should) help promote these ideals by allowing the violent abuse of those who refuse to conform to them. This is likely because these people gained authority by conforming to these ideals themselves. Therefore, in order to gain authority or power, in order to "make it," one must conform to these ideals, and, once one has, they may enforce them, violently if need be.

The daughter of one of my mom's coworkers has had a lot of problems like this. She has a mild physical disability--she has poor balance and has a lot of trouble walking backwards. She was regularly harrassed by members of her class, and if, in order to escape from them, she as much as layed a hand on them in order to move past, she got in trouble. Her harrassers did not. They would sometimes surround her, sometimes at the top of stairs with her back to the stairs, and she was not allowed to defend herself. During a meeting, a harrasser's mother defended her child, saying "She needs to learn to get used to it, since she's going to have to put up with it for the rest of her life." The school staff did not (I believe) concur outright, but they did not protect the girl, or suggest that this mother was wrong.

This is a moral lesson.

Moral lessons will always be taught in schools, but schools should make more of an effort to decide to teach certain morals, and then teach them deliberately, rather than simply doing what seems instinctive, and not considering the message. So, when I said that schools should teach general kindness, justice, general curtesy and all the rest, this is what I meant. That schools should decide to teach these principles and then make a deliberate effort to demonstrate them. Perhaps work them into lessons in regular classes.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Well the obvious problem here is that not everyone agrees on what is or isn't a traditional American value.

Most of us can probably agree on "don't steal," "don't cheat," "don't pick fights or call names," but beyond that things get more complicated.

Individual responsibility but service to others, responsibility to God and country, fight for the God-given rights and liberties of others, independence, love for family, these are all traditional American values.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I agree, and the simple American values. Leave the supernatural out of ethics.
Simple humanistic principles:
Social justice, equality, and liberty.
A marketplace of free ideas, this is what I love about my country.

Humanism has its good points, but is not a traditional American philosophy.

 

[Obsequey]

Individual responsibility but service to others, responsibility to God and country, fight for the God-given rights and liberties of others, independence, love for family, these are all traditional American values.

If you left the word "God" out of that, I would have no problem with this.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If you left the word "God" out of that, I would have no problem with this.

Well you are free to have your differences with the mainstream, but history shows us that one of the core principles of our American ethos is "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator . . . ". After all, look at what happens when we take your suggestion:

Individual responsibility but service to others, responsibility to --- and country, fight for the ---given rights and liberties of others, independence, love for family, these are all traditional American values.

--given? Rights given by who? Nature? Nature can be argued to be a force that man should conquer. The government? The government is made up of other men. And besides, what the government gives may also be taken away. Without that foundation our house crumbles.

 

[beechy]

After all, look at what happens when we take your suggestion:

Individual responsibility but service to others, responsibility to --- and country, fight for the ---given rights and liberties of others, independence, love for family, these are all traditional American values.

--given? Rights given by who? Nature? Nature can be argued to be a force that man should conquer. The government? The government is made up of other men. And besides, what the government gives may also be taken away. Without that foundation our house crumbles.

"Individual reasponsibility but service to others, responsibility to your country, fight for the inalienable rights and liberties of others, independence, love for family, these are all traditional American values." There, fixed your insurmountable blanks problem.

 

[beechy]

I think teaching values, ethics and morals is inescapable (i.e., teaching how we should act as an embodiment of the principles of right and wrong). If you reward Johnny for letting Jimmy borrow his pencil, you've taught him that sharing is the right thing to do. If you tell him that he shouldn't make fun of Jane for wearing glasses, you've taught him that it is wrong to pick on people. If you punish him for hitting Jimmy after Jimmy called him a name, you've taught him that violence is the wrong way to respond if your feelings have been hurt. Schools do this all the time, and I don't know how they can avoid it.

But there are certain areas of morality that, at any given time, are controversial, hot button topics. Today, the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality may be one such area. I think it is wise for schools to tread lightly in these areas because parents may be sensitive to the messages their children receive.

 

[DieHappy]

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I would rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament....[A]ll its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well being of civil government."
Benjamin rush

"I proceed...to enquire what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican
governments."

--Benjamin Rush
One of the very few founders who advocated public schooling.

 

[beechy]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

 

[jwoodcould]

Well you are free to have your differences with the mainstream, but history shows us that one of the core principles of our American ethos is "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator . . . ". After all, look at what happens when we take your suggestion:

Individual responsibility but service to others, responsibility to --- and country, fight for the ---given rights and liberties of others, independence, love for family, these are all traditional American values.

--given? Rights given by who? Nature? Nature can be argued to be a force that man should conquer. The government? The government is made up of other men. And besides, what the government gives may also be taken away. Without that foundation our house crumbles.

Oh, you mean T.J., the near-exclusive author of that well-founded insult to the King of England, and my personal favorite founding father. If he had a fan-club I'd be on the bandwagon.

Yea, that same great man that also said these things:
"I … do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They [religions] are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." (letter to Dr. Woods)

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." ("Notes on Virginia")

And my personal favorite,
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings." (letter to John Adams, 11 Aug. 1820)

It is also worth noting another valuable piece of history regarding the moral foundations that this government proposed.

This treaty was read on the floor of the senate, and unanimously approved.
Article. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797)

The full text is easily available via a Google Search if you believe I have taken that quote out of context.

I have done a bit of cherry-picking, but I must defend my beer buddy T.J. when something arises that obviously contradicts what was his true intention.

 

[sbvera13]

I would advocate the teaching of values in the abstract, philosophical sense- studying different value systems and their implications. This is what humanism is, this is what hedonism is, this is what altruism is, etc, like what you'd find in a college ethics course but toned down. Kind of an overview of different schools of thought, with an emphasis on critical thinking. The purpose would be to give students the tools to make their own decisions without telling them what decision they should make. That's a job for their parents and preachers, not public institutions.

Unfortunately critical thinking is probably the least practised and most valuable subject in education. People vastly underestimate the intelligence of children and don't teach them anything hard

 

[NPH]

Oooh, we're doing founding fathers quotes? I've got a few!

Thomas Jefferson:

"The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious ... One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty, he is always in allegiance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own ... History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government ... Political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves [of public ignorance] for their own purpose."

Then there's good old James Madison:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

And that charmer Ben Franklin:

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

John Adams was already mentioned, but here's some from him:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out: This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

"Even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry?"

"In the formation of the American government ... it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven."

Perhaps you'd like some Thomas Paine (contemporary to Benjamin Rush)?

"One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests."

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief ... it produces only atheists and fanatics."

Yep, these guys obviously thought the country was founded on religion ... particularly of the Christian variety.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Oh, you mean T.J., the near-exclusive author of that well-founded insult to the King of England, and my personal favorite founding father. If he had a fan-club I'd be on the bandwagon.

Yea, that same great man that also said these things:
"I … do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They [religions] are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." (letter to Dr. Woods)

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." ("Notes on Virginia")

And my personal favorite,
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings." (letter to John Adams, 11 Aug. 1820)

It is also worth noting another valuable piece of history regarding the moral foundations that this government proposed.

This treaty was read on the floor of the senate, and unanimously approved.
Article. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797)

The full text is easily available via a Google Search if you believe I have taken that quote out of context.

I have done a bit of cherry-picking, but I must defend my beer buddy T.J. when something arises that obviously contradicts what was his true intention.

Hmm all very nice, but TJ never attended the Constitutional Conventions, thus barring him from claiming the title Founding Father. But either way it does not matter. We should look at the principles that have been agreed upon by the majority. Notice that my post does not mention Christ, only god.

 

[jwoodcould]

Plenty of gods to choose from!
Even I can think of one to trust.
Hmm...I'll take the IPU, she has very reasonable requirements.

And to the previous poster, yes. I know. I have more than you can imagine but someone implied the DOI's author had some intention of using the Christian principles. So I put some other quotes of his up, as I am a big fan. To completely refute the entire argument, read the treaty which was read aloud and unanimously approved. I would argue that our government is more religious than it was in the late to early 1700s and 1800s. Not less, which is the common misconception. And if you disagree, would you elect someone who was quoted as saying, "The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion."

 

[chaz345]

And if you disagree, would you elect someone who was quoted as saying, "The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion."

I would in a second IF they were not openly or covertly hostile toward Christianity, and their positions on real issues were what I agree with.

 

[NPH]

I would in a second IF they were not openly or covertly hostile toward Christianity, and their positions on real issues were what I agree with.

So you would not have voted for Thomas Jefferson then, eh?

 

[jwoodcould]

I would in a second IF they were not openly or covertly hostile toward Christianity, and their positions on real issues were what I agree with.

That was from Abraham Lincoln.

 

[jwoodcould]

So you would not have voted for Thomas Jefferson then, eh?

Well, hostile I think signifies some form of physical violence. I don't advocate that, but I do advocate a lack of respect for extremely harmful actions.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I would argue that our government is more religious than it was in the late to early 1700s and 1800s. Not less, which is the common misconception.

Poe's Law strikes again!

 

[chaz345]

So you would not have voted for Thomas Jefferson then, eh?

Where do you get that idea? By hostile I meant someone who would take specific actions to prevent the practice of whatever form of Christianity the practitioner chose. I hardly think that TJ fell into that category. He was speaking about his own personal thoughts without saying anything at all about what he felt others should do. I understand that that may be a hard concept to grasp in today's political arena since it is a sentiment that is almost entirely absent.