21st Century Education & Learning Environments & Values 10 Dec 2006 09:45 pm
Authority of source cont….
I recieved a great comment from Graham Wagner recently about a post I wrote a few months back in relation to teaching students the authority of source. The discussion got into an area of worldview and absolutes. It probably raise a few eyebrows but I am glad a few folk have engaged in the conversation. I believe this is a great conversation to have as we head into an amazingly complicated information age that is overwhelming so many teachers and educators. I have responded to Graham’s comment in this post raising some points on what I believe is important to consider. I thank Graham for his feedback and thoughts. I would say it has given me a reason to sit down and develop these ideas further. You may be interested in having a read of the origanal post first up. I have block quoted Graham’s response to the origanal post. Once again I stress this is an exercise in professional discussion not trying to proove who is right or wrong….. My responses are in italics…
Brett, I’ve been thinking about this post for a while and trying to pinpoint what it is that bothers me about some of the ideas you are putting out. Firstly, I am not a Christian so my worldview is not the one you refer to personally, although my childhood and school life centred around my parents’ denominational education choices. I personally think it is essential that church and state are kept separate, because as soon as religion starts imposing its worldview in education, there is no room for any other.
This is always an interesting point Graham, as it begins to point out the very often held view that there is such thing as no religion. Like it or not there will always be a predominant worldview imposed in our society. If it is not Christianity or any other main stream religion it will more than likely be humanism – Which in itself is a religion. My argument would be that it is impossible for us to separate religion and state as there is always going to be a set of values or beliefs held by those who make decisions in our society.
Look at the “intelligent design” movement in the US as a classic example of how “truth” can be presented as legitimate education.
I am not sure how this is an argument for your prior point. The intelligent design movement is based on scientific fact that is being taught in schools. You can not tell me that evolution is the only science of our existence that should be taught? Evolution is still a theory and if I am to teach children with an unbiased worldview or set of values I owe it to them to present all the scientific facts and theories. Your argument is set on not being bias to any one world view that I find it intriguing that you would suggest that the “intelligent design” movement somehow not be a legitimate scientific theory or fact that could be taught to students? The internet and other technologies allow children to search and learn more about others opinions and beliefs – which I actually believe is a wonderful thing. Our separation of church and state ideals would say cut children off from studying intelligent design as another theory of our existence – in fact the science of intelligent design Verse the science of evolution is a marvellous exercise that will get children thinking as long as both cases are presented fairly.
Look at the schools featured in Taliban ruled Afghanistan (the movie Kandahar featured some scenes showing their worldview teaching). When I was at school, this form of truth, referred to as doctrine, could not be countered by alternative points of view via a medium such as the internet – so my own skills of determining what beliefs or values I would hold in life were very slow to develop.
I agree with you here (mind you a comparison between Taliban school and Christian school would be extreme) – a Christian school or any educational institution that has a particular religion at its foundation is not doing any favours to students by censoring them from other philosophies in the world. Our students need to learn what else is out there. My argument in the earlier post was simply that if there is no absolutes in life then we have no way of coming back to a solid foundation to test all other philosophies on. You will test philosophies that come across in your world based on the set of values you hold in your life. However, if a student is not taught some set of values what have they got to base their opinions on?
Your absolute truth may or may not be mine – so as soon as that happens, it can’t be absolute for everyone else.
True but it is still absolute truth to me… I hold certain values as absolutes which form my basis for judging other philosophies. These absolutes have been developed over time as I have learnt and observed particular parts of life. Once again, my argument here is more along the lines of having some form of absolutes as a foundation.
My parents sought to impose their values based on their church worldview onto me, and through their choices tried to ensure that no other alternatives were discussed or acknowledged.
This to me is nothing more than religion for the sake of tradition – something that bugs me about many church groups – An idea that we must mask our children from all other forms of thinking and philosophies of the world. This creates nothing more than narrow minded young people that don’t know how to cope in the real world. They grow up either becoming bitter toward the church or having no basis to express their views and opinions. I personally believe that we need to give children a firm foundation of truth and then teach them about what other people and cultures believe and their reasons for their beliefs. Having done this myself during my tertiary studies I believe it helped me understand my faith much more clearly and gain a much broader perspective on the world. It also helped me have an understanding of absolutes and the values I have for my life.
So I worry when I see words like “they have no set of values ” because my thought is that it comes off sounding like that those of us who have declined religion have no values or cannot recognise truth.
I am sorry if my original post gave you this idea…. However, I find it very interesting to think that we can create a perception that truth can be something that can be manipulated to be wha ever it is we as humans want it to be. I am sure you have a set of values for life and core values that you bring into your educational world, however, those values will always be based upon a worldview or philosophy of some sort. It may be post-modernism or humanism or new age beliefs, either way your perception of truth and values are based on some foundation you have set in life through your own experiences.
To conclude – I am concerned that we don’t give children the opportunity to create a firm foundation of what they believe. Once we have done that we create opportunity for them to be real learners who are able to discern information and interact within an age of information that seems so overwhelming to many of us. Our schools need to make our students independent learners who have the ability to think for themselves and realise that all judgments of truth in their world will ultimately fall on their personal foundation of beliefs or worldview. I can not base my opinions of what is right and wrong or true on negative past experiences and I certainly hope that students will be educated enough to learn how to understand the world through critical thinking and thought processes rather than simple experience.
I always enjoy a good discussion on these areas. I think it is important as 21st Century educators to think throug these issues as we work out ways to deal with this information environment. Values education is seeming to be more and more important. Of course that raises the question of whose values then should be taught? Thoughts?!?!?!
on 14 Dec 2006 at 5:22 am 1.Graham Wegner said …
Brett, I’m pleased to read you considering my comments with the seriousness that they were written. As much as it was a risk on your part to put your personal views ”out there” so it was a risk for me to engage in your conversation and put my views on show. Hopefully together, we can model a professional online conversation and stay true to our own point of view whilst being respectful of each other’s.
As you countered each of my points, you raise new aspects of thought – some of which we will have to agree to disagree with and some that will either get you reconsidering or expanding. I’m going to “steal” a response style that Alex Hayes used really well with me in a debate in the comments section of Leigh Blackall’s blog – one that has led to a strong mutual respect. I don’t want to rehash my original comment but I’ll reproduce relevant parts of your response without picking over every single sentence. Here goes:
Brett says:…there will always be a predominant worldview imposed in our society. If it is not Christianity or any other main stream religion it will more than likely be humanism – Which in itself is a religion.
I say: I can’t disagree about dominant worldview – it could be Rupert Murdoch’s worldview or the Catholic church’s – worldview is not the exclusive domain of religion. On the topic of humanism (which isn’t a movement that I personally identify with) there is enough debate around to muddy the waters on whether it can be called a religion. It depends on agreed definition – your worldview says it is, and mine says it isn’t. Agree to disagree?
Brett says: My argument would be that it is impossible for us to separate religion and state as there is always going to be a set of values or beliefs held by those who make decisions in our society.
I say: So the decision makers are the ones telling us what goes? Or is it majority rules? What about the minority beliefs and opinions? Is a secular education system impossible or undesirable? You imply that it is impossible but I think that it should be something desirable worth working towards.
Brett says: I find it intriguing that you would suggest that the “intelligent design” movement somehow not be a legitimate scientific theory or fact that could be taught to students?
I say: I’ll admit that was an off-the-cuff example based on my (slender) knowledge of intelligent design’s controversy in several US states where it was proposed that its teaching replace that of evolution in science curriculum. But my brief searching on the web finds conflicting views of equal weight as to whether intelligent design is a scientific theory or a religious theory. Courts and different experts are hardly in consensus. So if you say ID is just a theory (and I didn’t offer evolution as a truth in my comment), then I apologise for a poor example.
Brett says: However, if a student is not taught some set of values what have they got to base their opinions on?
I say: As generally, kids don’t live in an isolated world, they acquire values in many ways that aren’t necessarily explicitly taught to them. I teach values every day to my kids through my actions, the way I interact with others, the way I treat them. Everyone has values – whether you or I believe them to be worthwhile, that’s another thing! I gained values from my teachers (well, maybe one or two of them) or I saw values I did not like.
Brett says: True but it is still absolute truth to me… I hold certain values as absolutes which form my basis for judging other philosophies. These absolutes have been developed over time as I have learnt and observed particular parts of life. Once again, my argument here is more along the lines of having some form of absolutes as a foundation.
I say: One of the meanings for absolute is “not to be doubted or questioned” – your argument is that you need absolute truths as a building block for values, as a basis for your actions in life. I disagree – I think absolute truth is impossible, because something that is absolute has to hold true for everybody in existence. That starts to become part of the metaphor about seeing things in black or white, or in different shades of grey. Surely an absolute truth would be so blindingly obvious that it would be impossible to disagree with. I’m struggling to think of one – maybe murder, but then war would be wrong and the death penalty would be wrong – I suppose I’m trying to say there are so many exceptions to any truth that truth itself has a very slippery meaning.
Brett says: I personally believe that we need to give children a firm foundation of truth and then teach them about what other people and cultures believe and their reasons for their beliefs.
I say: Do you mean the concept of what truth is? Or do you mean teach the predominant set of beliefs with a view to including other viewpoints and their reasons? I am unsure of your intent here.
Brett says: I am sure you have a set of values for life and core values that you bring into your educational world, however, those values will always be based upon a worldview or philosophy of some sort. It may be post-modernism or humanism or new age beliefs, either way your perception of truth and values are based on some foundation you have set in life through your own experiences.
I say: I couldn’t agree more, but I don’t think that these values need to fit into a category of any kind – you are right, they have been shaped by my life experiences. They are my worldview. Everyone’s worldview is totally unique even if they choose to align themselves to a particular belief system or chosen lifestyle – but perception is not something that is created, to me, it is your own personal worldview.
Your last paragraph I concur with completely – but it seems at odds somewhat with your original post where you said, “How can we expect young children to decide what is true and not true if we have a society that teaches us that truth is what ever you want it to be?” Is that what you hear society saying?
Brett, thanks for the opportunity to engage in this interesting conversation. At no stage am I “having a go at you“ or your beliefs – just trying to help you understand where I’m coming from and what I’m struggling to understand about your thoughts. Cheers.
on 14 Dec 2006 at 11:56 pm 2.Brett said …
This is great Graham… I am currently sitting at the airport on the way home from a conference. Just finished presenting and need some switch off time –
Will get back to it tomorrow.
on 15 Dec 2006 at 5:14 pm 3.Brett said …
Hi again Graham… I am going to give this some more thought next week. I flew last night with a sinus infection and now find myself in a fair bit of pain. Deep thinking is probably not on the menu this weekend. However, I did want to thank you for your openness and willingness to comment and share your views. I do not take this lightly and thank you for contributing to the conversation. This is a good conversation worth having at the moment, as there are interesting times we are in and heading towards with the information environment changing rapidly. Stay tuned next week