 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Implementation of values into the curriculum is a difficult feat to manage. Although the National Framework of Values Education gives us the nine prescribed values that need to be taught, it is up to educators to implement these values in an effective way, whether it is implicitly through modelling and outcomes achievement, or explicitly through discussions or posters. The issues that many teachers, particularly those in secondary education have, is that in the everyday classroom, there is little time to be setting aside a portion to explicit values education. This is where implicit values education is the most likely to be implemented. However, in teaching anything implicitly, there is always the risk that the point will be missed or overlooked. Despite this, the nine values that the National Framework have devised are broad and somewhat superficial, for many, modelling will see them almost unknowingly integrated into the curriculum. Issues in Implementation of Values One of the largest questions in the debate on values education is ‘whose values’ are we representing? As individuals and groups, members of a society, we develop value systems that represent our response to the world. All of our values are different combinations and are used in different ways. There is no way that one can be value neutral. Hill (1991) points out (and it is obvious that he wrote this before the National Framework came into being) that state schools, in order to be fair to all students and to avoid identification with one partisan view of reality, must strive to be value neutral” (p.16). Of course, he was talking about deeper values than those depicted in the framework, but it is interesting to see that there is a fine line between instilling the nine prescribed values and going the step further to deepening the meaning of the values to a point where they are no longer basic and shallow. This is at the risk of implementing value systems that go against people of some cultures.
Brady and Kennedy (2007, p.9) have pointed out the following orientations and functions of the school curriculum, not surprisingly, the idea of values is strong throughout:
Like many issues of curriculum, values education seems to have gone back to basics, but as Brady and Kennedy (2007) point out: “Values education as a curriculum issue is much more complex and challenging than the simple prescription that has been proposed by the National Framework. Simple curriculum prescriptions can easily become simplistic. Yet it is not in the nature of curriculum to be simplistic” (pp.132-137). Brady and Kennedy support the simplicity of the values as unproblematic due to the fact that curriculum is not simplistic in nature, therefore, in regards to the basic nature of the Framework values, educating about values, is much more complex than it seems. The values themselves are simplistic, but their implementation is rich and comprehensive. Explicit or Implicit Below is a table of possible ways of including values into the curriculum, either implicitly or explicitly, it is important, however, that this paper be read first before taking on board the content of the table as many of the ‘simplistic’ suggestions are problematic and need to be fully understood before use.
“[T]he logic of the curriculum is, at every stage, inevitably value-loaded” (Hill 1991, p.97). Hill discusses that regardless of what is taught, how it is taught and what process that content is taught through, students will always be exposed to a value-loaded curriculum. Of course, we teach values even when we don’t realise we are doing it, it would be hidden curriculum to ourselves as teachers, as well as students if we had not gone through years of teacher education in order to make it seem that we are not doing it purposefully. After all, is that not what the concept of ‘hidden curriculum’ is about? While Hill explains that a value is more than a belief or a feeling, it comes with three elements:
(Hill 1991, p.4) It is no wonder that he views curriculum as inevitably value-loaded with so many elements to use in implementing values into the curriculum. His idea is that you cannot turn any way without some sort of value being shown. This, though, is only of benefit if the teacher themselves holds the values (in this case, the National Framework values) as important enough to ‘practice what they preach’: it is of no benefit if the teacher does not believe in the values – it will not manifest in an authentic way.
This modelling and teaching through hidden curriculum offers the student the best opportunity to develop as a functioning member of the society that they live in, and the one that they will be working in, in their futures. Mitchell and Hincks (2005, p.2) in the Values Education Forums: Engaging your school community on the values education website, say that “Participation, encouragement to behave responsibly and provision of a supportive school environment have a positive impact on the development of students’ values” (p.2). this comes through in the way teachers and schools set up an environment that supports values and makes them a part of everyday life so that they become reinforced, relevant and placed in context with their own lives.
Mitchell and Hincks (2005) continue to discuss values, moving onto the topic of values being taught explicitly in schools: “schools being explicit about values, and the extent to which teachers actually practiced shared values, seem to have an important influence on students’ values development” (p.2). In this, they are stating the importance of making values explicit through as mentioned earlier ‘practicing what they preach’. After all, if the idea of values is not made explicit we are risking the attraction of the saying “do as I say, say, not as I do”.
The ‘Values Education Forums: Engaging your school community’ (Values Education Website) (Mitchell and Hincks 2005, p.2) have the following guidelines for teaching values education: Figure 1.3 Guiding Principles for effective values education emphases (Mitchell and Hincks 2005, p.2)
Figure 1.4 Values Education Good Practice Flow Chart, (Mitchell & Hincks 2005, p.3) Is Values Education subject dependent? In teaching values explicitly, we have to look at the subject or learning areas that they are to be taught in. In Studies of Society and the Environment, history, for example: students can be taught how history has affected the present in light of values that people have held throughout the ages. They can be explicitly taught that ‘right and wrong’ have had an impact on the way the world has worked, and that many wars have happened over difference of political opinion – differences in values held by different parties. The valid question is, can this sort of explicit values education be implemented in The Arts? In Mathematics?
One cannot say for sure that it should or should not be embedded explicitly into the curriculum of every learning area because The Arts curriculum for example, is very much different to that of the SOSE curriculum. The Arts, (particularly conceptual) is heavy with issues of self expression and this sees students achieving values education implicitly. Values help self-expression and self-development, as Hill mentions, “Interpreting and integrating our experience cannot wholly be achieved through the bounded meanings of words, and the arts have an essential part to play in enabling us to respond to what we are learning” (Hill 1991, p.116).
Phenix (Hill 1991, p.117) says that The Arts are about “objectifying human subjectivity” that may be used to “enhance self-insight and the knowledge of intersubjective relations” (Hill 1991, p.117), He is saying that the processes (in conceptual forms of art) are implicitly giving evidence of values having been learnt. Hill (1991, p.99) discusses the ‘process model as being “more concerned with how learning occurs than with what it achieves. Thus, the process model implies that in assessment or appraisal the teacher ought to be a critic, not a marker. The good student is one who shows independence of thought rather than an uncritical acceptance of the authorities”. This is an interesting point when we think of what values education is actually in place to employ, particularly in the art classroom. Can values that are taught at school, override other values? For example, Information and Communication Technologies have students searching the internet. Firewalls are installed on computers to protect students against unsavoury issues on the internet. Are we explaining to these students why these firewalls are in place? It would be in their best interests that we explain that we do not tolerate issues such as pornography being a part of a school day. However, in saying this, are we not saying that we are going against one of the values? – to understand, be tolerant and inclusive? We have duty of care to let these students know that it is for their safety and wellbeing that they are not exposed to such issues, however, to give them a double standard of telling them to be tolerant and to understand and include the opinions of others, but only when it is right, is demonstrating a relativist view (all of this is despite the fact that pornography is illegal, and can be transferable to other issues found on the internet that do not go hand in hand with the ethos of the school). Other questions on this issue are:” Is this contradicting the values they are being taught? When is enough, enough? How far is too far? Are there exceptions to the rules? Does the concept of constructive criticism come into play when deciding if we should ‘accept’ another person’s view on internet pornography? Multiculturalism in Values Education Hill talks about pluralism in regards to exploring values put in place for the multicultural classroom: “no one world view or unified value stance exercises a monopoly over the minds of its citizens: hence personal convictions and lifestyles differ, while a middle ground of civic and economic cooperation is maintained by pragmatic negotiation at the level of procedural values” (Hill 1991, p.75) In this, he is indicating that we have adopted the “middle ground” approach to values education in that we choose values that suit every culture. This can be seen as creating a bunch of broad, shallow values, but this is at the expense of creating a value system that alienates any one culture or places controversial values in priority over others. Hill also points out that to be aware of pluralism, does not make one a relativist, it makes sure that we are able to see all values of different cultures around the world. (Hill 1991, pp.75-76).
The question is: how do we know if the values we do teach, are going against values of another culture? Seeing there is no dominant culture, in teaching the framework values, are we using those values that are important to the Australian multicultural society? How can we meet the needs of children from various cultures, if their value systems are different? Although the framework values are basic, there are still some values that may not be held by certain cultures as valuable. We cannot instil the idea that “at school, these are our values, and we abide by these while we are here, but as soon as you go home, you can start (for example) not respecting females, not taking responsibility for your actions, or not accepting others’ points of view”.
By taking on the relativist view that values are different for each culture, is accepting that this may happen. Obviously we have no control over what is taught at home, and we should not have control. But what is important is that what we teach in schools, is valued by parents. This is supporting the values framework and not teaching the students double standards. If they go home at night and are back in a world where the values are strikingly different, they are likely to be confused and the values are not reinforced to ensure a valuable addition to their “funds of knowledge” (Moll et al 2002, p.133). Of course implementation of values into the curriculum is not complete without active participation of parents to reinforce them. (Mitchell & Hincks 2005, p.2) As Brady and Kennedy say: “‘real world’ curriculum: but whose reality?” (2007, p.129).
Conclusion “School curriculum does not exist in isolation from a society’s values and in an important sense is a reflection of those values” (Brady & Kennedy 2007, p.132). All in all, curriculum development of values education should be that we consider whether values need to be explicit or implicit depending on the subject or topic: it can take place in formal curriculum as a discussion during a history class for example, or implicitly in care group – eg. Respect for others. Explicitly in art in valuing other people opinions and beliefs in artwork, or implicitly in Maths where every student has the right to be taught fractions, or not to cheat on a test. Hopefully, as you can see, it is really dependent on what is being taught as to whether it is explicit or not. A teacher’s role should be to evaluate whether or not to include values education explicitly or implicitly into their curriculum. As long as it is taught, whether they are showing it through modelling behaviour, or by saying to a student that they are showing integrity by following through with a promise. “Australia’s future depends upon each citizen having the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and values for a productive and rewarding life in an educated, just and open society”. (MCEETYA: Brady & Kennedy 2007, p.4)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Copyright Beth Eastwood 2007. Property of the University of South Australia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
