Values Education: a fresh look at procedural neutrality

The need for education in moral values is increasingly being recognised today, but how is it to be conducted in schools? In particular we consider the appropriateness or otherwise of a teacher assuming the role of a neutral chairperson in discussion. Advocacy of such a stance is especially associate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Educational studies 1998-07, Vol.24 (2), p.183-193
Main Authors: Ashton, Elizabeth, Watson, Brenda
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agenda Setting
Beliefs
Child Advocacy
Childrens Rights
Controversial Issues (Course Content)
Education
Educational Benefits
Educational Methods
Educational Philosophy
Ethics
Higher Education
Humanities Instruction
Instructional Materials
Moral Values
Morality
Neutrality
Student Empowerment
Teacher Influence
Teacher Role
Teachers
Teaching Methods
Values
Values Education
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The need for education in moral values is increasingly being recognised today, but how is it to be conducted in schools? In particular we consider the appropriateness or otherwise of a teacher assuming the role of a neutral chairperson in discussion. Advocacy of such a stance is especially associated with Lawrence Stenhouse who saw neutrality as a procedural device in order to empower students' own involvement. We point out many of the insights of Stenhouse's approach, but also some of its disadvantages which subtly encourage a popularist form of relativism. We suggest the substitution of procedural neutrality with a different approach, that of critical affirmation. Here the teacher advocates a stance alongside everyone else. This, however, is done in a way that affirms pupils, and their right to personal views, whilst subjecting all views, including the teacher's own, to a close scrutiny, especially regarding implications for the views of others.
ISSN:0305-5698
1465-3400
DOI:10.1080/0305569980240204