-
michigangradftw
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:14 am
Hi, I would really appreciate feedback on my analysis of the following issue:
"Schools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills and not for teaching ethical and social values."
Education of youth is one of a society's most important roles. However, just how far that education should go is often a hotly debated topic. On one side of the spectrum exist those who believe schools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills, and that they should stay completely out of teaching ethical and social values. On the other side of the spectrum exist those who believe schools should teach academic skills, ethical values, and social values side by side. There are often a diversity of camps compromising the groups at each end of the spectrum, along with a litany of middle ground viewpoints. I find both ends of the spectrum extremely questionable. Instead, I believe a middle ground that exposes children to the spectrum of ethical and social values and only promotes those few values upon which the vast majority of families can agree to be the best solution.
But before exploring the middle ground further, it is useful to understand why it is important for schools to not simply teach academic skills. Students spend a large amount of time at school, and psychological research shows that students often learn from and model their peers more strongly than they do their parents. Schools are therefore an immensely important formational social as well as academic time for students. Young children learn the boundaries of social behavior, and they constantly push against those and learn the exact places of lines as they age. A school must therefore regulate these social activities in the promotion of certain social values. Unregulated, students may lie, steal, or cheat. We ought to promote social values instead of honesty, generosity, and integrity. These values can be considered prosocial, they promote the healthy socialization of humans. Similarly, students learn the boundaries of ethical behavior, and schools most promote ethical values of integrity. This may be as simple as discouraging cheating, but schools clearly need at least some role. Those who argue otherwise risk releasing our graduates into the world with poor social and ethical values that are harmful for society.
Similarly, those who believe that schools should teach a set of ethical and social values, as it does teach academic facts, are sorely mistaken. The realm of ethical and social values is clearly a philosophical question. What makes for an ethical or prosocial decision depends entirely upon the value system of the the person making the decision, and in a single situation, numerous potential behaviors can be considered ethical or socially acceptable. Schools would be overstepping their bounds if they claimed to know how to singly act in specific situations, according to certain ethical and social values. Students come from extremely different backgrounds, and that would be socializing everyone to believe the same thing, something we must avoid at all costs. Diversity is a value to be respected, and the diversity of social and ethical values that parents want to teach their children must be respected. An example of differing values might be the child of an immigrant whose parents are barely making each bill and the child of a family with generations of wealth. Whereas the immigrant may find it perfectly ethical to not volunteer any of his/her time, instead focusing on making ends meet and preparing for his/her future, the more affluent individual, perhaps after reading Peter Singer, may believe that we have an obligation to the poor that we cannot surrender.
To resolve the tension between the two poles, I believe a middle ground can be reached. It would be best for schools to teach the spectrum of potential ethical and social values one can hold. The schools can also equip the students with the thinking tools to understand the benefits and cons to each of the potential value systems. This therefore helps each student answer the personal, philosophical question of what his/ her ethical and social values are on his/her own accord. Schools could also hold discussions where students voice their opinions, but where the teacher does not ultimately legislate a correct value. In some cases, however, the school could indeed legislate a correct value -- those values that almost all student's families could agree on. These would be the type of values referenced in why schools cannot simply teach academic skills. Almost all families can agree that students should not steal or cheat, both would harm others. The schools should therefore teach do no harm to others unless absolutely necessary as a social and ethical value. That is the best role for the school because, otherwise, students may not learn those values and our graduates would go out into the world as thieves and liars. Since the primary purpose of school is to make for a better society and help its graduates make do well while making for a better society, it ought to do what it can to prevent its graduates from being thieves, liars, and/or other results of poor ethical and social values.
At initial glance, it may seem hard to stake out a clear middle ground to the resolve the tensions provided by the question of whether schools should teach social and ethical values. It seems that you must either wholeheartedly agree or disagree with the teaching. However, I find both ends unappealing. To agree means to allow for students to learn unethical and antisocial decisionmaking patterns in a space where they do a great deal of that learning. On the other hand, to disagree means to often socialize students without respect for the diversity of value systems their families may want to teach them. From an understanding of why those ends are unappealing, however, I believe a middle ground comes naturally. Schools ought to teach the entire spectrum of value systems for each and every situation, as well as some ways to think about which value system you ought to choose. Then they should leave it to the student, with the teaching they get from their families, to make an informed choice. Most distinctively in my middle ground, though, schools do, in some cases, teach specific ethical and social values -- those cases where all families can agree students should be taught those values. This therefore respects the problem with teaching ethical and social values while absorbing the benefits. It emulates the model of teaching ethics used in philosophy courses in universities around the world, and is therefore likely to succeed.
"Schools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills and not for teaching ethical and social values."
Education of youth is one of a society's most important roles. However, just how far that education should go is often a hotly debated topic. On one side of the spectrum exist those who believe schools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills, and that they should stay completely out of teaching ethical and social values. On the other side of the spectrum exist those who believe schools should teach academic skills, ethical values, and social values side by side. There are often a diversity of camps compromising the groups at each end of the spectrum, along with a litany of middle ground viewpoints. I find both ends of the spectrum extremely questionable. Instead, I believe a middle ground that exposes children to the spectrum of ethical and social values and only promotes those few values upon which the vast majority of families can agree to be the best solution.
But before exploring the middle ground further, it is useful to understand why it is important for schools to not simply teach academic skills. Students spend a large amount of time at school, and psychological research shows that students often learn from and model their peers more strongly than they do their parents. Schools are therefore an immensely important formational social as well as academic time for students. Young children learn the boundaries of social behavior, and they constantly push against those and learn the exact places of lines as they age. A school must therefore regulate these social activities in the promotion of certain social values. Unregulated, students may lie, steal, or cheat. We ought to promote social values instead of honesty, generosity, and integrity. These values can be considered prosocial, they promote the healthy socialization of humans. Similarly, students learn the boundaries of ethical behavior, and schools most promote ethical values of integrity. This may be as simple as discouraging cheating, but schools clearly need at least some role. Those who argue otherwise risk releasing our graduates into the world with poor social and ethical values that are harmful for society.
Similarly, those who believe that schools should teach a set of ethical and social values, as it does teach academic facts, are sorely mistaken. The realm of ethical and social values is clearly a philosophical question. What makes for an ethical or prosocial decision depends entirely upon the value system of the the person making the decision, and in a single situation, numerous potential behaviors can be considered ethical or socially acceptable. Schools would be overstepping their bounds if they claimed to know how to singly act in specific situations, according to certain ethical and social values. Students come from extremely different backgrounds, and that would be socializing everyone to believe the same thing, something we must avoid at all costs. Diversity is a value to be respected, and the diversity of social and ethical values that parents want to teach their children must be respected. An example of differing values might be the child of an immigrant whose parents are barely making each bill and the child of a family with generations of wealth. Whereas the immigrant may find it perfectly ethical to not volunteer any of his/her time, instead focusing on making ends meet and preparing for his/her future, the more affluent individual, perhaps after reading Peter Singer, may believe that we have an obligation to the poor that we cannot surrender.
To resolve the tension between the two poles, I believe a middle ground can be reached. It would be best for schools to teach the spectrum of potential ethical and social values one can hold. The schools can also equip the students with the thinking tools to understand the benefits and cons to each of the potential value systems. This therefore helps each student answer the personal, philosophical question of what his/ her ethical and social values are on his/her own accord. Schools could also hold discussions where students voice their opinions, but where the teacher does not ultimately legislate a correct value. In some cases, however, the school could indeed legislate a correct value -- those values that almost all student's families could agree on. These would be the type of values referenced in why schools cannot simply teach academic skills. Almost all families can agree that students should not steal or cheat, both would harm others. The schools should therefore teach do no harm to others unless absolutely necessary as a social and ethical value. That is the best role for the school because, otherwise, students may not learn those values and our graduates would go out into the world as thieves and liars. Since the primary purpose of school is to make for a better society and help its graduates make do well while making for a better society, it ought to do what it can to prevent its graduates from being thieves, liars, and/or other results of poor ethical and social values.
At initial glance, it may seem hard to stake out a clear middle ground to the resolve the tensions provided by the question of whether schools should teach social and ethical values. It seems that you must either wholeheartedly agree or disagree with the teaching. However, I find both ends unappealing. To agree means to allow for students to learn unethical and antisocial decisionmaking patterns in a space where they do a great deal of that learning. On the other hand, to disagree means to often socialize students without respect for the diversity of value systems their families may want to teach them. From an understanding of why those ends are unappealing, however, I believe a middle ground comes naturally. Schools ought to teach the entire spectrum of value systems for each and every situation, as well as some ways to think about which value system you ought to choose. Then they should leave it to the student, with the teaching they get from their families, to make an informed choice. Most distinctively in my middle ground, though, schools do, in some cases, teach specific ethical and social values -- those cases where all families can agree students should be taught those values. This therefore respects the problem with teaching ethical and social values while absorbing the benefits. It emulates the model of teaching ethics used in philosophy courses in universities around the world, and is therefore likely to succeed.
