Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Continued, from _Values Clarification,  A Handbook of Practical
    Strategies for Teachers and Students_ by Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. 
    Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum, Hart Publishing Co., Inc., NY, 1972. 
    (without permission) 


How then, does a young person learn how to direct his life through a world full
of confusion and conflict?

Traditionally, adults, motivated by a sincere desire to have the yonger
generation lead happy and productive lives, have guided them in the following
ways:

1.  Moralizing is the direct, although sometimes subtle, inculcation of
the adult's values upon the young.  The assumption behind moralizing runs
something like this:  My experience has taught me a certain set of values which
I believe would be right for you.  Therefore, to save you the pain of coming to
these values on your own, and to avoid the risk of your choosing less desirable
values, I will effectively transfer my own values to you.....But young people
brought up by moralizing adults are not prepared to make their own responsible
choices.  They have not learned a process for selecting the best and rejecting
the worst elements contained in the various value systems which others have
been uring them to follow.  Thus, too often the important choices in life are
made on the basis of peer pressure, unthinkin submission to authority, or the
power of propaganda.....Another problem [is] that often it results in a
dichotomy between theory and practice....Moralizing so frequently influences
only people's words and little else in their lives.

2.  Some adults maintain a laissez-faire attitude toward the transmission of
values.  The rationale here is:  No one value system is right for everyone.
People have to forge their own set of values.  So I'll just let my children or
students do and think what they want without intervening in any way; and
eventually everything will turn out all right.  The problem here is that
everything doesn't usually turn out all right.  Young people, left on their
own, experience a great deal of conflict and confusion.  In our experience,
most young people do not need adults running their lives for them, but they do
want and need help.

3.  Modeling is a third approach in transmitting values.  The rationale here
is: "I will present myself as and attractice model who lives by a certain set
of values.  The young people with whom I come in contact will be duly impressed
by me and by my values, and will want to adopt and emulate my attitudes and
behavior."...However, the fact is that the young person is exposed to so many
different models to emulate....how does the young person choose his own course
of action from among the many models and many moralizing lectures with which he
has been bombarded?  Where does he learn whether he wants to stick to the old
moral and ethical standards or try new ones?  How does he develop his own sense
of identity?  How does he learn to relate to people whose values differ from
his own?

4.  The values-clarification approach tries to help young people answer some of
these questions and build their own value system.... the values-clarification
approach we are discussing in this book is ... based on the approach formulated
by Louis Raths, who in turn built upon the thinking  of John Dewey.  Unlike
other theoretical approaches to values, Raths is not concerned with the
_content_ of people's values, but the _process of valuing._  His focus is on
how people come to hold certain beliefs and establish certain behavior
patterns.

Valuing, according to Raths, is composed of seven sub-processes: [footnote
credit to Raths, Louis; Harmin Merrill; Simon Sidney: _Values and Teaching_;
Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, 1966.]

	PRIZING one's believs and behaviors
		1.  prizing and cherishing
		2.  publicly affirming, when appropriate

	CHOOSING one's beliefs and behaviors
		3.  choosing from alternatives
		4.  choosing after consideration of consequences
		5.  choosing freely

	ACINT on one's beliefs
		6.  acting
		7.  acting with a pattern, consistency and repetition

Thus, the values-clarification approach does not aim to instill any particualr
set of values.  Rather the goal of the values-clarification approach is to help
students utilize the above seven processes of valuing in their own lives; to
apply these valuing processes to already formed beliefs and behavior patterns
and to those still emerging.

To accomplish this, the teacher uses approaches which help students become
aware of the beliefs and behaviors they prize and would be willing to stand up
for in and out of the classroom.  he uses materials and methods which encourage
students to consider alternative modes of thinking and acting.  Students learn
to weigh the pros and cons and the conseuqneces of the various alternatives.
The teacher also helps the students to consider whether their actions match
their stated believs and if not, how to bring the two into closer harmony.
Finally, he tries to give students options, in and out of class; for only when
students begin to make their own choices and evaluate the actual consequences,
do they develop their own values.

...students who have been exposed to this approach have become less apathetic,
less flighty, less conforming as well as less over-dissenting.  They are more
zestful and energetic, more citical in their thinking, and are more likely to
follow through on decisions.  In the case of under-achievers,
values-clarification has led to better success in school.

....When using the activities and strategies for values-clarification,
encourage a classroom atmosphere of openness, honesty, acceptance and respect.
If students feel that something they say about their own beliefs and behavior
is going to be ridiculted by their peers or frowned upon by the teacher, they
will not want to share their thoughts and feelings about values issues.

The teacher must help the class learn to listen to one another.  One of the
best ways he can do this is to be a model of a good listener himself....
But even the best intentioned teachers sometimes find themselves moalizing.
Watch the class.  See if they seem to be telling you what they think you want
to hear.  Tell them not to hesitate to let you know if they feel pressured
toward a certain point of view or set of values.

Whenever a student does not want to respond, he should always be given the
right to pass.  This is essential!  The teacher should accept a pass just as he
would any other response -- with respect.

The teacher should participate in the exercises and discussions whenever
possible.  The best time... to give his view is toward the end, after the
students have had a chance to think things through for themselves and to
express their own points of view.  The teacher should present himself as a
person with values (and often values confusion) of his own.  Thus the teacher
shares his values, but does not impose them.... The particular content of his
values holds no more weight than would anyone else's; but his behavior
reinforces the seven valuing processes.
    
    
    (to be continued)

    Continued, from _Values Clarification,  A Handbook of Practical
    Strategies for Teachers and Students_ by Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. 
    Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum, Hart Publishing Co., Inc., NY, 1972. 
    (without permission) 

    
			The Fall-Out Shelter Problem

Purpose
-------
	This is a simulated problem-solving exercise.  It raises a host of
values issues which the student must attempt to work through in a rational
manner.  it is often a very dramatic example of how our values differ; how hard
it is to objectively determine the "best" values; and how we often have trouble
listening to people whose beliefs are different from our own.

Procedure
---------
	The class is divided into groups of six or seven, who then sit
together.  the teacher explains the situation to the groups.

	Your group are members of a department in Washington, D.C. that is
	in charge of experimental stations in the far outposts of civilization.
	Suddenly the Third World War breaks out and bombs being dropping.
	Places all across the globe are being destroyed.  People are heading
	for whatever fallout shelters are avilable.  You receive a desperate
	call from one of your experimental stations, asking for help.

	It seems there are _ten_ people but there is only enough space, air,
	good, and water in their fall-out shelter for _six_ people for a period
	of _three_ months -- which is how long they estimate they can safely
	stay down there.  They relize that if they have to decide among
	themselves which six should go into the shelter, they are likely to
	become irrational and being fighting.  So they have decided to call
	your department, their superiors, and leave the decision to you.  They
	will abide by your decision.

	But each of you has to quickly get reay to head down to your own
	fall-out shelter.  So all you have time for is to get superficial
	descriptions  of the ten people.  You have half-an-hour to make your
	decision.  Then you will have to go to your own shelter.

	So, as a group you now have a half-hour to decide which four of the ten
	will have to be eliminated from the shelter.  Before you being, I want
	to impress upon you two important considerations.  It is entirely
	possible that the six people you choose to stay in the shelter might be
	on the only six people left to start the human race over again. This
	choice is, therefore, very important.  Do not allow yourself to be
	swayed by pressure from the others in your group.  Try to make the best
	choices possible.  On the other hand, if you do not make a choice in a
	half-hour, then yo are, in face, choosing to let the ten people fight
	it out among themselves, with the possibility that more than four might
	perish.  you have _exactly_ one half-hour.  here is all you know about
	the ten people:

	1.  Bookkeeper; 31 years old
	2.  His wife; six months pregnant
	3.  Black militant; second year medical student
	4.  Famous historian-author; 42 years old
	5.  Hollywood starlette; singer; dancer
	6.  Bio-chemist
	7.  Rabbi; 54 years old
	8.  Olympic athlete; all sports
	9.  College co-ed
       10.  Policeman with gun (they cannot be separated)

	
	The teacher posts of distrubes copies of this list, and the students
begin.  The teacher gives 15, 10, 5 and 1-minute warnings and then stops the
groups exactly after a half-hour.

	Each group can then share its selections with the other groups and
perhaps argue a bit more, if there is time.  Then the teacher asks the students
to try to disregard the content of the activity and to examine the process and
the values implications.  he asks questions like:  How well did you listen to
the others in your group?  Did you allow yourself to be pressured into changing
your mind?  Were you so stubborn that the group couldn't reach a decision?
Did you feel you had the right answer?  What do your own selections say to you
about your values?  These questions may be thought about or written about
privately, or they may be discussed in the small groups or by the whole class.
    

    My spouse, Sharon, did this same exercise a while back to study
    conflict management styles and communication.
    
    Richard

re Note 38.38 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

> >This type of example assumes:
> >
> >  1)  There is no outside force (e.g. God) which can make a difference
> >  2)  The value of people can somehow be judged by their profession and
> >      education
> >  3)  Individuals have a right to make a decision about who lives and
> >      who dies in this example
>     
>     Bob gave an excellent response to your points 1) and 3) regarding
>     the lifeboat exercise.  I would add the following regarding 2):
>     
>     Having kids *discuss* this usually leads them to realize that the value of
>     people cannot and should not be judged by their profession and
>     education!  It causes them to challenge what might otherwise be an
>     unexamined assumption!
  
        Interestingly enough, our nation (and many other nations) are
        being put to the test in a giant "lifeboat exercise" right
        now -- in the Persian Gulf.  We are being asked to weigh the
        value of certain classes of life (Saddam Hussein himself,
        Iraqui armed forces, Iraqui civilians, Kuwaiti civilians,
        U.S. armed forces, other coalition forces) against various
        hypothetical outcomes (Kuwaiti freedom, devastated oil
        fields, oil fields in Iraqui control, Iraqui development of
        nuclear and biological weapons, the prestige of the U.S. and
        the U.S. presidency, the strengthening of a mid-east
        "Hitler", $30 billion dollars in war expense, Arabian enmity
        towards the west, Iraeli involvement, ... the list just goes
        on and on).  And, of course, there are considerable religious
        factors in the background -- and for different parties in
        this situation the factors are different.

        A "lifeboat exercise" seems eminently appropriate for schools
        to engage in -- the situation has to be simplified for
        student use (I doubt that even President Bush has grasped all
        the subtleties of the real-life exercise).

        It may be that a simplified "lifeboat exercise" for school
        use should take into account some explicit religious/moral
        factors, since these are so prevalent in real-life conflicts.
        Perhaps we should urge our schools to modify these exercises
        somewhat;  but I certainly wouldn't urge their elimination.

        Bob

Nancy,

I certainly agree with you that the teacher can make a vast difference
in the worthwhileness of the exercise.  However, that still does not
address the issues of the bias of the exercise as given.  The exercise
itself (not being interpreted by anyway) has at least the three biases
I listed.  Do you agree?

Collis

                  <<< Note 149.4 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >>>
                    -< Teacher does indeed make an impact >-
re: .4, Collis,
    
>I certainly agree with you that the teacher can make a vast difference
>in the worthwhileness of the exercise.  However, that still does not
>address the issues of the bias of the exercise as given.  The exercise
>itself (not being interpreted by anyway) has at least the three biases
>I listed.  Do you agree?
    
    As I thought I made very clear in a previous answer, I definitely do
    NOT agree with you (!) -- EXCEPT that there is an *implied bias* that a
    person's value depends on his or her work.  However, *AS TAUGHT AND
    CARRIED OUT,* I firmly believe that the *RESULT* of the lesson is to
    show the weakness and falacy of *ever* assuming that a person's value
    is determined by their occupation!!  In other words, the end result of
    the lesson will usually lead kids to realize that that implication is
    one we (and they) often live by but probably should NOT live by!! This
    is why I keep repeating that it is unfair to debate this exercise as
    though the situation is presented and then never discussed!
    
    And, in the fall-out shelter exercise, it becomes clear that very
    *different* criteria  need to be considered if you are discussing
    the very survival of the human race on this planet.
    
    Nancy
    

Nancy,

What I hear you disagreeing with is more that I am not judging the total
exercise rather than the implied assumptions in the exercise.  You refuse
to judge the exercise assumptions alone; you insist on judging the full
impact of the exercise.  I was attempting to judge the exercise assumptions
alone.

I now understand this, since you explicitly stated it in your last
message.  I agree with you that the entire exercise needs to be judged,
not simply the exercise assumptions.  However, I also believe that a good
exercise should *not* have these implied assumptions which may or may not
be seen by students when working through the exercise to be implied
assumptions.

Collis

    Collis, 
    
    I also clearly said -- twice before -- that I strongly disagree with 
    you on 2 out of the 3 "implied assumptions."  I do not agree that those
    2 assumptions are implied at all.  I hope this is clear now, as it is
    at least the third time I have said this.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

Nacny,

I hear you.  You have said it three times now and I understand that you
really do mean it.  Since the reasons you were giving for not accepting
these assumptions were, as far as I could tell, based on more than simply
the layout of the exercise, I was hoping that this was not what you were
saying.  But you have made it clear that it was.

Collis