Values-based Education… What Could Be Wrong With That?

[DrBlackbird]

Attended a talk at my uni by the new Pro VC Education whose vision for our education strategy is that it must be ‘values-based’. Caveat is our uni has swallowed the kool aid.

Got me thinking that not so many years ago, I’d have interpreted this vision in a positive light. That having and promoting ’values’ was a part of education. Admittedly, the values in my head would be tolerance, free speech, rigorous debate base on evidence and critical thought.

Now… I’m wondering if having a values based strategy was wrong all along? If ‘inclusive’ values has lead to the erosion of women’s sex based rights and neglect of consideration for some religious observances, not to mention the breathtaking lack of safeguarding for children and young people, should we avoid values as on objective?

Am thinking out loud here. I was going to post this in the academic common room threads, but thought FWR posters might have more to say on this question. Has anything value based always been contentious or is it increasingly contentious because of where we have got to with these putatively inclusive debates?

Yeah, no, that could easily be disastrous.

Wtaf happened to skills based education ffs? Everyone agrees it's the most useful.

And you can apply to everything.

Those of us in send are also very aware that inclusion is a tricky aspect and doesn't always work.

And the drive to be more inclusive has led to a massive mess in terms of children with send and mainstream, in that there just aren't enough settings now for those who really can't cope in mainstream. Inclusion has always had to be proportionate and appropriate. And doesn't mean treating everyone equally!

This immediately brings to mind this talk by Jonathan Haidt - "Two incompatible sacred values in American universities".

"Haidt concludes that universities should be free to pursue whatever goals – truth or social justice – they want, but that they should make it clear which of these two goals is their “telos” – their highest purpose."

The trouble with 'values based' is that as a standalone phrase it is completely meaningless.

Whether it's a good or bad thing depends entirely on what the values are.

Quite. My question if someone said they were ‘values based’ would be ‘what values’?

It depends what is meant by 'values' doesn't it? If your values are solely around identity then it's all bobbins. If your values are around evidence based debate then great.

(Not sure I agree with a solely skills based approach either - at least not in HE. That's the direction Gov is taking and it devalues the academic.)

Yes to this. But actually the first thing you need to check is who they are talking about when they say inclusion. Often they are talking LBGTQ+ not disability at all. Because it is so much easier to hang up a few flags and than it is to put in hearing loops, lighting filters, sensory rooms, ramps, accessible signage, and in schools TAs, specialist teaching staff, smaller classes etc.

Education should be knowledge, fact, evidence based. "Values" could be what the university's social aspects are based on, as in accessibility for students with disability, tolerance for different political views, different religious views or none, etc etc.

Well it's meaningless in itself, what values do they want to base this on and which values are elevated to the highest position?

The problem with inclusion as the highest order value is that it means there cannot be reasons for exclusion. And obviously there are some good reasons to exclude others in some situations, as we've found.

Also the highest order value depends on the aim of the organisation or the context.
For a university I would presume this should be truth.
In a family it would be love.
In a factory it would efficiency, or quality, or safety?

Also these values that are banded about. Where do they come from? What are they based on? Why should we value these things at all?

In the West they are based on Judao Christian philosophy which we've mostly abandoned but we're left with this hangover or assumption these are all good things we agree on.

But there is no rationale for that anymore.

Presumably without a shared overarching philosophy of the world and human nature we could now just all invent our own values?

I would be asking "whose values?" before i thought about basing an education system on them.

Agree that "values based" sounds pretty meaningless and immediately raises the questions "which values". Perhaps it just means "not driven purely by market/consumer/commercial concerns"? Though even that is a value.

Any values which are allowed to overwhelm all other values are dangerous. Neither truth nor social justice needs to be a pre-determined "highest purpose" - although for a university truth probably has an edge when there's a conflict.

"Skills based education" can be contentious in itself because it doesn't put any priority on learning critical or independent thinking. Which is something that education is supposed to be about, as well as skills.

As pp’s say, all depends on what values. To add another layer, all education is based on sets of values around what we think it’s worth teaching, and how students should be encouraged to engage with the material, etc

What I think would be interesting would be if your new VC was prepared to articulate and discuss exactly what values they were referring to - make it an open process rather than so much of it being assumed. Of course having to defend values might have challenging results…

Totally agree with this.

It never ceases to amaze me how the whole inclusion movement basically ignores disability. The most excluded group of all.

I think inclusion is no longer the buzzword. The new one is "belonging"...

I wish they'd just hurry up with the spiral and get on with calling it modern peer pressure already.

The trouble with 'values based' is that as a standalone phrase it is completely meaningless.
**
Whether it's a good or bad thing depends entirely on what the values are.

I agree* *that it is essentially meaningless. There was a graph that included just about everything and the kitchen sink. It prompted a negative reaction on my part and I couldn’t quite put my finger on why.

Perhaps because there was an implicit assumption not only that we all shared those values, but that it would never be a matter of any of the values conflicting. Or what we would do if we acknowledged conflicting values.

It felt a bit… unthinking I guess and perhaps meant to be aspirational, but left me worried. Previously our education strategy was relatively straightforward about being interdisciplinary. Hard to argue with that.

OP that reminds me of this:

Our students absolutely and desperately need to have their critical thinking skills developed including being able to evaluate evidence. I fear that this is seen as less important though than the belief that we must teach them all to learn to use ChatGPT. Even though it’ll be obsolete in 3 years time.

Utterly brilliant.

Not sure enough audience members have watched endless TED talks to fully appreciate the humour.

Who specifies these values? Who reviews them and how often? Who decides how they are expressed in policy decisions? How are parents, teachers and students consulted?
How are conflicts handled? At the very basic level, there are bound to be conflicts around where the budget is spent, because THERE ALWAYS ARE.
I just don't think it's workable - it's too nebulous.

Who specifies these values?

That’s a fair question but my impression is that we are all just meant to share them as HE educators because they’re presumed to be the right sort of values. I think my concern is that interdisciplinary education is fairly innocuous whilst ‘values’ can be anything. Even authoritarian regimes are fond of values…

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · Today 11:06

Whether it's a good or bad thing depends entirely on what the values are.

Quite, what if those values are saluting the flag and unswerving loyalty to King and country and getting rid of stupid leftie woke traitors?

Or going back to Year Zero and exterminating all the filthy intellectuals?

I mean, they're values, even if most of us would find them abhorrent.

My view is that a corporate body of any kind cannot have any values since said body is not a thinking human. The corporate body can have aims and objectives, but not a set of values or even an ethos because values are beliefs that only human individuals can possess or own.

Corporate bodies who from the top tell constituents of their organisation, such a service users, stakeholders or workers what the core values of the corporation are, even after a consultation, are talking rubbish.

A good example is CoE schools who tend to operate under the delusion that all its staff, parents and children, are Christian's because corporately they are. When in reality many of the constituents are not Christian’s, they want a job, or the school is a catchment school, or is the best performer.

Back in my day i spent a good deal of energy protecting my children from indoctrination, of the Christian variety in a school they had no choice but to attend. Cluttered with primary teacher Christian’s who thought they had some moral high ground, and a right to teach my children their values as if they were fact.

Sounds familiar now to the new religion of gender no wonder people chose to home school than run the gauntlet of corporate values.

Values based is far too easily a euphemism
for ideological indoctrination.

@UnremarkableBeasts

absolutely.

I dont give a flying fuck what retail corporations ethos are because its bollocks they just want me to buy their stuff. I wont boycott either because when trans inclusive values reap no more profit they will move on, because they, not being a person , have made no more profits from that “value”