The Importance of Values Taught in State Schools

Outline +

Debate
Context
Issues

Outline

In debating state versus private schooling, there has been criticism of the values that are taught in state schools. In this context it is suggested that careful consideration be given to:

what students are taught to be tolerant of, and the consequences of cultural assumptions;
the unrecognized dependence of liberty / prosperity on a particular ethical basis for morality;
the values-confusion and practical failures generated by post-modern assumptions; and
the complex implications of encouraging 'homosexual rights'.

Debate

The Debate

There has been a growing debate about state versus private schooling - and particularly about the values that are taught in state schools.

This has arisen because federal funding for schools has (in the Commonwealth's view) been arranged to allow parents to have a choice between state and private schooling. Under this regime state school enrolments have been stagnant for the past decade, while private school enrolments have risen rapidly. This is widely seen to reflect parents' preference for the disciplined environments and traditional values taught in private schools [1], as parents rate moral philosophy as the most important reason for paying fees [1]. 40% of secondary students now attend private schools [1].

At the same time claims have been made that state schools do not teach appropriate values [1].

Examples of what some have seen as inappropriate about the values taught include:

public schools find it hard to explain their core values (while private schools can give moral certainty). They are not value free - but whose values? With students from non-English speaking backgrounds, and diversity fundamental to education, it is hard to express values. There is a 'secular creed' in the National Goals for Schooling, which states that students be able to exercise judgment / responsibility in matters of morality, ethics and social justice. This merely confuses young people who expect to be taught some standards, and are can not (for hormonal reasons) act wisely [1].

opposing Iraq war; endorsement of homosexuality; claims about genocide against aboriginal peoples and the 'stolen generation'; insistence on equal education outcomes; opposing student assessment; opposing male contact sports; failure to teach Anglo-Saxon traditions which made Australia free, prosperous and tolerant [1];

teachers regressing to be like kids [1];

protesting against Iraq war; dumbed down view of education; lack of testing; accepting homosexuals as teachers and endorsing their lifestyle; emphasis on environment threats but not of the benefits of science and markets (of which Queensland's curriculum for study of science and society is seen as example); following post-modern theories that see knowledge as tentative; and regarding traditional approaches to literature as ethnocentric and parochial [1];

there is no need for religion to impart values like 'inclusiveness, respect for others, ethnic diversity and multiculturalism', so religious education should be removed from the curriculum to make room for other subjects [1]

An alternative view is that the shift from state to private education reflects the inadequate funding of state schools [1, 2] - which may be due to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance [1]. 2/3 of Commonwealth school funding is directed to private schools [1] - though this is presumably not the case for public funding of schools overall (which includes that by states for state schools). Moreover state schools have been seen as an essential element of society - with attacks on them being equivalent to erosion of universal health care and social welfare for the unemployed [1]. Criticism has been seen as insulting to state schools, teachers and students [1].

It is also argued that the values taught in state schools are appropriate and reflect Australian norms.

Examples of what have been seen as appropriate include:

reconciliation, emancipation of women, homosexual rights and sustainable development are seen as the type of egalitarian and tolerant values most Australians shared - and consistent with a liberal democratic and Christian ethos [1];

values taught are shared outcomes, inclusion and community participation. It is inappropriate that Anglo-Saxon cultural traditions be given priority [1];

values should be: equality of all people; equality of aboriginal people with others; and equality of men and women [1];

values emphasized should be: respect, tolerance and inclusion [1];

personal responsibility; educational excellence; tolerance; the merits of diversity of culture, ethnicity and ideas, as well as kindness, compromise and compassion [1];

(a) Acceptance, tolerance, fair play, equity and inclusivity; responsible citizenship; (b) community values, sensitivity to specific values of various groups, rights / responsibilities of parents; and (c) love of learning; aiming for high standards; care and respect for families and communities [1]

Some 'middle ground' views are that:

state schooling is best, but this system has failed - so what is required is an integrated approach [1];
what is really important (which politicisation of the issue may not achieve) is working out what education is supposed to be about [1];
schools should match the diverse expectations of various communities in Australia, so a more community-focused approach is required to increase public school participation [1].

The Federal education minister commissioned a study of values education - and this identified ten values to inculcate - tolerance and understanding; respect; responsibility; social justice; excellence; care; inclusion and trust; honesty; freedom and being ethical [1].

A researcher involved in that process concluded that (a) values need to be presented in the context of a supporting world-view (eg a religion) and (b) values taught have to be consistent with Australia's democratic system of government [1].

Context

Context

This document is only concerned with contextual issues which might usefully be considered in evaluating the values that are imparted through the education process - as the author has no sound basis for commenting on the benefits of state versus private schooling.

In order to understand the significance of what values are taught in schools it first useful to note that many debates about culture and values have emerged in Australia in recent years.

Examples of cultural / values debates include:

multiculturalism was initially advocated as a way of promoting tolerance of other cultures by Australians - but some feared that it was promoting a fragmentation of Australia into a set of different societies [1];

there has been uncertainty about whether reconciliation with aborigines should involve giving separate status to aboriginal cultures or to the 'practical' challenges of ensuring that aborigines could be healthy, educated and prosperous [1, 2];

there has been concern about liberal migration policies (especially in relation to the Middle East, and in view of political tensions in Europe due to problems in integration [1, 2, 3] - problems which seem to have some parallels in Australia noting alienation of some groups, and evidence of racially based violence [1, 2, 3]);

One Nation sought to put part of the blame for social stresses which were being suffered in marginal regions on multiculturalism - and was described as racist for doing so;

racist motivations were alleged for preventing unauthorized migration to Australia mainly from the Middle East (see Complexities in the Refugee Situation);

the accuracy with which some historians presented Australia's history of dealings with indigenous peoples has been contested [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] while a negative view of that history was presented by the National Museum of Australia [1];

Christianity (which provided the basis for Australia's mainstream traditions, values and institutions) has declined in adherence [1, 2] and been subjected to criticism [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and defense; and to vigorous internal debates about values [1, 2, 3];

there is uncertainty about the viability of secular institutions separated from the value systems which created them [1], and about how values such as liberty can be justified without religious foundations [1];

strong values systems have been seen to be needed for effective society [1], while liberalism has been described as dangerous without its moral foundations [1];

there has been debate about whether Australia's relationship with 'Asia' would transition to that of an insider or remain that of an outsider [1];

positive features of Australia's traditions have been advocated [1], and risks claimed in sacrificing these features in uncritically developing a relationship with China [1];

some have seen a reduced tolerance of differences as a symptom of increased racism [1], while others have suggested that this explanation is inadequate [1].

Moreover the significance of these debates has been affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 [1]. In particular:

a significant basis for attacks against Western societies by Islamist extremists lies in the view that Western societies main contribution to the world is corruption [1] - as a product of liberal values;

laws requiring tolerance of all cultures are seen to allow advocates of hostile extremism to teach and recruit within Western societies [1]

Also the federal government (the Prime Minister in particular) has been seen to have an agenda of challenging what some others see as a progressive views of cultural values [1, 2, 3].

Four issues that might be given careful consideration is assessing the values taught in state schools are outlined below.

Issues

Tolerance
Ethical Base
Post-modernism
Homosexual behaviour

What does tolerance mean?

Australian schools seem to have a strong emphasis on tolerance and understanding. However it makes a huge difference what schools teach students to be tolerant of, and whether understanding is truly objective.

Tolerance and understanding of all people, is quite different to teaching that all ideas and cultures are equally valid and valuable, because:

some cultures and traditions contain intrinsic elements of social inequalities - so it is not logically possible to value both all cultures equally and also value all people equally;
not all cultures endorse tolerance of differences [1, 2]; and
culture appears to be a primary determinant of a people's ability to be materially successful - because it affects their goals, the way they solve problems, whether they can develop technologies and the institutions that their society supports (see Competing Civilizations).

Thus it is not valid to argue that 'tolerance' is always a positive value - because, if applied to ideas and cultures (as compared with its application to people), it may involve the endorsement of dysfunctional values.

Moreover the practical consequences of cultural assumptions need to be addressed in the way information is provided to students concerning various traditions. In particular:

it appears that the consequences of cultural traditions may be a significant issue for Australia's indigenous peoples to come to grips with (see The Challenge of Aboriginal Advancement) - and this needs to be taken into account as schools promote reconciliation. Similarly,
the shift from elite to mass tertiary education in Australia has not strongly benefited those from lower socio-economic backgrounds as the latter often tend to be excluded by the absence of encouragement and the attitude to the relevance of education in their environment [1]; and
the political and economic dysfunctions suffered in most Arab communities arguably have a cultural foundation - noting that a core of traditional Arabic thought apparently involved a denial of the possibility / desirability of free will. Such an assumption must be a formula for fatalism, political authoritarianism and economic failure (as the ability to change - which denial of free will seriously inhibits - is vital for economic productivity).

It is because of issues like these that students need to be made aware of the consequences of cultural traditions at the same time that they are encouraged to understand them and objectively assess their relevance.

It is frequently asserted that the values taught in state schools need to be compatible with Australia's democratic system of government. Achieving this requires vigilance, because not all value systems are compatible with democratic traditions (see Spiritual and Philosophical Programs must be Compatible with Australia's Institutions). The latter also notes that not all value systems are compatible with Australia's egalitarian (social equality) aspirations.

Ensuring A Flexible Basis for Moral Interpersonal Relationships

Australia seems to suffer substantial social dysfunctions as a consequence of the widespread loss of the traditional ethical basis for interpersonal morality (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty).

Thus the 'values' debate is of great practical significance - as it is vital that a very solid ethical basis for interpersonal morality be established.

However, as noted in Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty, Australia's legal and governance systems assume individual liberty - and this feature has critical political and economic implications. Also it is not characteristic of any but Western societies (being a product of their Christ-ian heritage) - and is strongest in the so-called 'Anglosphere'.

Such liberty seems possible only where:

a solid ethical basis of interpersonal morality is embedded in individual consciences responsible to God (rather than being externally-enforced by social elites or authoritarian moral legalism);
there is a clear separation between church (which deals with issues of ethical and moral values) and state (which deals with (say) social and economic systems without having to determine the nature of, or enforce, moral interpersonal relationships).

This has far-reaching consequences, because:

in assessing value-systems that should be taught in Australian schools the issues at stake is not merely to avoid social dysfunctions but also presumably to ensure that Australia's liberal legal and governance systems can continue to be effective;
those systems can not be based on individual liberty if the values to be taught are determined by the state (eg by government or government schools).

Postmodernism: A Philosophical Over-reaction with Serious Consequences

Much of the confusion about values in education appears to be a consequence of the emergence over several decades of (so-called) post-modern theories in university humanities faculties.

These theories challenge the validity of claims to real-world knowledge on the basis that such claims are, to a greater or lesser extent, a 'social construct' which have political implications (through reflecting what is advantageous to some groups). This view encourages:

a disregard for what has traditionally been seen as 'positive' knowledge - and a well-meant desire to regard alternative systems of knowledge as equally valid; and
a manipulation of educational content to achieve particular political purposes - on the assumption that merely changing the way people think about a subject will change the reality. This is the essence of what has been called 'political correctness' (which one cynical observer described as coercive group-think [1]).

The whole basis for criticism which is being levelled at values in the state schooling system seems to be based (to the extent that it has any validity) on these consequences of post-modern theories. Some of that critique makes specific reference to post-modern theory [1].

However post-modern theories have not only had an impact in education and there is now a significant body of experience to illustrated their deficiencies in other areas. An account of philosophical and real-world problems associated with the adoption of 'post modern' assumptions is presented in Eroding the West's Foundations. This refers, for example, to:

valid concerns about limitations in traditional epistemologies (ie theories about the nature of knowledge) to which 'post modernism' has been an unfortunate gross over-reaction;
the breakdown of effective public administration in Australia as a result of politicisation and managerialism which (have post-modern roots and) devalue real knowledge and experience;
the threat to individual freedom which is implicit in demolishing the concept of 'public truth' (which has limited the autocratic exercise of power) through accepting post-modern assumptions;
blocking the advancement of certain types of knowledge (eg the the critical role which culture plays in people's ability to be materially successful) is incredibly dangerous in an integrating world - because as a result there is:
- often no way to advance the position of disadvantaged peoples; and
- a tendency to develop theories about exploitation or conspiracies to explain disadvantage - and such theories can be a key factor in motivating pointless extremism. A case can in fact be made for partly blaming those in the 'humanities' faculties of Western universities who have preferred relativism to realism about the causes of political and economic failures in marginal states for the terrorism and conflict that have resulted from their irresponsibility.

Public Acceptance of Homosexual Behaviour

Extreme caution in school endorsement of 'homosexual rights' may be warranted. This issue may be nowhere near as clear-cut as it has been popularly presented because:

there seem to be reasonable grounds for concern that the public acceptance of homosexual behaviour has a key role in the breeding of child sex offenders - by confusing children who are sex abuse victims about their sexuality and putting them at risk of becoming abusers of the next generation of children (see About Child Sex Abuse);

despite the tantalizing but inconclusive indications that some researchers find to support their assumption that homosexual behaviour may be purely a product of genetics or inter-uterine exposure to hormones, it appears that field observations suggest that homosexual behaviour may often be an emotional / addictive affliction as a way of coping with childhood abuse or neglect [1]. The latter argues, based on long personal experience and study, that:
- people need to get the facts because of pressure to endorse homosexuality - and this requires reading. Reliance on the popular media is unsafe because there is a lot of misinformation around;
- 1-2% of the population experience same-sex attractions;
- a substantial percentage of those practicing homosexuality are married;
- stable faithful homosexual relationships are a myth;
- very few in the 'gay' scene are happy - and all seem to be damaged;
- homosexuality has identifiable causes eg there is often a history of emotional deprivation and sexual abuse as children and a retarded emotional and intellectual development;
- 50% of those who adopt a gay lifestyle become HIV+;
- many people struggle with same-sex attractions and want help to avoid a gay lifestyle. Providing support for them is a long and difficult process;
- homosexual orientation can change.

If the claim that homosexual behaviour is often an emotional / addictive affliction is valid, then it makes no more sense to either (a) try to prevent it by law or (b) endorse it as a 'right relationship', than would be be the case for anorexia nervosa. Moreover many who support 'homosexual rights' may unwittingly be giving tacit endorsement to past or prospective child abuse.

Furthermore given that the public acceptance of homosexual behaviour seems to make children more vulnerable to sexual abuse, there must be some uncertainty about the motives for supporting homosexual 'rights' by adults in institutions and non-biological families where children are most at risk of sexual abuse.

February 2004

Outline + Debate Context Issues	Outline In debating state versus private schooling, there has been criticism of the values that are taught in state schools. In this context it is suggested that careful consideration be given to: what students are taught to be tolerant of, and the consequences of cultural assumptions; the unrecognized dependence of liberty / prosperity on a particular ethical basis for morality; the values-confusion and practical failures generated by post-modern assumptions; and the complex implications of encouraging 'homosexual rights'.
Debate	The Debate There has been a growing debate about state versus private schooling - and particularly about the values that are taught in state schools. This has arisen because federal funding for schools has (in the Commonwealth's view) been arranged to allow parents to have a choice between state and private schooling. Under this regime state school enrolments have been stagnant for the past decade, while private school enrolments have risen rapidly. This is widely seen to reflect parents' preference for the disciplined environments and traditional values taught in private schools [1], as parents rate moral philosophy as the most important reason for paying fees [1]. 40% of secondary students now attend private schools [1]. At the same time claims have been made that state schools do not teach appropriate values [1]. Examples of what some have seen as inappropriate about the values taught include: public schools find it hard to explain their core values (while private schools can give moral certainty). They are not value free - but whose values? With students from non-English speaking backgrounds, and diversity fundamental to education, it is hard to express values. There is a 'secular creed' in the National Goals for Schooling, which states that students be able to exercise judgment / responsibility in matters of morality, ethics and social justice. This merely confuses young people who expect to be taught some standards, and are can not (for hormonal reasons) act wisely [1]. opposing Iraq war; endorsement of homosexuality; claims about genocide against aboriginal peoples and the 'stolen generation'; insistence on equal education outcomes; opposing student assessment; opposing male contact sports; failure to teach Anglo-Saxon traditions which made Australia free, prosperous and tolerant [1]; teachers regressing to be like kids [1]; protesting against Iraq war; dumbed down view of education; lack of testing; accepting homosexuals as teachers and endorsing their lifestyle; emphasis on environment threats but not of the benefits of science and markets (of which Queensland's curriculum for study of science and society is seen as example); following post-modern theories that see knowledge as tentative; and regarding traditional approaches to literature as ethnocentric and parochial [1]; there is no need for religion to impart values like 'inclusiveness, respect for others, ethnic diversity and multiculturalism', so religious education should be removed from the curriculum to make room for other subjects [1] An alternative view is that the shift from state to private education reflects the inadequate funding of state schools [1, 2] - which may be due to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance [1]. 2/3 of Commonwealth school funding is directed to private schools [1] - though this is presumably not the case for public funding of schools overall (which includes that by states for state schools). Moreover state schools have been seen as an essential element of society - with attacks on them being equivalent to erosion of universal health care and social welfare for the unemployed [1]. Criticism has been seen as insulting to state schools, teachers and students [1]. It is also argued that the values taught in state schools are appropriate and reflect Australian norms. Examples of what have been seen as appropriate include: reconciliation, emancipation of women, homosexual rights and sustainable development are seen as the type of egalitarian and tolerant values most Australians shared - and consistent with a liberal democratic and Christian ethos [1]; values taught are shared outcomes, inclusion and community participation. It is inappropriate that Anglo-Saxon cultural traditions be given priority [1]; values should be: equality of all people; equality of aboriginal people with others; and equality of men and women [1]; values emphasized should be: respect, tolerance and inclusion [1]; personal responsibility; educational excellence; tolerance; the merits of diversity of culture, ethnicity and ideas, as well as kindness, compromise and compassion [1]; (a) Acceptance, tolerance, fair play, equity and inclusivity; responsible citizenship; (b) community values, sensitivity to specific values of various groups, rights / responsibilities of parents; and (c) love of learning; aiming for high standards; care and respect for families and communities [1] Some 'middle ground' views are that: state schooling is best, but this system has failed - so what is required is an integrated approach [1]; what is really important (which politicisation of the issue may not achieve) is working out what education is supposed to be about [1]; schools should match the diverse expectations of various communities in Australia, so a more community-focused approach is required to increase public school participation [1]. The Federal education minister commissioned a study of values education - and this identified ten values to inculcate - tolerance and understanding; respect; responsibility; social justice; excellence; care; inclusion and trust; honesty; freedom and being ethical [1]. A researcher involved in that process concluded that (a) values need to be presented in the context of a supporting world-view (eg a religion) and (b) values taught have to be consistent with Australia's democratic system of government [1].
Context	Context This document is only concerned with contextual issues which might usefully be considered in evaluating the values that are imparted through the education process - as the author has no sound basis for commenting on the benefits of state versus private schooling. In order to understand the significance of what values are taught in schools it first useful to note that many debates about culture and values have emerged in Australia in recent years. Examples of cultural / values debates include: multiculturalism was initially advocated as a way of promoting tolerance of other cultures by Australians - but some feared that it was promoting a fragmentation of Australia into a set of different societies [1]; there has been uncertainty about whether reconciliation with aborigines should involve giving separate status to aboriginal cultures or to the 'practical' challenges of ensuring that aborigines could be healthy, educated and prosperous [1, 2]; there has been concern about liberal migration policies (especially in relation to the Middle East, and in view of political tensions in Europe due to problems in integration [1, 2, 3] - problems which seem to have some parallels in Australia noting alienation of some groups, and evidence of racially based violence [1, 2, 3]); One Nation sought to put part of the blame for social stresses which were being suffered in marginal regions on multiculturalism - and was described as racist for doing so; racist motivations were alleged for preventing unauthorized migration to Australia mainly from the Middle East (see Complexities in the Refugee Situation); the accuracy with which some historians presented Australia's history of dealings with indigenous peoples has been contested [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] while a negative view of that history was presented by the National Museum of Australia [1]; Christianity (which provided the basis for Australia's mainstream traditions, values and institutions) has declined in adherence [1, 2] and been subjected to criticism [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and defense; and to vigorous internal debates about values [1, 2, 3]; there is uncertainty about the viability of secular institutions separated from the value systems which created them [1], and about how values such as liberty can be justified without religious foundations [1]; strong values systems have been seen to be needed for effective society [1], while liberalism has been described as dangerous without its moral foundations [1]; there has been debate about whether Australia's relationship with 'Asia' would transition to that of an insider or remain that of an outsider [1]; positive features of Australia's traditions have been advocated [1], and risks claimed in sacrificing these features in uncritically developing a relationship with China [1]; some have seen a reduced tolerance of differences as a symptom of increased racism [1], while others have suggested that this explanation is inadequate [1]. Moreover the significance of these debates has been affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 [1]. In particular: a significant basis for attacks against Western societies by Islamist extremists lies in the view that Western societies main contribution to the world is corruption [1] - as a product of liberal values; laws requiring tolerance of all cultures are seen to allow advocates of hostile extremism to teach and recruit within Western societies [1] Also the federal government (the Prime Minister in particular) has been seen to have an agenda of challenging what some others see as a progressive views of cultural values [1, 2, 3]. Four issues that might be given careful consideration is assessing the values taught in state schools are outlined below.
Issues Tolerance Ethical Base Post-modernism Homosexual behaviour	What does tolerance mean? Australian schools seem to have a strong emphasis on tolerance and understanding. However it makes a huge difference what schools teach students to be tolerant of, and whether understanding is truly objective. Tolerance and understanding of all people, is quite different to teaching that all ideas and cultures are equally valid and valuable, because: some cultures and traditions contain intrinsic elements of social inequalities - so it is not logically possible to value both all cultures equally and also value all people equally; not all cultures endorse tolerance of differences [1, 2]; and culture appears to be a primary determinant of a people's ability to be materially successful - because it affects their goals, the way they solve problems, whether they can develop technologies and the institutions that their society supports (see Competing Civilizations). Thus it is not valid to argue that 'tolerance' is always a positive value - because, if applied to ideas and cultures (as compared with its application to people), it may involve the endorsement of dysfunctional values. Moreover the practical consequences of cultural assumptions need to be addressed in the way information is provided to students concerning various traditions. In particular: it appears that the consequences of cultural traditions may be a significant issue for Australia's indigenous peoples to come to grips with (see The Challenge of Aboriginal Advancement) - and this needs to be taken into account as schools promote reconciliation. Similarly, the shift from elite to mass tertiary education in Australia has not strongly benefited those from lower socio-economic backgrounds as the latter often tend to be excluded by the absence of encouragement and the attitude to the relevance of education in their environment [1]; and the political and economic dysfunctions suffered in most Arab communities arguably have a cultural foundation - noting that a core of traditional Arabic thought apparently involved a denial of the possibility / desirability of free will. Such an assumption must be a formula for fatalism, political authoritarianism and economic failure (as the ability to change - which denial of free will seriously inhibits - is vital for economic productivity). It is because of issues like these that students need to be made aware of the consequences of cultural traditions at the same time that they are encouraged to understand them and objectively assess their relevance. It is frequently asserted that the values taught in state schools need to be compatible with Australia's democratic system of government. Achieving this requires vigilance, because not all value systems are compatible with democratic traditions (see Spiritual and Philosophical Programs must be Compatible with Australia's Institutions). The latter also notes that not all value systems are compatible with Australia's egalitarian (social equality) aspirations. Ensuring A Flexible Basis for Moral Interpersonal Relationships Australia seems to suffer substantial social dysfunctions as a consequence of the widespread loss of the traditional ethical basis for interpersonal morality (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty). Thus the 'values' debate is of great practical significance - as it is vital that a very solid ethical basis for interpersonal morality be established. However, as noted in Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty, Australia's legal and governance systems assume individual liberty - and this feature has critical political and economic implications. Also it is not characteristic of any but Western societies (being a product of their Christ-ian heritage) - and is strongest in the so-called 'Anglosphere'. Such liberty seems possible only where: a solid ethical basis of interpersonal morality is embedded in individual consciences responsible to God (rather than being externally-enforced by social elites or authoritarian moral legalism); there is a clear separation between church (which deals with issues of ethical and moral values) and state (which deals with (say) social and economic systems without having to determine the nature of, or enforce, moral interpersonal relationships). This has far-reaching consequences, because: in assessing value-systems that should be taught in Australian schools the issues at stake is not merely to avoid social dysfunctions but also presumably to ensure that Australia's liberal legal and governance systems can continue to be effective; those systems can not be based on individual liberty if the values to be taught are determined by the state (eg by government or government schools). Postmodernism: A Philosophical Over-reaction with Serious Consequences Much of the confusion about values in education appears to be a consequence of the emergence over several decades of (so-called) post-modern theories in university humanities faculties. These theories challenge the validity of claims to real-world knowledge on the basis that such claims are, to a greater or lesser extent, a 'social construct' which have political implications (through reflecting what is advantageous to some groups). This view encourages: a disregard for what has traditionally been seen as 'positive' knowledge - and a well-meant desire to regard alternative systems of knowledge as equally valid; and a manipulation of educational content to achieve particular political purposes - on the assumption that merely changing the way people think about a subject will change the reality. This is the essence of what has been called 'political correctness' (which one cynical observer described as coercive group-think [1]). The whole basis for criticism which is being levelled at values in the state schooling system seems to be based (to the extent that it has any validity) on these consequences of post-modern theories. Some of that critique makes specific reference to post-modern theory [1]. However post-modern theories have not only had an impact in education and there is now a significant body of experience to illustrated their deficiencies in other areas. An account of philosophical and real-world problems associated with the adoption of 'post modern' assumptions is presented in Eroding the West's Foundations. This refers, for example, to: valid concerns about limitations in traditional epistemologies (ie theories about the nature of knowledge) to which 'post modernism' has been an unfortunate gross over-reaction; the breakdown of effective public administration in Australia as a result of politicisation and managerialism which (have post-modern roots and) devalue real knowledge and experience; the threat to individual freedom which is implicit in demolishing the concept of 'public truth' (which has limited the autocratic exercise of power) through accepting post-modern assumptions; blocking the advancement of certain types of knowledge (eg the the critical role which culture plays in people's ability to be materially successful) is incredibly dangerous in an integrating world - because as a result there is: often no way to advance the position of disadvantaged peoples; and a tendency to develop theories about exploitation or conspiracies to explain disadvantage - and such theories can be a key factor in motivating pointless extremism. A case can in fact be made for partly blaming those in the 'humanities' faculties of Western universities who have preferred relativism to realism about the causes of political and economic failures in marginal states for the terrorism and conflict that have resulted from their irresponsibility. Public Acceptance of Homosexual Behaviour Extreme caution in school endorsement of 'homosexual rights' may be warranted. This issue may be nowhere near as clear-cut as it has been popularly presented because: there seem to be reasonable grounds for concern that the public acceptance of homosexual behaviour has a key role in the breeding of child sex offenders - by confusing children who are sex abuse victims about their sexuality and putting them at risk of becoming abusers of the next generation of children (see About Child Sex Abuse); despite the tantalizing but inconclusive indications that some researchers find to support their assumption that homosexual behaviour may be purely a product of genetics or inter-uterine exposure to hormones, it appears that field observations suggest that homosexual behaviour may often be an emotional / addictive affliction as a way of coping with childhood abuse or neglect [1]. The latter argues, based on long personal experience and study, that: people need to get the facts because of pressure to endorse homosexuality - and this requires reading. Reliance on the popular media is unsafe because there is a lot of misinformation around; 1-2% of the population experience same-sex attractions; a substantial percentage of those practicing homosexuality are married; stable faithful homosexual relationships are a myth; very few in the 'gay' scene are happy - and all seem to be damaged; homosexuality has identifiable causes eg there is often a history of emotional deprivation and sexual abuse as children and a retarded emotional and intellectual development; 50% of those who adopt a gay lifestyle become HIV+; many people struggle with same-sex attractions and want help to avoid a gay lifestyle. Providing support for them is a long and difficult process; homosexual orientation can change. If the claim that homosexual behaviour is often an emotional / addictive affliction is valid, then it makes no more sense to either (a) try to prevent it by law or (b) endorse it as a 'right relationship', than would be be the case for anorexia nervosa. Moreover many who support 'homosexual rights' may unwittingly be giving tacit endorsement to past or prospective child abuse. Furthermore given that the public acceptance of homosexual behaviour seems to make children more vulnerable to sexual abuse, there must be some uncertainty about the motives for supporting homosexual 'rights' by adults in institutions and non-biological families where children are most at risk of sexual abuse. February 2004