HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCHTheory & Practice

Vol.12 no.4 1997Pages 437^(47

Learning to care: a focus for values in health andenvironmental education

John Fieri

Abstract

Health and environmental education seek toaddress the living conditions and lifestyle choicesthat lead to health and environmental problemsby motivating and teaching students how toparticipate in the reconstruction of themselvesand society in accordance with ecological valuesand the democratic values of social and eco-nomic justice. While an ethic of care uniteshealth and environmental education in thisendeavour, liberal and conservative educationalpractices in the area of values education aredominated by discourses of values relativity andneutrality. This paper seeks to provide a casefor teachers adopting a committed stance inteaching young people an ethic of care so thatthey may participate in the personal and socialchanges needed to advance the transitiontowards a healthy and sustainable world. Inparticular, it draws upon insights from theliterature of environmental values education,which is characterized by intense debatesbetween those of liberal and committed persua-sions, to explore the ethical and pedagogicalissues involved in teaching for an ethic of carein both health and environmental education.

Education, indoctrination and values

Teaching as indoctrination—or indoctrinationthrough our teaching—is a concern for teachers andparents. Teachers-in-training are generally taught

Centre Tor Innovation and Research in EnvironmentalEducation, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, GriffithUniversity, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia

how wrong it is and are shown various ways ofensuring they adopt a balanced approach in theirwork. In place of indoctrination, balanced perspect-ives and neutrality are claimed as virtues. However,claims to balance and neutrality often deny thereality of much educational decision making bycurriculum planners and teachers.

Education, like all social institutions and pro-cesses, is a human creation; its nature and purposedetermined by human values, history and changingpatterns of power relationships. Another reasonwhy education cannot be neutral is that there isinsufficient time to teach everything that is possibleto be taught. Thus, all educational objectives,emphases in curriculum content and classroomprocesses must necessarily be a selection of theculture from which curriculum planners andteachers make their selections of objectives, con-tent, resources and teaching methods—and thereis no rational way of making such selectionswithout holding certain values to establish priorit-ies. In this way, the processes of education continu-ally expose students to filtered experiences. Thisinherent values bias in education means that it hasthe potential to serve the needs and interests ofcertain groups and not others and, given the unequalpower relations in most societies, educational sys-tems and classrooms tend to reflect and transmitthe values of the more powerful political, economicand educational decision makers in a society, thusperpetuating their dominant cultural beliefs.

However, the pervasive liberal ideology of bal-ance and values relativity in traditional educationaldiscourses often masks this reality and makeseducational processes appear fairer than they actu-ally are. In this way, many traditional and progress-ive approaches to education can—albeitunintentionally—serve the hegemonic purposes of

G Oxford University Press 437

J. Fien

dominant cultural groups by blinding students, asyoung people and later as adults, to dominantideologies. This view of the relationship betweeneducation and society provides the starting pointfor the arguments advanced in this paper. Thus,the paper is based upon the assumption that,whatever ideology of education one follows, educa-tion is 'not a random or neutral process butpurposeful and value oriented' (Stanley, 1985). AsGrant and Zeichner (1984, p. 15) explain:

There is no such thing as a neutral educationalactivity. Any action that one takes in the class-room is necessarily linked to the external eco-nomic, political and social order in either aprimarily integrative or a creative fashion. Eithera teaching activity serves to integrate childreninto the current social order or it provideschildren with the knowledge, attitudes and skillsto deal critically and creatively with that realityin order to improve it. In any case, all teachingis embedded in an ideological background, andone cannot fully understand the significance orconsequences of an activity unless one alsoconsiders that activity in light of the moregeneral issues of social continuity and change.

This assumption means that the key issue foreducators concerned with questions of values andethics in education should not be to check whethera particular approach to teaching is indoctrinationbut to ask questions related to the ways, and inaccordance with what values and ends, shouldschools and teachers 'indoctrinate'.

The values foundations of health and environ-mental education demand that teachers should playa role to help address the living conditions andlifestyle choices that lead to health and environ-mental problems. In a socially critical approach toboth health and environmental education, this isdone by motivating and teaching students how toparticipate in the reconstruction of themselves andtheir society in accordance with ecological valuesand the democratic values of social and economicjustice (Colquhoun and Robottom, 1990). Criticalhealth and environmental educators need make noapologies for this committed values stance, and

can point to the inconsistencies in any educationalapproach that might claim neutrality. As Huckle(1983) has argued, committed teachers will alwaysmeet opposition from those who claim to be neutralbut whose status and identity are actually derivedfrom their support of the status quo. Indeed, healso argues that (Huckle, 1983, p. 152):

A more just and caring society can only beachieved by methods which reflect justice andtolerance and foster personal autonomy. Com-mitted and responsible...teachers are preferableto those who claim neutrality for a curriculumwhich uncritically supports the existing socialorder.

Thus, it is possible, with Nel Noddings (1984,p. 135), to point to the dilemma of educationalapproaches that fail to consciously and deliberatelyteach young people to care for each other, othercreatures and for the natural world:

Schools give some attention to environmentalproblems, but they are not giving enough to thedevelopment of caring human beings.... Studentsin today's schools do learn about ecosystemsand food chains, and about extinction and habitatpreservation. But the problems they tackle areoften focused on faraway places.... [T]hey donot learn to work through sophisticated politicalprocesses to make the measurable improve-ments—sometimes small ones. If they knewhow to do this, they might be able to plan fora continuous series of small changes that wouldmake a significant difference.

This paper seeks to provide a case for teachersadopting a committed stance in teaching youngpeople an ethic of care so that they may participatein the personal and social changes needed toadvance the transition towards a healthy and sus-tainable world. In particular, it draws upon insightsfrom the literature of environmental values educa-tion, which is characterized by intense debatesbetween those of liberal and committed persua-sions, to explore the ethical issues involved inteaching for an ethic of care in both health andenvironmental education.

438

Learning to care

An ethic of care

The importance of caring as an educationalobjective and suggestions for developing thecurriculum around 'centres of care' are outlinedin two books by Noddings, Caring: A FeminineApproach to Ethics and Moral Education (1984)and The Challenge to Care in Schools (1992).In them she identifies the paradox that sees usliving in a world in which to care and be caredfor are the ultimate human experience—but manypeople, such as patients in the medical system,clients in the welfare system, adolescents inschools, and the young and the elderly insome families, feel un-cared for. Noddingsacknowledges the debates that distinguish betweencaring as a personal attribute (a virtue) andcaring as a lived process of empathy and activesolidarity. In seeking a reconciliation of theseperspectives, she outlines the nature of the caringprocess to involve: (1) conceptual and emotiveunderstanding, (2) positive regard and respectfor the feeling and intrinsic value of otherpersons, animals, plants and non-living things,recognition of her/his/its/their rights, and (3) themotivation, willingness and skills to act to protectand enhance these feelings, values and rights.

To help young people develop and practicean ethic of care, Noddings argues for a curriculumorganized around 'centres of care' in whichattention is given to learning how to care forourselves, for intimate others, for associates andacquaintances, for distant others, for non-humananimals, plants and the geophysical world, forthe human-made world of objects and artefacts,and for ideas. She laments that too muchcontemporary education values caring for ideasabove all the other 'centres of care', and arguesthat educational goals and processes have becomedistorted as a result. Indeed, she sees contempor-ary curriculum models and classroom practicesthat reify knowledge acquisition, cognitive per-formance and measurable outcomes at the expenseof caring for ourselves, others, and the rest ofliving and non-living nature among the manyreasons which contribute to the paradox of

un-caring in the modern world. Health andenvironmental educators who acknowledge thethree-fold goal of environmental health educationoutlined by Spork (1993)—healthy people livingin healthy communities in a healthy environment—are well-paced to reorient the curriculum aroundNoddings' 'centres of care' to help redressthis problem.

The global imperatives underlying an ethic ofcare were identified 20 years ago in the preambleto one of the seminal documents of contemporaryenvironmental education. The 1975 Belgrade Char-ter advocated that education be directed at solvingthe social and environmental problems that flowfrom poverty, hunger and exploitation (UNESCO-UNEP, 1976, pp. 1-2):

Inequality between the poor and the rich amongnations and within nations is growing and thereis evidence of increasing deterioration of thephysical environment in some forms on a world-wide scale...

What is being called for is the eradication ofthe basic causes of poverty, hunger, illiteracy,pollution, exploitation and domination. The pre-vious pattern of dealing with these crucialproblems on a fragmentary basis is no longerworkable...

It is absolutely vital that the world's citizensinsist upon measures that will support the kindof economic growth which will not have harmfulrepercussions on people; that will not in anyway diminish the environment and their livingconditions...

We need nothing more than a new globalethic—an ethic which espouses attitudes andbehaviour for individuals and societies whichare consonant with humanity's within thebiosphere.

Dr Brundtland, the Chairperson of the WorldCommission on Environment and Development,outlined the nature of the transition required tocreate such an ecologically sustainable and sociallyjust society, and the role envisaged for education,when she wrote (Brundtland, 1991, pp. 4-5):

439

J. Fien

The transition to sustainable developmenttouches on core issues of our societies. Itconcerns basic values and moral codes forhuman behaviour, attitudes and considerationfor fellow human beings and for nature itself.In order to reverse the present negative trends,there is an urgent need for commitment andaction at all levels of society. Today, thereis an increased awareness that solidarity andresponsibility must be extended to encompassthe interests of future generations-

Teachers play a very important role in thetransition between generations, in the know-ledge from one generation to the next. Con-sciousness-raising is vital for change. Teacherscan convey to children a sense of respect andresponsibility for nature and for the globalenvironment...

But respect for the environment alone willnot be enough to save our common future. Asense of solidarity with the world's underpriv-ileged will be equally important. There is noway we can win the battle to save the globalenvironment unless we deal squarely with theissue of world poverty. We must teach the nextgeneration that necessity of caring for the poorand the dispossessed.

In defence of commitment

These exhortations from international institutionsand leaders aside, at least five clear reasons fortaking a committed approach to teaching youngpeople to care about the natural and human environ-ment, for all living and non-living things, can beoutlined. These reasons are based upon the ideasproposed in Stanley's 1985 paper 'Social recon-structionism for today's social education' whichrelated to the role of teachers in working withyoung people to explore controversial social issues.

The first argument holds that the values inherentin an ethic of care are essential for living in ademocratic society. These include: a positive self-image; acceptance of, and respect for, others;compassion and kindness; open-mindedness;

respect for human rights; concern for justice;commitment to sustainable development, and awillingness to be involved. These core democraticvalues serve the interests of all, not just theprivileged, and are the sorts of values into whichStanley argues young citizens should be socialized.He notes that 'one would not expect the schoolsto stand in direct opposition to our main socialvalues and institutions. Furthermore, in a societyin which the culture and values (are)...progressiveand democratic, cultural reproduction would be ahealthy emphasis'. Stanley concludes that, it is notpossible 'to maintain any society without a certainamount of cultural transmission and reproduction'.However, we need to be mindful that the sorts ofdemocratic values that Stanley advocates are notof equal worth in the eyes of all people or equallyapplicable in all contexts. Bak (1996) argues thatthis does not mean that the only conclusion is tosee knowledge as relative and adopt a relativistposition on values. Referring to values as 'moralgoods', she argues that the need to educate fordemocratic change requires an approach to educa-tion that develops both cognitive processes andmoral principles by which young people can learnhow to make judgements between competing moralgoods and to judge the value of democraticallytaken decisions.

This relates to Stanley's next argument that nomeaningful learning is purely cognitive becauseall knowledge has its moral dimensions. Studentsneed to learn to care about certain values andissues and to empathize with others if they are todevelop an interest in inquiring into their ownhealth and environmental concerns, and those ofothers. Thus, Bak (1996) advances a case for a'normative epistemology' to underlie environ-mental education. For Bak, normative epistemo-logy can transcend the theoretical cul-de-saccreated by viewing knowledge as either a totalizingdiscourse with the potential to be oppressive or associally constructed and therefore relative. Sheexplains that normative epistemology judges theworth of propositions on two grounds—its justi-fication within the rules that govern reasoneddebate (such as consistency, coherence, use of

440

Learning to care

supporting evidence and logical deduction, etc.)and its accord with a defensible set of moralprinciples. She argues that normative epistemologythus 'links rationality to our moral commit-ments...and our notion of human flourishing...toour cognitive ideals' (1996, p. 4). Using normativeepistemology as a basis for teaching involvesexposing students to particular content and learningexperiences which are designed to have an affectiveimpact, and then consciously using both cognitiveargument as well as selected values and principles(such as respect for others, tolerance, and a commit-ment to sustainable development, justice, humanrights, peace and democracy) as criteria for ethicaldecision making.

Stanley's third argument relates to the nature ofthe background knowledge and cognitive skillsof primary and early secondary school students.Sometimes these may not be sufficiently developedfor young people to be able to apply all thecomplex thinking and problem-solving strategiesnecessary to analyse many controversial heath andenvironmental issues. Some commentators, suchas Warnock (1996), believe that decisions aboutmany environmental issues, such as rainforestconservation and ozone depletion, require such adeep understanding of complex scientific conceptsand their legal, economic and political contextsthat 'it is impossible for very young childrengenuinely to reach an informed view on them'(p. 50). However, others argue that such issuescannot be ignored because the media, family andother social influences have already made them apart of young people's lives, and that that mucheffective work can be done in teaching controver-sial issues with younger students by responding tothe cognitive and emotional starting points ofyoung people—just as in the teaching of all topics(see, e.g. Murdoch, 1992, 1994). Whatever viewone takes, Stanley's argument leads us to questionwhether it is possible to wait until children areconsidered old enough to be able to reasonabstractly before beginning to teach them why theyshould care for each other and the earth, and waysof living that are important manifestations of this.

Fourth, Stanley argues that the affective dimen-

sions and impacts of the learning programmes areopened to public examination when the teacherpublicly states a preferred values position. A hostof pedagogical guidance is available on waysof doing this without jeapordizing the power ofstudents to value otherwise (Stradling etal., 1984;Fien, 1988; Pennock and Bardwell, 1994; Gilbertand Hoepper, 1996). Conversely, attempts at valuesneutrality and balance in teaching values-ladenissues can convey a hidden message which teachesstudents that it is preferable not to state publiclythat one cares deeply about particular issues orthat one's beliefs should be kept private (after all,this is what their teachers do!). Within discourses ofneutrality, students also learn through the resultantvalues relativity that all values are of equal worth:and if all values are of equal worth, it is possiblethat all may be considered equally worthless.

Stanley's fifth argument in favour of an openlycommitted approach to values in teaching is thatthe interests of the most influential groups insociety, and the structures that sustain them andperpetuate unhealthy and environmentally dam-aging living conditions, can remain hidden withoutthe conscientization that health and environmentaleducation can provide. Education for conscientiz-ation and empowerment requires a recognition ofthe distribution of power in society and the power-knowledge nexus embedded in different discoursesand the values that they advance. Committededucators doubt that one can be neutral in anyconflict of opinion, values or decision-makingbetween the powerful and the powerless. As Freire(1972) wrote: 'Washing one's hand of the conflictbetween the powerful and the powerless means toside with the powerful, not be neutral'. Thus,attempts at values neutrality when teaching aboutcontroversial health and environmental issues mayend up, albeit perhaps unwittingly, as exercises indeception, and thereby serve to reinforce dominantsocial values. Such approaches do not give studentsthe option of examining, and then accepting orrejecting, the values stance being proposed. Instead,they inculcate a relativistic notion of values thatmay prevent students from caring for and particip-

441

J. Fien

ating in decisions about their future well-being andthat of their communities.

Thus, a committed approach to values in educa-tion would develop the capacities of students toclarify their views on health and environmentalissues by developing an ethic of care. This involvesthe affective objectives that are associated with thepersonal development aspects of liberal approachesto education—such as the development of self-esteem, the clarification of personal attitudes andvalues, and the development of cognitive skills ofvalues analysis. The latter include: the skills ofanalysing alternative viewpoints on issues, recog-nizing the values that underlie them and evaluatingthe consequences of alternative solutions to prob-lems. These objectives of a liberal approach arealso an essential part of a committed approach.However, a committed approach has the additionalaffective objective of consciously seeking to helpstudents to develop a strong and enduring ethicof care.

One way of identifying an appropriate valuesbase for an ethic of care is to turn to the literature onenvironmental philosophy. This literature reveals adifference between two broad schools of thought—the ecocentrism of deep ecology and the humanwelfare orientation of social ecology (Eckersley,1990). Ecocentric environmentalists base their pre-scriptions for an environmental ethic upon anexamination of the human responsibilities to carefor plants, animals, and the other living and non-living things in nature. I accept the wisdom of thisposition and the strong case made for 'biophilia'being an essential dimension of our humanity.However, I also see biophilia as an insufficientvalues base for a committed ethic of care. I believethat a comprehensive ethic of care for healthand environmental education needs to be moreinclusive than this and also incorporate valuesrelated to the human responsibility to care for eachother as well as nature. These include the valuesof justice and equity which have long been neg-lected in environmental education. According toAtchia (1990), such a comprehensive ethic is tobe found in the World Ethic of Sustainability uponwhich the second World Conservation Strategy

(IUCN, WWF and UNEP, 1990) was developed. Insummary form, these include two sets of values—those related to our responsibility to care for nature(or ecological sustainability) and those related toour responsibility to care for each other (socialjustice). Four values may be identified in each set.

People and nature: ecological sustainability• Interdependence. People are a part of nature and

depend utterly on her. They should respect natureat all times, for nature is life. To respect naturemeans to approach nature with humility, careand compassion; to be frugal and efficient inresource use; to be guided by the best availableknowledge, both traditional and scientific; andto help shape and support public policies thatpromote sustainability.

• Biodiversity. Every life form warrants respectand preservation independently of its worth topeople. People should preserve the complexityof ecosystems to ensure the survival of allspecies, and the safeguarding of their habitats.

• Living lightly on the earth. All persons shouldtake responsibility for their impact on nature.They should maintain ecological processes, thevariety of life, renewable resources and theecosystems that support them. They should usenatural resources and the environment carefullyand sustainably, and restore degraded eco-systems.

• Interspecies equity. People should treat all crea-tures decently, and protect them from crueltyand avoidable suffering.

People and people: social justice• Basic human needs. The needs of all individuals

and societies should be met, within the con-straints imposed by the biosphere; and all shouldhave equal opportunity for improving their lot.

• Inter-generational equity. Each generationshould leave to the future a world that is at leastas diverse and productive as the one it inherited.To this end, non-renewable resources should beused sparingly, renewable resources should beused sustainably and waste should be minimized.The benefits of development should not be

442

Learning to care

consumed now while leaving the costs to thefuture.

• Human rights. All persons should have thefundamental freedoms of conscience and reli-gion, expression, peaceful assembly, and asso-ciation.

• Participation. All persons and communitiesshould be empowered to exercise responsibilityfor their own lives and for life on earth. Thusthey must have full access to education, politicalenfranchisement and sustaining livelihoods; andthey should be able to participate effectively inthe decisions that most affect them.

(Adapted from IUCN, WWFN and UNEP, 1990,p. 22; Fien, 1993, p. 64.)

These eight values might be seen as a startingpoint, at least in environmental education, forthe clarification of an ethic of care. No doubt,committed health educators could revise this listto provide for a more comprehensive ethic of carein health education. However, given Spork's (1993)three-fold goal of health education—healthy peopleliving in healthy communities in a healthy environ-ment—the people-nature and people-people valuesoutlined above could be a valuable starting pointfor committed health educators also.

Contrasting approaches

There is a difference of opinion among educatorsover the appropriate stance teachers should takeon values such as these. This difference involvesa debate over the extent to which teachers shoulddirectly teach towards particular values. It alsoinvolves debate over the ideological ends servedby adopting values pluralism and claims to neutral-ity of liberal approaches to values education. Thisdebate is active in environmental education at thepresent time (Jickling and Spork, 1996). It arisesfrom the arguments of some environmental edu-cators over a long period of time that directlyteaching for the values of a committed environ-mental ethic should be an overt purpose of educa-tion. As O'Riordan (1987, p. 2) argues:

Radical environmental education has a philo-sophy, content and methodology that is tryingto influence the attitudes and values of societyso that care and justice are integral elements ofhuman behaviour out of which will inevitablycome a careful treatment of the world'sresources.

This contrasts with the view of those who arguethat a values neutral approach is more appropriate.The richness of this debate indicates that thereis a substantial body of literature on values inenvironmental education which health educatorsmight consult. This work has provided a range offrameworks and strategies for dealing with values-laden issues in teaching (e.g. Caduto, 1983a,b;Knapp, 1983) and has reviewed research findingson the effects of environmental values education(Iozzi, 1989a,b). However, with the exception ofthe critiques of values education made by Huckle(1980, 1983b) and Fien (1993), and the argumentsfor commitment advanced by Bak (1996), almostall of this literature has been written from a liberalorientation to values education. This orientationdoes not appreciate the first points made at thestart of this paper, i.e. that school curricula andpractices reflect dominant patterns of power andcontrol in society, and that the ideological functionof the curriculum (both hidden and overt) meansthat schools and teachers cannot avoid inculcatingparticular values. Thus, this literature does notquestion the explicit values that underlie the casefor neutrality in values education or the valuesinculcated through pluralist values education strat-egies such as values clarification and values ana-lysis (Stradling et al., 1984; Simpson, 1986).

As a result, health educators should be awarethat the literature on values in environmentaleducation has tended to ignore research on thenature of moral thinking (Hare, 1981), an ethic ofcare (Gilligan, 1982; Nodding, 1984, 1992), socialjustice (e.g. Rawls, 1971) and collective socialresponsibility (e.g. Maclntyre, 1981), and theirplace in democratic societies (Timmerman, 1986).Trapped within its own liberal ideology, this literat-ure has not sought to reconcile the case for directly

443

J. Fien

teaching the values that underlie learning why andhow to care with the case for teaching studentshow to reflect on the dilemmas posed by theconflicting values and how to clarify their ownattitudes to particular environmental issues(Benniga, 1988, p. 417).

Thus, Huckle (1980, 1983b) has argued that theliberal position on values education—that studentsshould be taught about the range of values in anysituation and how to clarify their own position inrelation to them—must be extended to includethe direct teaching of particular values within anatmosphere of free and critical discussion. AsGiroux (1981) also argues, 'students must learnnot only how to clarify values, they must alsolearn why certain values are indispensable to thereproduction of human life' (p. 359).

The values to be promoted in this mannerinclude the substantive or terminal values relatedto environmental ethics, social equity and demo-cratic procedures outlined in the previous sectionas well as cultural universals such as truth andhonesty. Pepper (1987) insists that pedagogicallythis need not lead to indoctrination but to adrawing out of students' values in free and opendiscussion, ideology critique, and the analysis ofsocial interests through critical praxis. Pepperargues that education is not a matter of teaching'correct' values but one of drawing out whatstudents already know and believe to be ethical.He argues that (Pepper, 1987, pp. 12-13, emphasisin original):

If pupils are enabled to analyse the valuesbehind their present socially-learned behaviourpatterns they will conclude for themselves thatdifferent behaviours require different values—and these will probably be values that theybelieve in at heart, because at heart most kidsare decent and nice. What students need aboveall is to know how behaviour patterns canchange, and such knowledge cannot be completewithout some understandings of the relations ofproduction that stem from our economies—relationships which substantially contribute toour behaviour patterns in the first place.

This approach to values education has beenlabelled 'committed impartiality' by Kelly (1986).According to Kelly (1986, p. 130), committedimpartiality entails two beliefs:

First, teachers should state rather than concealtheir own views on controversial issues. Second,they should foster the pursuit of truth by ensur-ing that competing perspectives receive a fairhearing through critical discourse.

A similar case for teacher commitment in valueseducation has been made with regard to religiouseducation by Hill (1982) and multicultural educa-tion by Singh (1989). Teaching through committedimpartiality involves a number of ethical responsib-ilities which have pedagogical implications. Kelly(1986, p. 130) has outlined five conditions for'teacher disclosure' which safeguard students fromunethical teaching practices:

(1) Teachers' views should be consciouslyincluded rather than avoided in the discussionof controversial issues.

(2) Teacher disclosure of personal views shouldrepresent a positive ideal of, and model for,committed and responsible citizenship.

(3) Teachers should disclose their views openlyand unashamedly, and not consistently disguiseor diminish them through devil's advocacy orrepeated qualification.

(4) The timing, mode and tone of disclosureinvolve professional decisions that can onlybe made by individual teachers with regard toindividual classes and students.

(5) The disclosure of teachers' views should bedone judiciously and with due regard to theimperatives of impartiality and critical dis-course.

Kelly (1986, pp. 130-131) summarizes the eth-ical implications of these pedagogical principlesin this way:

To recommend that teachers state their personalviews on issues does not mean, however, that...they repeatedly attempt to convince students ofthe superiority of their own positions. To the

444

Learning to care

extent that teacher disclosure becomes heavy-handed advocacy, it may reasonable be per-ceived by students as propaganda or psycholo-gical intimidation. In either case, the norm ofimpartiality would be undermined.

He also suggests that teachers need to adopt 'aset of strategic correctives' in order to adhere tothe imperatives of impartiality, including (Kelly,1986, p. 132):

• Praising reasoned oppositional viewpoints.• Publicly engaging in self-critique.• Encouraging students to critique their points

of view whilst critiquing students who merelyparrot them.

These guidelines are supported by critical edu-cators such as Huckle (1985, p. 303) who stressesthe importance of 'commitment to truth as a duty'and Richardson (1982) who argues that teachershave a duty to protect their students from theirown power of persuasion by allowing space fordoubts and differing viewpoints. Thus, Harris(1990) argues that while teachers have a responsib-ility to 'intervene' in the moral development ofthe young, to help them to resist the influences ofdominant cultural beliefs and norms, they shouldnot impose their views on students. Instead, herecommends the critical pedagogy of 'makingschooling into a site which develops skills forcritical reflection and action in the struggle toovercome injustice and social inequity' (Harris,1990, p. 179).

Conclusion

This conclusion seeks to provide a practical wayof teaching through committed impartiality bydistinguishing between two types of affective con-structs—values and attitudes. These concepts aresimilar in that both are a part of the affectivemake-up of one's identity although values are morestable and enduring than attitudes. Rokeach (1973)defines a value as an enduring belief that a specificmode of conduct or desired state of existence ismore preferable than others. Values lie at the very

centre of what we hold to be important principlesto live by or goals to work towards. Attitudes arederived from values and are value-expressive forparticular situations. That is, attitudes are beliefsthat have been derived from a particular value andexpress a view about what should happen inparticular situations. Thus, while values give riseto the attitudes we might have towards particularsituations, attitudes mediate between values andaction. In this way, attitudes are expressions ofopinion about what should happen in a particularsituation, and, thus, guide decisions and actionabout situations that arise in everyday life.

One of the dilemmas people face in decidingtheir attitudes towards a situation is the possibilityof tension between particular values that theyhold. This arises because the degree of personalcommitment with which different values are heldvaries. In addition, situations sometimes arise inwhich several values may be in competition, andneed to be weighed against each other before anattitude can be formed and a decision about aparticular course of action made.

What then is the role of committed teachers inrelation to values and attitudes related to an ethicof care? How can we teach in a professionallyethical way when guiding young people in learningwhy and how to care for themselves, for eachother and for the earth? There are two parts to theanswer of this question. Firstly, in relation tovalues, the role of the teacher needs to be apro-active one. This involves planning learningexperiences which promote the conscious adoptionof an ethic of care and encouraging studentsto engage in active ongoing reflection on it byconsciously seeking consistency between thevalues or principles that are parts of it. Secondly,in relation to formation of attitudes, the teacher'srole needs to be more circumspect. The role of thecommitted educator is not to tell students howtheir values should be applied on particular issuesor how they should act as a result. Thus, whileteachers have a responsibility to promote particularvalues, they do not have a licence to direct theattitudes that can be formed from these values.

An example may be used to illustrate this

445

J. Fien

distinction. For example, in relation to the questionof pesticide use in agriculture and chemical res-idues in food, teachers should promote key valueprinciples in an ethic of care by asking students toevaluate the issue according to principles such asecological interdependence, living lightly on theearth and meeting basic human needs. This doesnot mean that such values would be taught asabsolutes but as moral guides that people in othertimes and places have found useful and whichstudents can subject to critical analysis and review,and use as mirrors to examine the contributionthey could make to their individual lives andsociety. However, the ways these values are appliedby students when clarifying their attitudes to par-ticular agricultural situations (e.g. what chemicalsshould a fanner use in a particular local case,in what concentrations and how should they beapplied?)—and deciding how to act as a result—are decisions for students to make after a compre-hensive examination of the political economy offood production in the area under investigation.

This distinction between promoting the corevalues in an ethic of care but refraining fromteaching particular attitudes is based upon adefinition of indoctrination developed by Newfieldand McElyea (1984). They argue that indoctrina-tion occurs in education when a teacher leads astudent to accept certain propositions about asituation or issue regardless of the evidence, i.e.when the evidence is not challenged and evaluated,when it is presented as secondary to belief or whenit is simply not presented at all. Such a view ofindoctrination clearly refers to the teaching ofattitudes not values. Being principles for living,values generally stand independently of evidence.However, attitudes relate to particular circum-stances and demand the application of reasonthrough the marshalling and evaluation of evidenceabout particular circumstances before they can beformed. To return to the example of pesticide usein agriculture, teachers could encourage studentsto assess the relevance of value principles suchecological interdependence, living lightly on theearth and meeting basic human needs when evaluat-ing alternative proposals for types of sprays and

application levels, and various means for regulatingand monitoring compliance with local legislation.However, the attitudes that students form, and theactions they take, would be determined by theirassessment of appropriate evidence about the socialand environmental contexts and impacts of agricul-tural practices in the region concerned and thenature and likely impact of the particular proposals.This clarification of attitudes is akin to the processof critical thinking outlined by Mogensen else-where in this issue.

Teaching for values and not particular attitudeswould seem to be a practical and ethical approachto issues in health and environmental educationbecause it resolves many of the questions con-cerning indoctrination. It acknowledges the inevit-ability of values and ideology in the curriculumby advocating the promotion of the values in anethic of care but does not dictate how studentsshould respond to particular issues.

References

Atchia, M. (1990) Environmental education for sustainabledevelopment. Paper presented at Our Common Future:Pathways for Environmental Education Conference,Australian Association for Environmental Education,Adelaide.

Bak, N. (1996) Judging change and changing judgments: anextended notion of EE. Paper presented at the NationalConference of the Environmental Education Association ofSouth Africa, University of Stellenbosch.

Benniga, J. S. (1988) An emerging synthesis in moral education.Phi Delta Kappa, February, pp. 415-418.

Brundtland, G. H. (1991) Foreword. In Benedict, F. (ed.),Environmental Education for Our Common Future: AHandbook for Teachers in Europe. Norwegian UniversityPress, Oslo.

Caduto, M. (1983a) A review of environmental valueseducation. Journal of Environmental Education, 14(3), 13-21.

Caduto, M. (1983b) Toward a comprehensive strategy forenvironmental values education. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, 14{4), 12-18.

Colquhoun, D. and Robottom, I. (1990) Health educationand environmental education: towards a synthesis. Unicom,16(2), 109-118.

Eckersley, R. (1990) The ecocentric perspective. In Pybus, C.and Flanagan, R. (eds), The Rest of the World is Watching:Tasmania and the Greens. Sun, Sydney, pp. 68-78.

Hen, J. (1988) Education for the Australian Environment.Bicentennial Australian Studies Schools Project, Bulletin No.6, Curriculum Development Centre, Canberra.

446

Learning to care

Fien, J. (1993) Education for the Environment: CriticalCurriculum Theorising and Environmental Education.Deakin University Press, Geelong.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books,Harmondsworth.

Gilbert, R. and Hoepper, B. (19%) The place of values. InGilbert, R. (ed.), Studying Society and Environment: AHandbook for Teachers. Macmillan, Melbourne, pp. 59-79.

Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theoryand Women's Development. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

Giroux, H. A. (1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process ofSchooling. The Falmer Press, Lewes.

Grant, C. A. and Zeichner, K. M. (1984) On becoming areflective teacher. In Grant, C. A. (ed.), Preparing forReflective Teaching. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 1-18.

Hare, R. M. (1981) Moral Thinking: Its Levels. Method andPoint. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Harris, K. (1990) Empowering teachers: towards a justificationfor intervention. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 24(2),pp. 171-183.

Hill, B. V. (1982) Faith at the Blackboard: Issues Confrontingthe Christian Teacher. Eardmans, Grand Rapids, MI.

Huckle, J. (1980) Values and the teaching of geography: towardsa curriculum rationale. Geographical Education, 3(4), 533—544.

Huckle, J. (1983a) The politics of school geography. In Huckle,J. (ed.), Geographical Education: Reflection and Action.Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 143-154.

Huckle, J. (1983b) Values education through geography: aradical critique. Journal of Geography, 82, March/April,59-63.

Huckle, J. (1985) Geography and schooling, In Johnston, R.J. (ed.), The Future of Geography. Methuen, London, pp.291-306.

Iozzi, L. A. (1989a) What research says to the educator—partone: environmental education and the affective domain.Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 3-9.

Iozzi, L A. (1989b) What research says to the educator—parttwo: environmental education and the affective domain.Journal of Environmental Education, 20(4), 6-13.

IUCN, WWF and UNEP (1990) Caring for the Earth (2nddraft). IUCN, WWF and UNEP, Gland.

Jickling, B. and Spork, H. (1996) Environmental education forthe environment: retained? or retired? Paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New York.

Kelly, T. E. (1986) Discussing controversial issues: four

perspectives on the teacher's role. Theory and Research inSocial Education, XIV(2), 113-138.

Knapp, C. (1983) A curriculum model for environmentalvalues education. Journal of Environmental Education, 14(3),23-26.

Maclntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue. Macmillan, New York.Murdoch, K. (1992) Integrating Naturally: Units of Work in

Environmental Education. Dellasta, Melbourne.Murdoch, K. (1994) New Springboards: Ideas for

Environmental Education. Thomas Nelson, Melbourne.Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics

and Moral Education. University of California Press,Berkeley, CA.

Noddings, N. (1992) The Challenge To Care In Schools: AnAlternative Approach to Education. Teachers College Press,Columbia University, New York. .

O'Riordan, T. (1987) An environmental education agenda forthe 1990s. Annual Review of Environmental Education, 1,1-2.

Pennock, M. and Bardwell, L. (1994) ApproachingEnvironmental Issues in the Classroom. National Centre forEnvironmental Education and Training, University ofMichigan.

Pepper, D. (1987) Red and green: educational perspectives.Green Teacher, 4, 11-14.

Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Richardson, R. (1982) 'Now listen children...!'. NewInternationalist, 115, 18-19.

Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. Free Press,New York.

Simpson, E. (1986) A values-clarification retrospective.Educational Theory, 36(3), 271-287.

Singh, B. (1989) Neutrality and commitment in teaching moraland social issues in a multicultural society. EducationalReview, 41(3), 227-242.

Stanley, W. B. (1985) Social reconstructiorusm for today'ssocial education. Social Education, 49(5), 384-389.

Stradling, R, Noctor, M. and Baines, B. (1984) TeachingControversial Issues. Edward Arnold, London.

Timmerman, P. (1986) Is it possible to teach environmentalethics? In Wilkinson, P. F. and Wyman, M. (eds),Environmental Challenges: Learning for Tomorrow's World.The Arthouse Press, London, Ontario, pp. 75-88.

UNESCO-UNEP (1976) The Belgrade Charter: a globalframework for environmental education. Connect, 1(1), 1-2.

Warnock, M. (1996) Moral values. In Halstead, J. M. andTaylor, M. J. (eds), Values in Education and Education inValues. The Falmer Press, London, pp. 45-54.

447