Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint · PDF fileVol. 4, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 59-73. Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint. Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

59

Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014

AbstractIn several parts of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2035, one can find several statements that rightly give importance to values education related to the spiritual and moral development of students in Malaysian schools. These statements can be identified in the aspirations of the blueprint towards the education system and also towards the students as well as in one of the 11 main shifts underlined by the authors of the blueprint to transform the national education system. While some of the action plans and initiatives recommended in the blueprint come across as efforts to strengthen values education in Malaysian schools, other initiatives could raise concerns. First, these initiatives are somewhat not substantive and secondly, some of them are perhaps questionable, both in theory and in practice. Hence, this paper aims to point out these concerns to those who have interest in values education and concurrently offer suggestions for consideration regarding other related matters. A general aim of the blueprint is to produce Malaysian citizens who internalise values and specifically, to strengthen values education thus ensuring the spiritual and moral development of Malaysian students. Indeed, there is no shortage of ideas concerning ways to promote students’ maturity in values and this network of ideas and measures entails placing the responsibility for values education not just on one group (the values education teachers) or programme (the Islamic Education and Moral Education subjects), but on all school heads and teachers as well as adults at home and in the community outside the school.

Key words: Values education, national education, spiritual and moral development, Education Blueprint

INTRODUCTIONIn Malaysia, the word “transformation” has been and still remains a buzzword since the unveiling of the National Transformation Programme (NTP) on January 28, 2012. One of the aims of NTP is to “create a society whose akhlak and morals are of high standard”. Naturally, transformation entails changes in the education system. Hence, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has addressed this need via the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education (JIRE) ISSN 2232-0180Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 59-73


Abdul Rahman bin Md AroffFaculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

© The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access by Taylor’s Press.

* Corresponding author: Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff Email: [email protected]

JIRE is a publication of the Centre for Research in Education & InstructionalTechnologies, School of Education, Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd

DOI 10.7603/s40933-014-0005-1

60

Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff


2025. Aligned with the National Education Philosophy (NTP) and its aim to create a moral society, the Blueprint aspires to create: “An education system that gives children shared values and experiences by embracing diversity” and an environment where, “Every student will have ethics and spirituality”. The Blueprint then states that the outcome or impact on Malaysian students would be that they “will have strong moral values”. Considering all these aspirations and the expected impact on Malaysian students, values education then is certainly one of the priorities in the Malaysia Education Blueprint. There are altogether 11 strategic and operational thrusts or shifts proposed to transform the education in the country, and, indeed, one shift (i.e. the third shift) in the Blueprint is dedicated to ‘values education’. This shift is to “develop values-driven Malaysians”.

WHY VALUES EDUCATION?Before we proceed to commenting on the transformation of values education in the Blueprint, i.e. whether or not the transformation is reasonable and realistic, it would not be much of a digression if we briefly state the case for values education in the school. First, it is crucial to underline the notion of the inevitability of values education. This can be clearly seen if we define education as a process related to obtaining “desirable qualities” (Hirst & Peters, 1970), or transmission of what is “worthwhile” (Peters, 1973); and if we accept that values are “in-built” in our idea of education (Chapfika, 2008), or consider values as the “soul” of education (Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, NST, 2012). In short, education is not value-free.

Secondly, values education is essential as a preliminary solution to the ever increasing horrors and violence in the world. Indeed, since the 20th century (perhaps since time immemorial) till today, in some countries, cruel rulers and world powers have slaughtered millions of innocent people. In some other countries, unbridled corruption, fraud and greed among political and corporate leaders have unquestionably brought great sufferings and poverty to many more millions of people. It is also said that adults are to “bear primary responsibility for creating the environment where character is developed” (Davidson as cited in Lapsley & Power, 2005), but there have been many instances where some have failed to do so. In fact, not being righteous themselves, they are the source of teenage dysfunction. This has led to society’s “litany of alarm” (Arthur, 2003), that is, moral panic or widespread worry and anxiety of society regarding moral deterioration, social ills, negative habits, extremely reprehensible behaviour, and destructive conduct among young people. For example, Lickona (1993) states that the USA “is in deep moral trouble... is now the most violent of all industrialised nation”. In the UK, according to Arthur (2003), “the ills facing society… have increased rapidly since the 1960s and there is clear evidence… that the problems are increasing with greater rapidity”, and it was reported in the New Straits Times, 27 July 2007, that “British teenagers are the worst behaved in Europe”. Naturally, we should also be alarmed with the level of ethics, morals and other values-related matters among us, the young and the old, in Malaysia. As pointed out by a leader in the ruling government:

61



“di Malaysia... masalah moral membimbangkan” [Deputy Prime Minister, Utusan Malaysia, 17 April 2007).

To many people then values education is important and necessary; in fact, values education “is a timeless need of all societies and cultures” and it “often accompanies periods of cataclysmic change in society” (Lapsley & Power, 2005). The upsurge of interest in values education, as if values education is a newly discovered goal in education, has led many educators to state that education should not only produce “human capital” but must also produce the “human being”. Some of them further opine that integrating the teaching of values in the curriculum is as (or perhaps more) important as teaching language, science and math subjects. Additional views that emphasise the importance of values education in producing the “human being” are as follows:

…In 1996, at the UNESCO headquarters, the report Learning: The Treasures Within was presented to the International Commission on Education for the 21st century...The commission felt that education throughout life is based on four pillars: Learning to live together; learning to be; learning to know and learning to do. The last two are the ones that most are familiar with and are closely examined... Now that we are now more than a decade into the 21st century, it is time to put all the four pillars of learning on an equal pedestal where learning to live together and learning to be must claim their rightful place alongside learning to know and learning to do…[Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, New Straits Times, 26 February 2012].

…Demands of the 2lst century are such that the focus of education needs an important structural adjustment: moving away from a one-dimensional objective of economic development to a more balanced inculcation of knowledge and morality to the individual, community and nation…[Editorial, New Straits Times, 29 February 2012].

What is Values Education?Before we examine the rationale and content of values education according to the Blueprint, values education must first be defined. Only then can we justify our deliberations and comments concerning the Blueprint.

Values education has many meanings, and it occurs everywhere, at home, at the workplace, and in any organisation or institution. Be that as it may, in the school, the following description of values education could be considered as reasonable. Values education, according to Robb (1998), is an activity during which students make clear or explicit those values underlying their own attitudes and behaviour, and assess the effectiveness of these values for the long-term wellbeing of self as well as others. They also reflect on

62



other values, and will acquire these values and associated behaviour if found to be more effective in realising the long-term wellbeing of everyone. This description of values education carries cognitive weighting, that is, it deals more with the thinking or reasoning aspect of values education.

Next, there are other components in values education such as the emotion and action aspects. Thoughts that are not translated into actions are merely cheap talk, while behaviours without thinking are blind conformity. Without emotions, both thoughts and actions can be insensitive or impersonal while emotions without thinking and not followed by actions could be irrational and considered as just warm feelings to comfort oneself. Therefore, in describing values education, besides “knowing the good to be desirable” there must also be “desiring to do the good” (Hill, 2004) among students. The latter implies readiness or disposition to act in certain ways given the opportunity, and for students to act out or live by the values being commended, they usually would feel strongly that they should do it. This feeling or emotional side of character “serves as the bridge between judgment and action” (Lickona, 1993). So, values education is to educate students to “know the good, love the good, and do the good”. In short, values education is ultimately about improving behaviour or changing behaviour for the better. Since this behaviour is a translation of thoughts and feelings concerning worthy values, then the good behaviour is one that is autonomous and rational-altruistic.

Along with other definitions, the word ‘education’ is also used to describe the teacher-student relationship. But, what then is the role of the values educators? Fundamentally, theirs is to assist students in thinking about worthy values and to augment students’ commitment, or at least their capacity, to connect their thoughts and feelings into actions. As for the word ‘assist’, it means that values educators are facilitators who guide students in collaborative discussions and personal reflections of particular values, code of conduct, or other value-related issues, as well as in guiding them to appreciate and accord mutual respect when faced with differing opinions. However, values educators themselves should not impose their personal views in relation to any values issues. Instead, they must strive towards creating an environment for students to benefit from uncovering for themselves what behavior is desirable and what behavior is undesirable, and what values are required for their own long-term wellbeing as well as others. On the other hand, if values educators act like preachers and practise direct instruction instead, values education would then become values indoctrination.

Values Education in the Malaysia Education Blueprint

Rationale for the Malaysian Values EducationBriefly, according to the Blueprint, the need to “develop values-driven Malaysians” (the third shift) is based on the belief that students

63



will inherit a world fraught with challenges. Successfully navigating these issues will require students to have strong universal values such as integrity, compassion, justice, and altruism to guide them in making ethical decisions. At the same, it is important to balance the development of global citizenship with a strong national identity.

The successful implementation of the third shift will create an environment where:

Every student leaves school as a global citizen imbued with core, universal values and a strong Malaysian identity. The values that they have learnt are applied in their day to day lives, leading to more civic behaviour such as increase in volunteerism; a willingness to embrace peoples of other nationalities, religions and ethnicities; and a reduction in corruption and crime. Every student also leaves school prepared to act as a leader, whether in their own lives and families, or as part of the broader community and nation.

Initiatives to Transform Values EducationTo achieve the above aims and to elevate the cause for values education, the Blueprint has identified several initiatives as follows:1. Strengthen Islamic Education, Moral Education and civic elements by 2017 a. Community service (civic) element will be a prerequisite for graduation b. Islamic Education curriculum for Muslim students will include a greater focus

on understanding the core values and underlying philosophies of Islam and other main religions in Malaysia

c. For non-Muslim students, Moral Education will include an understanding of the core values of all main religions in Malaysia.

2. Develop students holistically by reinforcing the requirement for every student to participate in 1 Sport, 1 Club, and 1 Uniformed Body.

3. Enhance and scale up RIMUP from 2016 to facilitate interaction across school types.4. The Ministry will also look into: a. Having Moral Education and Islamic Education students share certain classes

together when common universal values are taught b. Making participation in the co-curriculum a requirement for graduation and

scholarships for further education CRITIQUERationale for the Malaysian Values EducationIt is commendable that values education in our Malaysian schools will give priority not only to public morality and citizenship (such as those related to unity or integration, national identity and global citizen) and religious values but also to personal values and life commitments (such as integrity, honesty, compassion, justice and altruism) and universal moral values. As for the need and objectives of values education as stated in

64



the Blueprint, we found it to be acceptable. More importantly it is something that is not too ambitious, that is, we can consider the agenda of the values education in our school as somewhat ‘modest’, and it should be so. Indeed, we would feel uneasy if MOE plans to treat values education as a reaction to the perversities that surround our society from all sides, and as a tool to fight the atrocities and insanities that are rampant in this world. Given the short span of about 13 years from 2013-2025, the aim to cure this “imperfect” world would surely be difficult if not impossible.

1. Strengthen Islamic Education, Moral Education and civic elements by 2017; 2. Develop students holistically by reinforcing the requirement for every student to

participate in I Sport, 1 Club, and I Uniformed Body, and3. Enhance and scale up RIMUP from 2016 to facilitate interaction across school types.

In general, we concur with the initiatives (1)-(3) as mentioned in the section above. It is widely acknowledged that the offering of Islamic Education for Muslim students and Moral Education for non-Muslim students does contribute to values education of these students respectively. This is because religion “is durable” and it offers “practical guidance” in coping with matters related to values (Thomas, 1997). As for Moral Education, it describes character in the language of values, and involves inculcation of virtues, appreciation of rules and deliberation of moral principles to develop students’ moral automaticity, moral understanding and moral reliability.

The community service and co-curriculum activities as well as RIMUP are also programmes that could further advance values education. Indeed, community service is expected to develop students’ self-esteem and help them learn the values of being a volunteer as well as gain valuable experience in assisting or working alongside individuals with special needs. Thus, students learn to be altruistic and care about the welfare of others. Community service also brings students into contact with responsible adults outside of school who have views on values that are somewhat different but more mature. As for co-curriculum activities, they are conducive for students to learn the values of respect, tolerance and fairness.

Thus, values education cannot be dealt with using one specific approach, as if it were ‘monolithic’. Indeed, it is not confined to just Islamic Education or Moral Education. As stressed by Nucci (cited in Walberg & Haertel, 1997), values education “cannot be isolated to one part of the school day, or to one context but must be integrated within the total school experience”. Indeed, many people view values education as a multidimensional activity that relies on the naturally occurring settings and situations of life in school that is, it capitalises on the values implications of all school subjects and explores the whole range of school activities, experiences, environments, and so forth, which have potential for values education of students.

65



However, certain concerns arise regarding some of the values education initiatives in the Blueprint. They are as follows:

Strengthen Islamic Education, Moral Education and Civic Elements by 2017a. Community service (civic) element will be a prerequisite for graduationIndeed, the “prerequisite for secondary school qualification” could serve as a motivating factor for students to be involved in community service programs. But we would not want students to be merely motivated by instrumental values like scores and grades while intrinsic values of community service such as cooperation and respect are sidelined. If this happens, then the prospect of values education to be successful via community service, is greatly undermined.

b. Islamic education curriculum for Muslim students will include a greater focus on understanding the core values and philosophies of Islam and other main religions in MalaysiaThe first thing that comes across our mind is this question: How do we identify the core values of the other main religions? Also, what happens if there are conflicting views regarding values propagated in Islam and other religions? This may pose some problems for both the curriculum developers and the Islamic Education teachers. Nevertheless, exposing Muslim students to the core values of other religions may probably make the Muslim students more sensitive and understand better non-Muslims.

c. For non-Muslim students, Moral education will include an understanding of the core values of all main religions in MalaysiaDrawing out moral values from a transcendental source, that is religion, has its justification and is widely accepted. Indeed, many religious values are alike or compatible with the noble values taught in Moral Education. However, we should not overlook the ultimate aim of Moral Education as its goals are fundamentally different from the goals of teaching religious values. Hence, we should also ask:

a. Which set of norms and values of the main religions in Malaysia should be given attention by the Moral Education curriculum?

b. How do we resolve conflicts that arise between religion and morality in the course of Moral Education teaching and learning?

We must be aware that there may be individuals in whose lives religion does not play a significant role, and some of them, for a variety of reasons, may be even be opposed to religion. For them, according to the ASCD Panel on Moral Education Report, “moral education based on religion and appeals to religious principles to solve moral issues are serious affronts”, that is, any moral decision has to be justified without reference to (and may involve challenging or repudiating) religion. Barrow (2006) adds that if teachers fail to differentiate morality from religion, “they will give a misleading picture

66



of what morality is and how one should morally educate the young”. Thus, is there a way out regarding this controversy or issue? Apparently, it looks like these teachers must approach this religion and/or moral values question carefully with some understanding of religious teachings. While stressing the rational basis for morality, these teachers need to be sensitive to students’ religious beliefs and respect their legitimacy by encouraging students to bring their religious resources to bear on moral issues. In other words, teachers must not impose or ignore religious beliefs or values, but instead explore their contribution towards moral education, in particular and values education, in general.

The Ministry will also need to look into:4a. Having Moral Education and Islamic Education students share certain classes together when universal values are taughtThe idea of grouping together Muslim and non-Muslim students when universal values are taught in either Islamic Education or Moral Education classes could raise some concerns. For instance:

a What are universal values and what yardstick can we use to label a particular value as a universal value?

b Which universal values are not religious values, or which religious values are not universal in nature?

Clearly, MOE may find it difficult to answer these questions. In addition, taking into account logistics such as classroom size and timetable for teaching universal values as well as considering the ethnic homogeneity of the students in most Malaysian schools, the concept would prove to be arduous and intricate for the school headmaster to put into practice.

Two other comments can be added here. Firstly, if Moral Education teachers consider referring to other religious teachings as unappealing and an affront; likewise, there will also be some Islamic Education teachers who will be equally affronted by schools teaching students to look outside their religious traditions, beliefs or convictions (aqidah) for guidance in the realm of values. Secondly, in both the Islamic Education and Moral Education curriculum, the core values of the main religions in Malaysia are to be taught. The question that arises then is: What about the values related to the beliefs, traditions and conventions of the indigenous Bumiputras in the country? Are those values then considered less significant in values education? Furthermore, we must also take note the values pluralism of our society and within the school context, school staff and students are more so. 4b. Making participation in the co-curriculum a requirement for graduation and scholarships for further educationThe comment related to (1a) can be applied here to (4b), if, after conducting a survey,

67



MOE pursues this matter. Just for the sake of obtaining secondary school graduation and scholarships for further education, some students may be motivated to participate in the co-curriculum activities. However, this would go against the spirit of the activities and values education. We must also be mindful regarding the ethical implications related to these instrumental values or rewards; for we know that there are students with different or special needs. Certainly, they would find it difficult to compete with their ‘normal’ peers.

Other ConsiderationsFor a complete and effective grasp on values education, we should also consider some other relevant matters. While some of them are already in place in our Malaysian schools, a failure to not highlight and stress these matters may leave them to be forgotten or not dealt with thoroughly. Lest we forget, we must also highlight the capacity of our school to transform values education. Some of these other areas or matters that need further clarification and/or reconsideration are discussed below.

Values Across the CurriculumFirst, our concern is on what comprises values education in the Malaysian schools. The question is: Does everything about Islamic Education, Moral Education, community service, and co curriculum activities deal with values education? Clearly, the answer to this question is “No”. This is because there are certain contents in these school subjects and informal activities that have nothing to do with values but are in fact, just factual information. Even if they do touch on values, it still cannot be considered values education if the teaching-learning process involves indoctrination or bad and imperfect practices in the pedagogy. Another question that requires attention is: Are we satisfied with the MOE’s composition of values education? Again, the answer to this question is another distinct “No”. Values are also implicated in many other formal subjects in the school. For example, some academic content of literature and history do deal with moral exemplars and moral traditions to facilitate good habits and virtues, physical and health education can prevent unhealthy addictions and the living skills subject stresses the values of self-esteem and positive social attitudes. Discussion about values can also be carried out in mathematics, science, and other forms of values education concerning road safety, sex drugs and the environment.

Hidden CurriculumBesides the approach discussed above, there are other projects, programmes and activities that can potentially advance values education. Although the Blueprint has identified some hidden curriculum activities (co-curriculum and RIMUP), we could also add just and caring community projects. School community projects indeed promote democratic values, responsibility, consideration and respect through emotional bonding as well as social and interpersonal relationships. Such projects allow talking to a person rather than talking at a person, that is, values education “comes from how people treat each other

68



more than from what people tell each other” (Berkowitz & Bier as cited in Lapsley & Power, 2005).

Whole School EthosIn addition to values found across the curriculum and the hidden curriculum, the whole school ethos can also contribute to values education. According to Pekarsky (1998), values are woven into the very fabric of day-to-day life in the school community, and students encounter and absorb them as a matter-of-fact by-product while participating in this community life. So we must make an effort to successfully embody a culture that aligns with our highest values aspirations and throughout our school life (not only in the classroom, but also in the canteen, school corridors, toilets, on the bulletin board, etc.),these value aspirations live as a social reality. Only then will our values education be a success.

School-community PartnershipsProgrammes and activities that would encourage and allow parents, the public and private sectors, NGOs, and society at large to forge a partnership with the school in regard to values education should also be pursued. These school-community partnerships can be related to the ninth shift in the Blueprint which is “partnering with parents, community and private sector at scale,” although, the emphasis of this shift is more on students’ academic progress (New Straits Times, June 19, 2013).

School CapacityIndeed there are many strategies for values education and strategies that emphasise engaged pedagogy and hands-on learning or experiential education are especially crucial. Hence, our schools must build their “social capital”, that is, the intangible network of relationships that fosters unity, cooperation, commitment and trust among all staff in promoting values education. We must also ensure “programme coherence” of our values education projects and activities, whereby all the instruction, resources and staff in the school are coordinated and integrated into a common framework. School “resources”, that is, the physical and organisational tools to make our values education goals a reality must also be adequate. (According to Campbell in the New Sunday Times, 17 February 2013, the work of Beaver & Weinbaum deals with the question of capacity in education). The question is: Are these three capacities satisfactory and adequate in our schools?

Last but not least, concerns “human capital” that is related to the knowledge, skills, dispositions and intellectual ability of our teachers. Are they well-trained and equipped to handle values education? Currently, from an emic perspective, it is not a stretch to say that many of our Islamic Education and Moral Education teachers may not be as effective in teaching about values, mainly because they practise imperfect pedagogies. They may be predisposed towards certain character traits or “bag of virtues” and some moral messages and codes, and they may even indulge in overly simplistic interpretations

69



of values. In addition, a focus by these teachers on didactic methods or traditional, authoritarian techniques of direct instruction, preaching or telling students what is right and what is wrong may involve inappropriate practices such as exhortation and coercion, drill, and unreflective, uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of values. As a result, conditioned conformity may arise.

Teaching students about values by getting them to memorise values is probably easy. However, in order to get them to think maturely, be affected emotionally, act responsibly and be accountable for their behavior involves a great deal more effort and is more complex. In getting (Islamic Education and Moral Education) teachers to teach the philosophies and core values of other main religions, it is easy to conclude that this will make their task more complicated. Nevertheless, we hope that these teachers will not become jaded or daunted by the foreseen difficulties related to this extra burden.

In fact, at this juncture, we would like to see some transformation in the pre-service teacher education and continuous professional development programmes for values educators. If we are serious about values education in our school (which currently is mainly through Islamic Education and Moral Education), we really will not want it “to be a random charade of the blind leading the blind” (Barrow, 1975). Regrettably, there seems to be a blind spot regarding human capital in the Blueprint, that is, the teachers required for values education. For an effective values education, the pre-service teacher education and in-service training programmes need to be transformed, for we believe that all teachers are values educators. Therefore, they must, to the best of their ability, fulfil their responsibility towards the values education of their own students. It should also be noted here that “after the the parent and child, the most profound (values) relationship our children experience is that between the teacher and the taught” (Clark as cited in Goodlad, Soder & Sirotnik, 1990). Additionally, in the teaching of values, the personal examples of the teachers are said to be the testimony or the bottom line and students do not like teachers who are phonies, do not practise what they preach or those who discriminate and practise double standards (Wolfgramm, 1991). In other words, teachers themselves must have good values and be identified as moral exemplars. SUGGESTIONAs pointed out earlier, there are people who associate values education with the hidden curriculum of the non-academic activities and the whole school ethos. However, these approaches have certain deficiencies or controversies, and in certain cases, can be counter-productive. Let us, first, look at the hidden curriculum of the non-academic activities (such as co-curriculum activities, community service programmes etc). It is true that values can be taught or are “caught” and students “pick-up” values from watching others behave. The question is: What if the behaviours that students observe or witness are bad and irresponsible? Thus as the hidden curriculum is implicit, it would mean that the students’ attitudes can be shaped or modified unconsciously and their values assimilated

70



unthinkingly. However, according to our concept of values education, students must also be made “more aware of the ‘values’ which are being... ‘transmitted’, in order that they may examine them openly and critically” (Straughan, 1982). Also, if some of the hidden values in the school are not subjected to open and reflective enquiry, then these values will always remain hidden.

Next, the whole school ethos has its problems too. Our Malaysian society is very much driven by its pluralistic values. If so, then what should the make-up of our school ethos be? Some non-Muslim parents feel that the environment in our mainstream national schools is set up to convert their children to Islam. Conversely, for the fundamentalists among Muslim parents, our national schools have not done enough to instil Islamic values. So, these two groups of protectionist parents have gone their separate ways, but their common sentiment is that the national schools are not their choice for their children’s education. We have to admit that this situation is partly responsible for the social-racial fragmentation found in our country. The MOE, therefore, has a big task of convincing certain groups in our society that the mainstream national schools are truly educational institutions that offer students from all kinds of background the opportunity to learn the values to be human and learn to embrace living together in a democracy. Again, is this goal merely a pipe-dream? To answer this, we must first note, that irrespective of school type, almost all school ethos in Malaysia favour academic excellence. Thus, if our Malaysian school is only interested in test scores and examination grades, then it is not promoting a healthy and conducive environment for values education. Utusan Malaysia (18 April 2007) pointed out that examination pressure is a major factor in schools ignoring activities that can build good character and a healthy culture among students. In worst cases, some schools have turned into places where students learn from their peers and adults in the school to curse, swear, cheat, and finally to become bad. Indeed, some school rules, practices and experiences can certainly sabotage values education or teaching of values in the classroom.

We could surmise that the hidden curriculum and school ethos approaches are not enough on their own to promote values education. Nevertheless, values education can be an essential part of these approaches; but the form and structure of the hidden curriculum and school ethos must be responsibly planned, and their contents must include appropriate values. Put in another way, these two school components are integral and distinguishable parts of values education; however, they are mainly concerned with “love the good” and “do the good”. The part of values education that the hidden curriculum and the school ethos will not be able to cover is pertaining to the “know the good”.

Some people claim that the “know the good” aspect of values education can be taught by means of the values found across the (formal) curriculum approach. While it is true that every school subject contains values issues, upon closer examination of classes in mathematics and science, history and literature, and other subjects, we would find the

71



extent of values education (as we have understood it) is minimal. Some of these subject teachers do not avail themselves of the opportunities to transmit values and there are others who do not understand the complex nature of ‘values’. In fact, most of them are not specifically trained to undertake the role of values educators. As such, without proper training, they cannot deal ‘off the cuff’ with any values issues which impinge upon or emerge in their teaching subjects. Yet another reason is that the teaching of their own subject would suffer if they spend time on values, that is, their lessons will be interrupted every time they take time to impart or educate on a value.

The above arguments suggest to us that values education requires a specific time slot dedicated to it. This specific subject or slot is mainly to handle the “know the good” part of values education, that is, the ‘reasoning’ part or cognitive aspect of values education that leads students to intellectually and philosophically explore and accept worthy values. We should recognise the distinctiveness of the values concepts, truth criteria and methodology of values reasoning and we must provide values reasoning with the same opportunities as being intensively taught or learned as other forms of reasoning. Indeed, values education can be systematically planned for and carefully implemented as a regular, formal school timetable subject, because as we have just said, values education has its own peculiar concepts, truth-criteria and methodology; that is, it has features that qualify it to be considered as a distinct ‘form of knowledge’ or ‘form of thought’ in its own right (Wilson, 1973). If we agree with this suggestion, then we have indeed realised the claim that values education involves the total school experience, whereby a distinct subject will explicitly and formally teach and transmit values to students, but this subject must be complemented with values across the curriculum, hidden curriculum and the whole school ethos. So as not to stretch or add another load to the existing, overloaded school curriculum, we would like to suggest instead that MOE relooks or re-examines the subject Moral Education in our schools and consider transforming it into a subject that can truly champion values education for all Malaysian students.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Certainly, there is no shortage of means or ways to promote values education in the school. However, no one of them alone can provide adequate values education and as such values education remains incomplete. In other words, effective values education employs a network of ideas and arrangements. As for the responsibility for values education, it would be inaccurate to solely place it on teachers. Instead, it should be the responsibility of various parties inside and outside the school. We would suggest to also allot a time slot dedicated specifically to values education and this formal subject must be continuously complemented by other relevant programmes and activities. At the same time, MOE must seriously build the school’s capacity (human capital, social capital, programme coherence and resources) to support and sustain values education as a formal school subject and also re-evaluate other academic and non-academic programmes and activities that transmit worthy values. In conclusion, as we look at the state-of-the-art of

72



values education in our Malaysian schools and the contents of the Blueprint in regard to values education, we have to admit that we still have a long way to go.

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

REFERENCESMd Aroff, A.R. (2008). Character building and education. In Chang. L.H. (Ed.), Asia-

Pacific Moral, Civic and Citizenship Education. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.

Arthur, J. (2003). Education with Character: The Moral Economy of Schooling. London: Routledge.

ASCD Panel on Moral Education. (1988). Moral Education in the Life of the School. Retrieved from http://www.crvp.o rg/book/Serieso6/Vl-3fa ppendix.htm.

Barrow, R. (1975). Moral Philosophy for Education. London: George Allen & Unwin Ud.

Barrow, B. (2006). Moral education’s modest agenda. Ethics and Education, 1(1), 3-13 Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). Integrating structure and content in moral education. Paper

presented at the Nucci, L. (Chair), Developmental Perspectives and Approaches to Character Education, Chicago.

Chapfika, B. (2008). The role of integrity in higher education. International Journal of

Educational Integrity, 4(1), 43-49. Goodlad, I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.) (1990). The Moral Dimensions of

Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hill, B. V. (2004). Values education in schools: Issues and challenges. Paper presented at

the National Values Education Forum, Melbourne.

Kirst, P. H., & Peters, B. S. (1970). The Logic of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Howard, R. W., Berkowitz, M. W., & Schaeffer, E. F. (2004). Politics of character education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 188-215.

73



Lapsley, D. K., & Power, C. (Eds.) (2005). Character Psychology and Character Education. Indiana: University of Notre Dame.

Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership. 51(3), 6-11.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2012). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Pekarsky, D. (1998). The role of culture in moral development. Retrieved from httpjfparenthood.libra ry.wise.ed u.fPerkasky.html.

Peters, R. S. (Ed.) (1973). The Concept of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Robb, W. (1998). What is values education — And so what? The Journal of Values Education, 1(January), 1-13.

Straughan, B. (1982). Can we Teach Children to be Good? London: George Allen and LJnwin.

Thomas, B. M. (1997). Moral Development Theories: Secular and Religious. Westport,

Cr: Greenwood Press.

Walberg, H. I., & Haertel, G. D. (1997). Psychology and Educational Practice. Berkeley: MacCarchan.

Wilson, J. (1973). A Teacher’s Guide to Moral Education. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Wolfgramm, K. F. (1991). Teaching values: Examples is the bottom line. Contemporary

Education, 62, 3.

Documents

Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint · PDF fileVol. 4, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 59-73. Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint. Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff