ABSTRACT

VALUES CLARIFICATION TEN YEARS LATER: CHANGES AND
FUTURES AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED EXPERTS

By

Stephen J. Taffee

This dissertation concerned itself with two basic research
questions:

1. In what ways have the theory and practice of values

clarification changed since 1966?

2. In what directions is Values clarification likely to

move during the next ten years?

To gather data relevant to these questions, the author
identified and contacted fourteen leading experts in values
clarification and/or values education, with an approximate ratio
of two proponents of values clarification to one critic of values
clarification. 0f the fourteen experts contacted, nine agreed to
participate in the study: Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, Sidney B.
Sinmni, Howard Kirschenbaum, Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Joel Goodman,
John S. Stewart, Alan L. Lockwood, and Milton Rokeach. An interview
guide was constructed, and the nine experts were interviewed and
the interview tape recorded. Prior to the interviews of the experts,

however, the writer answered most of the questions of an argumentative

Stephen J. Taffee

nature himself in an attempt to discover any assumptions that he
may have been unconsciously makingand to increase his awareness

of the possibility of "leading" the experts during their interviews.
These interviews were then transcribed and a transcript returned

to each of the experts for editing and clarification. Finally,

the edited versions of the transcripts served as the data base

from which the author .operated.

The author also undertook a review of relevant literature,
and in particular concerned himself with the evolution of values
clarification practice and theory. The pioneering work of Raths
was highlighted, as were the later contributions of Kirschenbaum.
Special attention was also given to the major criticisms of values
clarification, which were discussed and in some instances replied
to by the writer.

In analyzing the data, the author broke down both of the
basic research questions into several sub-questions each, and by
comparing and contrasting the responses of the various experts to
the sub-questions, attempted ultimately to gather information which
would yield answers to the two major research questions. The results
of the analysis and evaluation of these sub-questions were then
compared with the responses of the writer to his self-interview,
and while the results of this exercise were mixed, by and large the
writer had responded in a fashion similar to the proponents of

values clarification .

In regard to the two major research questions, the author

came to the following conclusions: (1) since 1966, values

Stephen J. Taffee

clarification has become an increasingly practical and usable edu-
cational tool; (2) since 1966, there has been an increasingly more
explicit role for affect in values clarification; (3) since 1966,
the number of questions and concerns relative to values clarification
has increased greatly; (4) values clarification will remain a
popular approach in values education during the next decade; (5)
values clarification will become increasingly integrated with
other disciplines and approaches during the next decade; (6) the
leadership in values clarification will become more diversified
during the next ten years as generalists in the approach are
joined by specialists in the approach as applied to specific
areas; (7) ideally, values clarification can have a great impact
on American education and society, and that ideals are an important
part of human experience in terms of future planning.

The significance of these conclusions was thought by the
writer to be the following: (l) values clarification, at least
partially, is responsible for increased public interest in the
broader area of values education; (2) values clarification has
introduced many people to humanistic educational programs and
practices; (3) values clarification's popularity is partially an
outgrowth of its practicality and applicability, and curriculum
planners should remember this. in designing new curricula; (4)
values clarification has been a dynamic yet stable approach,
changing over the years but also maintaining itself and not passing
into oblivion; (5) there is a need for the leaders of values

clarification to continue to perform research and development

Stephen J. Taffee

tasks; (6) values clarification is likely to remain a potent and
popular approach within values education during the next decade;
(7) there is a need for increased corrmunications between the
leaders of values clarification and the leaders of related ap-
proaches; (8) two major points which need to be explored by values
clarifiers in the future are the charges of ethical relativism and
the insufficient research as to the effects of values clarification.
The dissertation closes with some broad action proposals

based upon the conclusions given above.

VALUES CLARIFICATION TEN YEARS LATER: CHANGES AND
FUTURES AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED EXPERTS

By
. -.‘.-
, 1;, i '”

Stephen anTaffee

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1976

© Copyright by
STEPHEN JEFFREY TAFFEE

1976

\To my father

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I appreciate first and foremost, Linda, my wife, for her
caring and support (both emotional and financial), and her willing-
ness to forego all those wonderful aspects of living she so richly
deserves. Dear, if we can survive this, we can survive anything.

I appreciate Sarah, my beautiful daughter, for helping me
to become more aware of wonder and awe, creativity and spontaneity,
touching and caressing, and the need for us grown-ups to laugh, to
cry, to shake, and to hug.

I appreciate all of my doctoral committee members, for
their unique and individual gifts: Ben Bohnhorst, my advisor and
helper, for his capability and scholarliness; his willingness to
stretch and reach, and hence, to grow; andhis gentle yet probing
criticisms. Dale Alam, my dear friend and fellow composer, for
always acting as consistently with his beliefs as possible, and in
so doing, encouraging me to risk and to try. Charles Blackman, for
his incredible ability to see things as they are, and as they should
be; and for taking so much time to work with me, when he has so
little time, even for himself. John Suehr, for his nourishing
frankness and honesty, and for giving me some wonderfully creative
ideas in leadership and change. Bill Hinds, for his flexibility in
helping me construct a cognate area that looks like me, and for help-

ing me to discover and tie the loose ends.

iii

A special word of appreciation must go to the Alpena Public
Schools, and for all that they did to reinforce my ideas about
learning and teaching and kids, and for encouraging me to seek an
advanced degree.

I appreciate all of the caring and loving friends and/or
students from Alpena as well, I remember with great fondness their
concern and best wishes for both Linda and myself.

I appreciate Sid Simon, my friend and teacher, for his co-
operation in this study, for introducing me to values clarification
some five years ago, and for his creativity, dynamism and capability
as a leader while assisting in my education of my "self."

I appreciate Howie and Barb Glaser-Kirschenbaum, and
Merrill Harmin, for their cooperation in my thesis, their encourage-
ment, and for their capable leadership of the many workshops in
values clarification that I have been a part of.

I appreciate Joel Goodman, for his assistance in this
dissertation, for his humor and boundless creativity and concern,
and particularly for helping me, too, to recognize the wisdom of
"Peanuts.”

I appreciate John Stewart, for the countless hours of
stimulating conversation and genuine sharing and caring, as well
as for his cooperation in this study.

I appreciate especially, Dr. Louis Raths, who has been my
teacher and challenger for many years, even though we have only

recently met. His cooperation in this, study has added a dimension

for which I will always be deeply grateful.

iv

A word of appreciation too, must go to Drs. Alan Lockwood
and Milton Rokeach, for their stimulating conments and for their
cooperation in this thesis.

Finally, I deeply appreciate all of my brother and sister
graduate students, teachers, students, and friends here at Michigan
State University, who have all contributed in some way to this
dissertation. A very special word of appreciation to Fred Ebey,

a constant and loving friend, who has always been there.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF'APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter

l. INTRODUCTION To THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 2

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY 3

OVERVIEN 0F METHODOLOGY 6

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS . 7

OVERVIEw 0F THESIS . 9

2. A REVIEH 0F RELEVANT LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 10

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO

RATHS AND DENEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

THE RATHS THEORY OF VALUES CLARIFICATION . . . . l5
KIRSCHENBAUM'S MODIFICATIONS 0F VALUES CLARIFICATION

THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

THE GOALS 0F VALUES CLARIFICATION . . . . . . . 25

THE METHOD OF VALUES CLARIFICATION . . . . . . 28

CRITICISMS 0F VALUES CLARIFICATION . . . . . . 34

RESEARCH IN VALUES CLARIFICATION . . . . . . . 56

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 64

.3. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

vi

Chapter Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING THE EXPERTS . . . . . . 67
METHOD OF CONTACTING THE EXPERTS . . . . . . . 72
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEN AGREEMENT FORM . . . 72
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEw GUIDE . . . . . . 73
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEN PROCESS . . . . . . 73
SELF-INTERVIEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . .. . . . 76
4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . 79
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUB-
QUESTIONS. . . A . . . 79
COMPARISON OF SELF-INTERVIEW DATA NITH THE PRECEDING
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF SUB-QUESTIONS . . . . 125
5. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . 127
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. . . . . . . 142
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . l48
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
.A. Sample Interview Agreement Form
B. Completed Interview Agreement Forms .
C. Interview Guide
D. Form Letter Sent with Each Transcript
E. Interview with Louis E. Raths .
F. Interview with Merrill Harmin .
G. Interview with Sidney B. Simon
H. Interview with Howard Kirschenbaum
I. Interview with Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum
J. Interview with Joel Goodman
K. Interview with John S. Stewart
L. Interview with Alan L. Lockwood
M. Interview with Milton Rokeach .
N. Self-Interview .

viii

Page
170
172
182
185
187
233
253
281
326
349
.389
420
455
466

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
INTRODUCTION

In 1966, Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney 8. Simon,
published Values and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom.1
Their book was the first comprehensive presentation of the theory and
practice of "values clarification." Since 1966, values clarification
has enjoyed a tremendous amount Of growth in popularity, as evidenced
by the proliferation of books, articles, media packages and workshops
claiming to utilize the values clarification process. Many colleges
and universities have developed graduate and undergraduate courses
in values clarification. A significant number of studies have been
undertaken to measure the effects of values clarification. Values
clarification has also entered the lives of many people not directly
associated with Classroom teaching, e.g. social workers, counselors,
religious educators and civic youth organization leaders. Values
clarification probably is, at least partially, responsible for the
increased interest in the broader field of values/moral education
among educators. Indeed, Milton Rokeach, while expressing strong

reservations in regard to values clarification, nonetheless has

written: .

 

1Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney 8. Simon, Values
and Teachmwkjggwith Values in the Classroom (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966).

l

I believe that the values clarification movement has made
an extremely important contribution to modern education. It
has succeeded in getting across the proposition that beyond
making students aware of facts and concepts, it is also
important to make them aware of their own values. Such a
broadening of educational objectives now has a universal
face validity, largely because of tge pioneering work of the
proponents of values clarification.

As a theory, values clarification has brought both accolades
and applause to itself, as well as harsh criticisms. As a practice,
values clarification has been credited with helping students and
teachers become closer to one another, and with changing lives in
positive directions. On the other hand, values clarification has
been disparaged as psychologically dangerous, irresponsible, or a
mishmash of silly games.

This writer believes that, despite sometimes heavy criti-
cism, values clarification has had and will continue to have a

significant role within education.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to focus upon two important
questions regarding values clarification:
1. In what ways have the theory and practice of values
clarification changed since 1966?
2. In what directions isvalues clarification likely to

move during the next ten years?

 

2Milton Rokeach, "Toward a Philosophy of Value Education,"
Values Education, Theory/PracticeLProblemyProspects, ed. by John
Meyer, Brian Burnham and John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Hilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975), p. 124.

Information regarding these two questions was collected,
reported, and analyzed for significance, with the hope that as a
result, the genesis and continuing evolution of values clarifi-

cation may be understood with greater clarity.

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

Contribution to Theory

Many authorities, when referring to the theory of values
clarification, are relying upon the theory as originally recorded
in Values and Teachflg ten years ago.3 With the exception of an
essay with suggested theoretical Changes by Howard Kirschenbaum,
the theory has mainly been represented in print as virtually
unchanged.4 Yet, this writer, as a result of conversations with
many of the leading authors in the area, believed that there were
some indications of significant, but perhaps as yet unspoken or
unrecorded, new perceptions emerging in regard to theory. This
thesis serves to investigate the extent to which this is the case.

This thesis also gathers from current leaders in values
education, perceptions regarding future developments in values
clarification. The writer believes that such warranted predictions,
based upon logical trends, would be helpful to other investigators

concerned with values education.

 

3Raths, Harmin and Simon, Values and Teaching: Working
with Values in the Classroom.

4Howard Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification,"
Readings in Values Clarification, ed. by Sidney 8. Simon and Howard
Kirschenbaum (Minneapolis: Wilson Press, Inc., 1973).

Contribution to Practice

Significant changes or Shifts in practice may indicate a
change in theory or in interpretation of theory. Therefore, this
writer also concerned himself with rationales for any notable
changes which occurred.

Since the publication of Values and Teaching,5 the over-
whelming emphasis in writings about values clarification has been
in the realm of implementation as evidenced by such titles as:
Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for
Teachers and Students;6 Human Values in the Classroom: Teaching
for Personal and Social Growth;7 Clarifying Values through Subject

8

Matter: Applications for the Classroom; Comgosition for Personal

Growth: Values Clarification through Writing;9 Personalizing

10

Education: Values Clarification and Beyond; and BeLinning Values

 

 

5Raths, Harmin and Simon, Values and Teaching: Working
with Values in the Classroom.

6Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. Howe, and Howard Ki rschenbaum,
Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for
Teachers and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1972).

7Robert C. Hawley, Human Values in the Classroom: Teachigg
for Personal and Social Growth (Amherst, Mass.: Education Research

Associates, 1973).

8Merrill Harmin, Howard Kirschenbaum, and Sidney 8. Simon,
Clarifyin Values through Subject Matter: Applications for the
Classroom Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973).

 

9Sidney B. Simon, Robert C. Hawley, and David D. Britton,
Composition for Personal Growth: Values Clarification through
Writing (New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1973).

1oLeland W. Howe and Mary Martha Howe, Personalizing Edu-
cation: Values Clarification and Beyond (New York: Hart Publishing

Co. , Inc. , 1975).

Clarification: A Guidebook for the Use of Values Clarification in

1] to name some of them.

the Classroom,

Within this emphasis on implementation, there appeared to
be, at least to this writer, a gradual Change in emphasis from an
early cognitive, logical, weighing orientation, to an orientation
which placed greater emphasis upon the affective, feeling and
appreciating aspects Of an individual's valuing process. The
author believed that such a change warranted further investigation
and documentation.

What will the practice of values clarification look like
ten years from now? Will it be utilized much in the same ways as
now, or will it likely undergo significant Change? The answers to

such questions have Obvious relevance to practictioners at all

levels, especially the designers of curricula.

Contribution to Self

Obviously, there must be a personal aspect to the selection
of any area of investigation worthy of all the time and effort
involved in the composition of a dissertation. This writer plans
to continue his interest in the area of values Clarification, with
the definite intention and hope of publishing in the area. Values
clarification has been an important part of this writer's personal/
professional life since 1971, and it represents an integral dimension

of his own evolution. In other words, the questions posed are of

 

"Sidney 8. Simon and Jay Clark, Beginning Values Clarifi-
cation: A Guidebook for the Use of Values Clarification in the
Classroom (San Diego: Pennant Press, 1975).

 

significance to him personally, as well as to education in general.
Instead of representing a final hurdle, the writer wanted this
dissertation to hold, at least potentially, as much growth as
the preceding portions of this degree program. The writer has

not been disappointed.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

To gather information relevant to the questions enumerated
above, the writer identified, contacted, and then interviewed
experts in values Clarification. The interviews were recorded on
audio tape, transcribed, and the transcripts were then returned
to the interviewees for examination and editing for clarification,
and then incorporated into the study as important data for analysis.
The transcripts of the interviews conducted may be found in the
Appendix of this dissertation, along with an Interview Guide.

It should be noted that prior to the interview with the
experts, the writer conducted a "self interview" aimed at assisting
him in identifying assumption and raising his consciousness in regard
to the danger of "leading'I an expert. This was done by the writer
responding to all "argumentative" questions, i.e., questions whiCh

requested more than mere background information and were potentially

controversial in nature.

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Limitations

1. The use of interviews yielded data which are subjective
in nature. Nevertheless, for the purposes indicated above, such
data were the most valid and relevant. Every effort was made to
deal with these data in an objectively critical manner.

2. Face-tO-face interviews were not possible in all cases.
Thus, in the cases of those interviews conducted via telephone,
many non-verbal sources of information were unavailable. While
this fact represented a limitation, it did not prove to be a
severely limiting one.

3. Certainly not gll "experts" in values education could
be consul ted. The writer acknowledges the existence of many
competent, knowledgable experts within the area, but the study
deliberately limited itself to selected experts who have attained
prominence within the values education field.

The following, most of whom were personally acquainted
with the writer, were contacted to request their participation in
the study: Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, Sidney 8. Simon, Howard
Kirschenbaum, Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Leleand W. Howe, Mary
Martha Howe, James Raths, Joel Goodman, Michael Scrivens, John S.
Stewart, Milton Rokeach, Alan L. Lockwood, and Lawrence Metcalf.

Of this list of fourteen experts, nine agreed to participate
and were subsequently interviewed. Lawrence Metcalf, Michael
Scrivens and Mary Martha Howe failed to respond in any way to my

inquiries. JamesRathS declined to participate in the study,

indicating that he had not continued to play an active role in
values clarification over the years, and did not feel that he
could add greatly to any information that I might receive from
his father, Louis. Leland Howe, while at first accepting my
invitation, later declined, indicating that he was currently
reassessing his position on values clarification, and was not
ready at this point to publicly share his ideas.

Despite the fact that five people did not participate in
the study, the writer still feels that an accurate picture of
values clarification emerged. Of the original fourteen, nine
were "proponents" of values clarification, and five were critics
of it, resulting in a ratio of approximately two to one, proponents
to critics. Of the nine who participated, six were proponents,
and three were critics, which resulted in the two to one ratio

being maintained.

Assumptions

The major assumption of this thesis regards the validity
of data gathered from the experts. The writer assumed that the
experts did not attempt to mislead him, withhold information, or
Offer ungrounded speculations. Due to the nature of the personal
relationship which exists between the writer and many of the experts,
the fact that the transcripts were returned to each expert for his
or her clarification and editing, and because the interviews were
to be reproduced in the thesis for public consumption, the writer

believes it is safe to assume that each expert was most candid.

OVERVIEW OF THESIS

The thesis contains five chapters. Chapter 1 concerns
itself with an introduction to the study, as well as a brief
discussion of its purpose, importance, and a brief outline of the
methodology utilized. This is followed by a section containing

a list of limitations and assumptions.

Chapter 2 contains a review of relevant literature.
Chapter 3 contains a specific description of the methodology
utilized in the gathering of information, and its analysis. This
is based, in large measure, upon the Interview Guide presented in
the Appendix of this thesis.
Chapter 4 contains a critical analysis and discussion of
the significance of the findings from the transcripts of the
interviews. The transcripts of the interviews are reproduced in
the Appendix of this study.
Chapter 5 contains a summary of the study as a whole, con-

clusions, recomendations, and some personal reflections.

Chapter 2
A REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION

Many people date the birth of values clarification as 1966,
the year in which Values and Teaching was published.1 And indeed,
it was this work which first brought national attention to the
idea of values clarification, and hence serves as a useful referent.
This Iiissertation attempts to look at values clarification "ten
years later," which means that it will focus primarily on the period
frmn 1966 to the present.

But values Clarification has a fascinating pre-l966 history,
which deserves to be at least partially explored if the reader is
to fully understand and appreciate its evolution. Thus, a brief
section of this chapter is devoted to the early history of values
clarification.

It was Louis Raths who first formulated the idea of values
clarification, a fact perhaps too Often forgotten or ignored by
some contemporary educators. Yet in conversations between the
writer and many of the current leaders in values clarification,

like Sidney Simon, Howard Kirschenbaum and Merrill Harmin, Raths

 

1Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney 8. Simon, Values
and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill Pub1ishing Co., 1966).

10

11

is consistently referred to with the greatest respect and admira-
tion--almost with reverence. Therefore, it seems appropriate that
the following review of the literature regarding values clarifi-
cation should begin with Raths.

This chapter is organized into the following sections:
first, a discussion of Raths and the relationship of his ideas to
those of John Dewey; secondly, a brief overview of Raths and early
values clarification theory; the third section deals with theoreti-
cal modifications offered by Kirschenbaum; fourthly, the writer
explores the professed goals and objectives of values clarification;
this is followed by a presentation of the methodology of values
Clarification, including a specific curricular model; attention is
given in the sixth section to some of the predominant criticisms
Of values clarification: seventh is a review of significant
research completed in values Clarification; and the chapter ends
with a summary.

Before entering into the main body of this chapter, how-
ever, the writer wishes to make it clear to the reader that in
no way should this chapter be perceived as a comprehensive review
of al_l the literature in the area of values education. The writer
acknowledges the contributions made by many educational thinkers
to the broad field of values education, but the primary purpose of
this chapter and this dissertation is to investigate aspects of
o_ne_ area of values education, and not to survey extensively the
entire range. Therefore, no attempt has been made to comprehend

the whole of the literature within values education.

12
RATHS AND DEWEY

As early as 1940 there was evidence that Raths had embraced

2

some of Dewey's thinking in regard to values. Raths himself has

always been quick to credit Dewey with having a profound impact on
his formulations about values and valuing. In his chapter on
"Clarifying Values" in Curriculum for Today's Boys and Girls, Raths

"3

acknowledges "having borrowed heavily from Dewey. In Values and

Teaching, it is written that:

The senior author [Raths] considered for some time what
might be the implications of value development for teaching
and, based on some of the work of Dewey . . . built a theory
of values that seems to offer concrete and effective aid to

teachers.
Specifically then, what was it that Raths borrowed from Dewey? To
answer that, one must understand what it is that Dewey proposes in
the first place.
While Dewey refers to values in a number of different works,
probably his most fully developed statement of his position is his

1939 volume, Theory of Valuation.5 In it, he argues that scientific

methodology can and should be used in making value decisions. He

 

2LOUIS E- RathS. "Approaches to the Measurement of Values,"
Educational Research Bulletin, 19, 10 (May 8, 1940), pp. 275-282+.

3Louis E. Raths, "Clarifying Values," Curriculumfor Today's
Boys and Girls, ed. by R. S. Fleming (Columbus: Charles E. Merrill
Books, Inc., 1963), p. 320.

4

 

Raths, et al., 22. §_i_t_., p. 7.

5John Dewey, Theory of Valuation, Vol. II, NO. 4 of the
International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Otto Neurath, ed.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939).

13

rejects the idea that values are "purely ejaculatory," or that they
are merely matters of "liking and disliking." (He does emphasize
pri zi ng and caring as a part of the valuing process, but makes
important distinctions between them and liking or disliking.)6

Dewey then sets forth a theory of values based on scientific
reasoning and a rejection of the affective-cognitive dichotomy,
which suggested at that time that science had no business in such
an "emotive" domain as values.

The hard-and-fast impassible line which is supposed by
some to exist between "emotive" and "scientific" language
is a reflex Of the gap which now exists between the intel-
lectual and the emotional in human relations and activities.
The split which exists in present social life between ideas
that have scientific warrant and uncontrolled emotions that
dominate practice, the split between the affectional and
the cognitive, is probably one of the chief sources of the
Inaladjustments and unendurable strains from which the world
is suffering. . . . The practical problem that has to be faced
is the establishment of cultural conditions that will support
the kinds of behavior in which emotions and ideas, desires
and appraisals, are integrated.

 

Dewey further explains his thinking on values by arguing
that there is a dual meaning for the word "value." The similarity
bemeen his thinking here, and Raths' theory of values clarifi-
cation is, to this writer, quite striking.

When attention is confined to the usage of the verb "to
value," we find that conmon speech exhibits a double usage.
For a glance at the dictionarywill Show that in ordinary
speech of words "valuing" and "valuation" are verbally
employed to designate both prizing, in the sense Of holding
precious, dear (and various other nearly equivalent activi-
ties, like honoring, regarding high1Y), and appraising, in
the sense of putting a value upon, assigning value to. . . .
The double meaning is significant because there is implicit

 

61bid., pp. 6-19.
7Ibid., pp. 64-65.

14

in it one of the basic issues regarding valuation. For in
prizing, emphasis falls upon something having definite
personal reference, has an aspectual quality called emotional.
Valuation as appraisal, however, is primarily concerned with a
relational property of objects SO that an intellectual aspect
is uppermost of the same general sort that is found in
"estimate" as distinguished from the personal-emotional word,
"esteem." That the same verb is employed in both senses sug-
gests the problem upon which schools are divided at the present
time. Which of the two references is basic in its implica-
tions? Are the two activities separate or are they comple-

mentary?8
Raths sees them as complementary.
Dewey himself goes on to say that the double meaning Of
“value" need not be an "either-or" proposition, but that both
aspects are important, that there is an implicit element of prizing,
caring, etc., as well as an implicit element of deliberation, an
appraising of various alternative desires in the light of foreseeable
consequences.9
Lastly, it is not enough that our values reflect both af-
fection and cognition, but we must a_c£ on our values and ideas,
put into practice what has been desired and appraised.
The business of the educator--whether parent or teacher--
is to see to it that the greatest possible number of ideas
acquired by children and youth are acquired in such a vital
way that they becomeImpi/jpg ideas, motive forces in the
gu1dance of conduct.
These ideas of Dewey, the rejection of the affective-
cognitive dichotomy, the dual nature of the word "value," and the

necessity of action, deeply affected Raths' thinking, and ultimately

 

81bid., p. 5.

91bid.

10John Dewey, Moral Principles in Education (New York:
Philosophical Library, 1959), p. 2.

15

found themselves contained in his formulation of the basic theory
of values clarification, as will become quite apparent in the

following section.
THE RATHS THEORY OF VALUES CLARIFICATION

For Raths, teaching about values and the valuing process
was a basic function of the educational process. In an article
published in 1955, entitled: "What is Teaching?" he wrote:

It can be said . . . that there is an insistent demand
that education at all levels should be more concerned with
values, with the clarification of them, with the conservation
of those we hold most dear, and the reconstruction of others
which are inadequate or in conflict.

It is widely recognized that all knowledge starts as
opinion, and unless Opinion becomes tested in a wide variety
of situations, it may not become fact or truth or knowledge.
Large areas of life remain at the opinion stage. These are
concerned with values, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations,
purposes, problems and activities.

Teachers, in order to further growth and development,
must know how to help their students clarify these aspects
of life. It is hypothesized that out of this Clarification
come clearer purpose, more consistent thinking, and an
independence of thought and action that is highly desirable.”

Four years later, Raths wrote:

Values come through "value-ing," they grow through prizing,
cherishing, holding dear--and no one can do this for us.
Values also come through discrimination in the fact of choices.
To discriminate means to weigh, to size up, to judge. . . .
When we have made a choice--one that is prized--we are apt to
plan our time in a way which gives this value a chance to be

expressed .

 

“LOU15 5- Raths, 'fWhat 1'5 Teaching?", Educational Leadership,
December, 1955, pp. 146-147,

12Louis E. Raths, "Values are Fundamental," Childhood Edu-
cation, February, 1959, pp. 246-247. .

16

So by the early sixties the stage was set: Raths was un-

mistakably in favor of teachers becoming involved in value edu-

cation, and he was also unmistakably heavily influenced by Dewey.

Ir1'1961, Raths published a work which included five "criteria"

for a value, which collectively described his Vision of the valuing

process.

To this writer, these criteria sound so much like Dewey,

that a person could easily assume that it wig Dewey's own writing:

1.

2.

A value implies prizing and cherishing. We may indeed
have an attitude toward the lower social class, and may .
be acting upon that attitude, but if we do not prize it,
if this is an attitude which we wish were different, then
it cannot be called a value. . . .

A value implies choice after deliberation. It involves
answering the question: should I choose this? It fre-
quently involves the anticipation of consequences, and a
reflection upon the desirability Of the choice. . . . If
a person is responding impulsively, instinctively, re-
flexively, we should not associate the response with
valuing. . . .13

So far Raths has mentioned two Of the three major valuing

processes identified by Dewey. Raths then proceeded to take the

thirwi aspect of Dewey theory of valuation, action, and expand it

into three, action-related criteria.

3.

A value, as such, implies recurrence Of the valuing act.
To choose something once is hardly indicative that the
something has the status of a value. We associate the
concept of value with trend, with repetition, with a
certain style of life. . . .
A value penetrates our living. If it is indeed a value
of ours, we may allot some of our finances to support
what is valued; we plan our time so that the value may
be experienced in our living; we may develop new ac-
quaintance and friendship patterns which are consistent
with our values ... . where we value, our lives are
influenced. . . .

 

13Raths, "Clarifying Values,§ pp. 320-321.

17

5. When asked about our values we affirm them. Having
reflected upon them, prized them, repeatedly chosen them,
having lived them--quite naturally--we affirm them when
asked or challenged. We know what we are for. We have
not only the moral courage, but in our lives we have

demonstrated the moral energy.
Raths continued on to say that unleSs something satisfies

all five criteria, it cannot be called a "value." Hence, he

concedes that most people do not have many values. What others

call "values" may instead be beliefs, attitudes, interests, etc.,

unless they meet all five crite’eria.]5’16

Three years later, Raths and two of his students, Merrill
Harmin and Sidney 8. Simon, published Values and Teachipg, the
first extended explanation of the theory and practice of values

Contained in it are the now famous "seven criteria,"
The

Clarificati on.
which are essentially similar to the five criteria noted above.

one major addition is that of "free Choice." The seven criteria

are reproduced here because it is this conception of the theory
which has become best known, and which serves as the basis for

much of the criticism by others in values education, to be dis-

cussed later.

Unless something satisfies afl seven of the criteria noted
99101". we do not call ita value. In other words, for a value

\
1
4Ibid. . pp. 320-321.

islbidu p. 322.

h 1éiiaths is not consistent in his use of the word "values"
E] e def1 nes it, however. Nor are Harmin and Simon in their work.
thinthr‘ee authors quite often will make statements like: "Every-
defigye d0 demonstrates our values," but according to the1r

"”10". action alone is not enough.

 

 

 

18

to result, all of the following seven requirements must apply.

(bllectively, they describe the process of valuing.
Choosing_free1y. If something is in fact to guide one's
life whether or not authority is watching, it must be a
result of free choice. . . . Values must be freely
selected if they are to be really valued by the individual.

2. Choosipg_from among alternatives. This definition of
values is concerned with things that are chosen by the
individual and, obviously, there can be no choice if there
are no alternatives from which to choose. . . . Only when
a choice is possible, when there is more than one alter-
native from which to Choose, do we say a value can result.

3. Choosing after thoughtful consideration of the consequences
Of each alternative. Impulsive or thoughtless choices do
not lead to values as we define them. For something intel-
ligently and meaningfully to guide one's life, it must
emerge from a weighing and an understanding. . . . There
is an important cognitive factor here. A value can emerge
only with thoughtful consideration of the range of the
alternatives and consequences in a choice.

4. Thrizing and cherishing, When we value something, it has
a positive tone. We prize it, cherish it, esteem it,
respect it, hold it dear. We are happy with our values.

. . . We prize and cherish the guides to life that we call
values.

5. Affirmfing. When we have chosen something freely, after
consideration of the alternatives, and when we are proud
of (Our choice, glad to be associated with it, we are 1ikely
to affirm that choice when asked about it.

6. Acting upon choices. Where we have a value, it shows up
in aspects of our living. . . . Nothing can be a value that
does not, in fact, give direction to actual living. The
Person who talks about something but never does anything
about it is dealing with something other than a value.

7- Repeating. Where something reaches the stage of a value,
It is very likely to reappear on a number of occasions in
the life of the person who holds it. It shows up in several
different situations, at several different times. We would
'"Tt think of something that appeared once in a life and
never again as a value. Values tend to have a persistency,

tend to make a pattern in a life.17

 

TTTis writer believes that the mark of Dewey on these "criteria“
1" particular and on values clarification theory 'in general is beyond

questunr Furthermore, the "seven criteria" listed above have
-\ .

l
‘7Raths, et al., Values and Teachipg, pp. 28-29.

19

remained intact since 1966, the one major exception being Howard

Kirschenbaum's suggested modifications, which are discussed below.

KIRSCHENBAUM'S MODIFICATIONS OF VALUES
CLARIFICATION THEORY

In 1973, Howard Kirschenbaum wrote:

Like many other approaches in the humanistic education
field values clarification has grown up as a separate "move-
ment" with its own terminology, concepts, and methods. Al-
though I believe the approach, by itself, has a great deal
to Offer, over the last several years I have felt increasingly
hamstrung by some of its theories and concepts. Many of my
colleagues and students in this field have expressed similar
misgivings.

One of the major misgivings Kirschenbaum wrote of was that
values clarification appeared to be primarily a cognitive process,
to the neglect of affective components he saw as also being

important in the valuing process.

In the summers of 1968 and 1969, we [Merrill Harmin, Sidney
Simon and Kirschenbaum] began to introduce these comnunications
exercises into our week-long values workshops. We made two big
Charts, headed "Values-Clarification Strategies" and "Feeling
Strategies" (or "Emotional-Awareness Exercises"), and after the
91‘OUP had participated in or Observed a particular strategy,
we would write the name of the technique on the appropriate
9113”}- The implication was that "values" was the primarily
cOgflllfive area and "feelings" was, of course, the affective
area. . . . At the end of the workshop, we would offer a theory
I had developed, based on an essay by Carl Rogers for how the
fe91mg area and the values area fit together.19a2

 

 

, éHoward Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification,"
Readin S 1'1 Values Clarification, ed. by Sidney 8. Simon and Howard

Kirschenbaum minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973), p. 92.

19
Ibid. , p. 94.

"A M0 20The eSsay referred to by Kirschenbaum is Carl R. Rogers,
(C1 dem Approach to the Valuing Process," Freedom to Learn
° “"b"5= Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1969).

20

Another misgiving that Kirschenbaum experienced related
even more directly to the "seven criteria." He wrote of being
uncomfortable with the whole notion of "criteria" to begin with.
Kirschenbaum believed that the word "criteria" suggested specific

standards or measures, but that the seven "criteria" of Raths,

et a1. were vague.

How proud must someone be of his belief in order to meet
the prizing criteria? Very proud? Just a little proud?
What about pleased? When does pleased turn into proud?

How many times must someone publicly affirm something in
order to satisfy the fifth criteria? . . .

How many alternatives does one have to choose from before
whoever is doing the judging tells me I have met the third
criteria?

And how free does my choice have to be?

The argument becomes almost absurd. Of course no one can
answer these questions. By using the word and the concept
"criteria," we suggest that it is possible for someone . . .
to judge whether or not a particular belief or behavior of
someone else is a value. . . . Ironically, we become another
tl’pe of moralizer, making people feel guilty because they
haven't met this or that criterion on a given issue.2

Hence, Kirschenbaum prefers not to speak Of "criteria,"

PM: Of "Processes" of valuing, "to emphasize that there are seven

WAYS we develop and enrich the values in our lives. . . ."22 This
15 a very important theoretical modification, for a number of

P9350115 .

First of all, by Changing from "criteria" to "processes,"
K1‘iiidlfimbiium Offers Raths et a1. a way to extract themselves from

the peculiar. dileirma of on the one hand, claiming to clarify values,
\

21 , .
K1rschenbaum, pp. g_1_t_., p. 96.

22
Ibid., pp. 96-97.

21

while on the other hand, claiming that very few people probably
have many values, because of the special nature of a value.

Secondly, Kirschenbaum's modification also gives rise to

the question: "Well, if you no longer define a value by these
seven criteria, how do you define it?" This point was investi-
gated by the writer, and is reported upon later in the dissertation.

Finally, by switching from "criteria" to "processes," the
emphasis falls upon valuing, as opposed to having values. That
is, 'n the Raths system, wherein certain clarifying criteria were
1established, when those criteria were met you could be said to
Ma value. The process terminated when the criteria were ful-
filled. In the Kirschenbaum system, however, the emphasis shifts
to established clarifying processes, which are dynamic and on-
going. The process does not terminate, clarification is never
fully achieved. There is always more to do.

And so, while the writer is sure that Raths would not see
the notion of "criteria" as contributing to quiescence, it con-
CEI'VGNY could if a person felt that they had met the seven
criteria on a particular issue, and had no further need to seek
Clarification.

Ki rschenbaum then attempted to augment the fourth criteria,
"prizing and cherishing," arguing that its affective base needs
to be broadened.

It seems clear that the affective realm, the feeling area,

is 0'19 of the crucial ingredients in values clarification.

and that the process by which one discovers what he prizes
and Cherishes is, in part, a deepening awareness of one's own

22

feelings. In Carl Rogers' terminology, it would be an "open-
ness to our inner experience." And this included not only
the positive experience, it involves the full gamut of human

emotion.
Finally, Kirschenbaum isolated the fifth criterion, that
Of "public affirmation" for examination. He pointed out the very
possible, perhaps even likely dilemma of two values in conflict
because of this criteria, and Offers the following illustrations.

What about the person who gives to charity but also holds
a value Of poi publicly identifying himself as the donor?
What about the many times in history when to publicly affirm
one's beliefs on religion or politics would mean death or
imprisonment or dismissal to the affirmer? What about the
times when public affirmation would be hurtful to some indi-
vidual or group that is also valued? In short, what happens
when the value and benefits of public affirmation conflict
With other values that need to be considered? Are there not
times when it is inappropriate to publicly affirm one's
values?24

Kirschenbaum answered his own question in the affirmative: yes,

there are times when it is inappropriate to publicly affirm a value.25
But he did not want to do away with the idea entirely. He

"01399 that, in practice, public affirmation had always been

qualified by "when appropriate." "Ultimately," he wrote, "each

Person must decide for himself when 119; to publicly affirm is the

better part of valor and when it is a cowardly cop-out."26

He then went on to say that in their workshops in values

Ciarification, "affirmation" had always seemed to be too strong a
_\

23Ibid., p. 98.
24Ibid., p. 99.
2515111., p. 99.
26Ibid., p. 99.

 

23

word, that it had "connotations of rigidity and imposition." In-
stead, the word "sharing" seemed to convey

much more of the flavor for what we hope most discussions of
values might become. It suggests more of an offering--we

Offer our value alternatives to others for their consideration.
lhey are free to reject the offering, without our rejecting
then. For these reasons, I have gradually begun to describe
the fifth process Of valuing as that of "appropriate sharing"
instead of public affirmation.27

With all of this groundwork laid, Kirschenbaum then offered
an expanded version of the original seven criteria (now "processes"),
whhfllhe feels more accurately described the essence of values
Clarification. Here, in a necessarily brief form, is his schematic:

THE VALUING PROCESS
1. Feeling_
1. Being open to one's inner experience.
a. awareness of one's inner experience
b. acceptance Of one's inner experience

11. Thinking,
1. Thinking on all seven levels.

a. memory
b translation
c application
d interpretation
e. analysis
f. synthesis
9. evaluation
2. Critical thinking.
a. distinguishing fact from opinion
b. distinguishing supported from unsupported arguments
c. analyzing propoganda, stereotypes, etc.
3. Logical thinking (logic).
4. Creative thinking.
5. Fundamental cognitive skills.

a. language use
b. mathematical skills
c. resource skills
.LUL__§Ommunicating:-Verbal1y and Nonverbally
1. Sending clear messages.
2. Empathetic listening.

3. Drawing out.
\

Tr

27Ibid., p. 100. ‘

24

4. Asking clarifying questions.
5. Giving and receiving feedback.
6. Conflict resolution.
IV. Choosing.
l. Generating and considering alternatives.
2. Thoughtfully considering consequences, pros and cons.
3. Choosing strategically.
a. goal setting
b. data gathering
c. problem solving
d. planning
4. Choosing freely.
V. Acti g.
1. Acting with repetition.
2. Acting with a pattern and consiggency.
3. Acting skillfully, competently.

Kirschenbaum wrote that each of the skills would contribute
to a person living effectively in a society, and hence were not only

"29 This expansion of the theory

vahflng skills, but "life skills.
seems to this writer, to thrust values clarification into a much
more general framework, a framework which is perhaps best described
as "humanistic."

5It is not clear, from a reading of the literature, if
Kirschenbaum's reformulations have caught on amongst the other .
leaders in values clarification. The extent to which Kirschenbaum's
nodHWcations are used by the other leaders was one of the points
investigated and reported upon later in this dissertation.

The writer believes that much of what Kirschenbaum has done
issignificant, and improves the theory. In many ways it just

. seems to "make sense." Who can dispute his elaborations on such
—\
28 .
Ib1d.. pp. 105-106.

29Ibid., p. 102.

25

categories as "Feeling," "Thinking," and "Communicating?" A person
looks at them, and feels compelled to say: "Yes. That's right."
Yet the writer wonders: has such an expansion gone beyond
expanding the original theory into transforming it into something
else? The answer to that, at this point in time, is unclear.
Perhaps in the natural evolution of any idea there comes a time
when it must branch out in new directions, which seem to be quite
different in many ways from the old. In any event, it is clear to
the writer that this is a consideration which will have to extend

beyond the bounds of this dissertation, in both scope and in time.
THE GOALS 0F VALUES CLARIFICATION

What does values clarification do? Why is it important?
Why are clear values desirable? How would a person with "clear"
values differ from a person with "unclear" values?

To answer these questions, we must turn again to Raths.
Once again it is his original arguments on the subject which continue
to Provide the basis for discussion and research in the area.

To begin with, Raths sees the world of children as one
filled with confusion and conflict.

_ The many and conflicting patterns Of life to which our
Ch11dren are exposed, the lack Of a strongly integrated
Community, the reduced impact of the family and the Church,
the deterioration of the relationship between education and
v1rtue, the world-wide upheavals, all point to the realm of
values as a needed research in curriculum.30

An entire Chapter in Values and Teaching, entitled "The Difficulty

0f Developi'ng Values," serves as a more extended argument that the
\

30Raths, "Clarifying Values," p. 319.

26

world of the child is often bewildering and confusing, with the

result being confused and bewildered values.“

What can help the Child deal with such value problems?

Certainly not'traditional approaches to values, argues Raths. Such

approaches as "setting an example," "persuading and convincing,"

“limiting choices," "inspiring," "rules and regulations," "cultural
or religious dogma," and "appeals to conscience," cannot lead to
values as Raths defines them, "values that represent the free and

thoughtful choice of intelligent humans interacting with complex

and changing environments . "32

Where then does all of this lead? What happens to a child,
if Raths iscorrect in saying that the world is full of confusion
and conflict, and that traditional means for values education are
ineffectual? Raths answers by suggesting that we begin by looking

at the field of health, and draw an analogy from it.

We may get a starting direction by examining the concept
01' health, that is physical health. It is almost impossible
F0 define the term so that it has practical meaning for an
Individual. . . . Suppose, however, we ask about deviations
from health? About sickness? Here we secure a much greater
amount of agreement. .In the area Of values, by analogy, we
would not seek to identify the values of children. Instead,
“’9' would ask: When children have not developed values, how
MM: Show up in their behavior? And, if there is a wide-
Spread ‘lack of value development in our culture, might we
Symptoms vary, and wouldn't many children be afflicted?

\
1 Raths, et al., Values and Teaching, Chapter Two.

32

 

Ibid.. pp. 39-40.
33 - ° 11
Raths, "Clar1fy1ng Values, p. 319.

27

Raths then offered a list of eight types of persistent behaviors
which he sees as symptomatic of the lack of values.

Children who are apathetic, listless, dull. . . .
Extremely flighty children. . . .

Children who are extreme over-conformers. . . .
Nagging dissenters. . . .

Persistent, continuing, under-achievement. . . .
The Role-Players and Poseurs. . . .

Extreme hesitancy, doubt, uncertainty. .

Very, very inconsistent children. . . .34

oowosm-th—I

Be that as it may, however, some people would still argue
that values are the realm of the home or the church, and if a child
lacks clear values, then the situation should be remedied there and
not in the schools. But Raths rejects the idea that values have no
Place in the school, and returns to his mentor, Dewey, for support.

I think we must assume that the school, like every other
institution, has some responsibility in this matter. We are,
therefore, back to Dewey's idea that the function of social
institutions and arrangements is to help create personality;
that in association with young learners, we should be helping
them to arrive at a sense of discrimination, a basis for making
choices that are relevant to the worth of their lives.

Thus it is that Raths and others involved in values clarifi-
Cali-ion see a world full of confusion and conflict, with the results
Clear-1y identifiable through certain behavior patterns, and they
"a“ to do something about it.

We believe that we have the means for identifying many of
the.chi1dren who are having difficulty in forming values and,
haV‘lng identified them, we have found that teachers can do a
great deal about the problem. It need not plague the child
throughout his life. On many occasions we are going to need
he“) from the family, from other teachers, and perhaps from
a couhselor, but . . . the main burden in this confused and

\

4Ibid.. pp. 323-325.

351bid. , pp. 325-326.

28

confusing world can be borne by the classroom teachers of
America. 5

Raths, et_glp_believe that if certain values clarifying
techniques are used, children who are apathetic, listless, flighty,
Etc. can be helped to move towards the opposite end of the behavior
continumn, to a point where:

Each seems to be dealing with life in a consistent and
purposeful way. We talk to a few and each appears to know
what he wants in life and how to work for it. Although in
somewhat different styles, each person . . . seems to relate
to the forces and events and persons around him with con-
siderable verve, purpose, and pride. . . . If we seek words
to describe the persons who live their lives at this extreme
point on the . . . continuum, we think Of positive, purposeful,
enthusiastic, proud.

All is not so rosy at the other end Of the line.37

 

Kirschenbaum, in his 1973 essay, also believes that clear
Values would lead an individual to be a more effective member of
Society as a whole, thus interjecting a note Of social conscious-
"655 into the approach's outcomes.38
How is this to be done? How are values clarified? This

is the topic for exploration in the following section.
THE METHOD OF VALUES CLARIFICATION

Values\Ciam‘ification Strategi_es
1" the writer's Opinion, it is the methodology of values

clarification which has brought it its tremendous popularity.
\

3
. sRaths, et al., Values and Teaching, p. 26.

3
7Ibid. , pp. 4-5.

38Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification," p. 102.

29

Surely the underlying theory and rationale has attracted much
attention, but it is the practice Of values clarification, its

hundreds of examples which can be put to use in the classroom,

that has catapulted it to a position of national prominence in

education.
As with the rest of values clarification, it is to Raths

that we must turn for information regarding early values Clarifi-

cation techniques. As early as 1959, there was evidence of what

might well be called the first values clarification "strategy,"

the "clarifying response."

We must talk man to man with children about their purposes,
interests, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, feelings, activi-
ties and ways of thinking. We must ask children intelligent
questions for which only they have the answers. One or two
questions at any one time, involving not more than two or
three minutes, would be the maximum. The child's answers
woulci always be accepted with a comment, suggesting that he
had Tmow made it plain, that you understand better what he
saicL. He leaves this brief encounter in a thoughtful mood.39

Seven years later, an entire chapter in Values and Teaching
Raths,

 

”35 devoted to the explanation of the clarifying response.

M Offer, in that volume, this concise description of the

“"1le ng response:

Fundamentally, the responding strategy is a way of
responding to a student that results in his considering
what he has chosen, what he prizes and/or what he is doing.
It Stimulates him to clarify his thinking and behavior and
thus to clarify his values; it encourages him to think about

them. 41

\
39Raths, "Values are Fundamental," Childhood Education,

FPPI‘PW. 1959, p. 247.
0Raths, et al., Values and Teachipg, Chapter Five.

41

 

Ibid. , p. 51.

30

The authors Offer this as a typical example of when and how

a clarifying response can be used:

A student says that he is planning to go to college after
high school. A teacher who replies, "Good for you," or

"Which college?", or "Well, I hope you make it," is probably
going to serve purposes other than value Clarity. But were

the teacher to respond, "Have you considered any alternatives?",
the goal of value clarity may well be advanced. The "alterna-
tives" response is likely to stimulate thinking about the

issue and, if he decides to go to college, that decision is
likely to be closer to a value than it was before. It may
contribute a little toward moving a college student from the
position of going because "it's the thing to do" to going
because he wants to get something out of it.

The authors then go on to offer a list of thirty possible
clarifying responses, as well as a list of ten criteria to be used

in judging the effectiveness and appropriateness of a clarifying

response. 43

It has been the experience of this writer, that the
clarifiyirig response, as such, has for the most part fallen into
disuse, at least in the workshops presented to teachers by leaders

59911 as Harmin, Simon and. Kirschenbaum. Clarifying questions are
Certahflyr still asked, but usually as a part of a different
St'BFEQY’ ()r~ technique, and not as part of an unplanned encounter
With another person. There is nothing in the literature (except
perhaps tEV' 'the fact that the clarifying response is, for the most
part, om-i tted from the recent literature) which would either
“99°": 07‘ refute my position. However, reference is made to the
clarifying response in the interview with Sidney B. Simon, which
15 discussed in Chapter 4, and is reprinted in the Appendix.
—\

42Ibid., p. 52.

43Ibid. , pp. 53-65.

31

Probably the second strategy invented by Raths was the

"val ues sheet," which also has an entire chapter devoted to it in

mues and Teaching.44 In this strategy, a short, written and

provacative statement is given to the student, with several
clarifying questions regarding the statement posed at its end.

Such a statement is usually not longer than several paragraphs.
The questions asked, are quite similar to those used in a

Clarifying response, in that they are designed to encourage the
student to explore alternatives, how he feels about a particular

position, or how he is acting or would act under similar circum-

stances .

The values sheet has been one of the most adaptable of the

values clarification strategies. Nearly any typical newspaper,

for example, will yield at least one storylsuitable for use as a

Values sheet. Teachers in different subject areas can easily

adapt some of their written materials to a values sheet format.
Values sheets can be very simple, or complex, depending upon the
age 01’ the children, reading ability, and so on. The activity is
r'epeatab'l e, because of the endless array of situations available.

Raths, et a1. offer a list of ten topics which they feel
are rich "i n terms of values possibilities, and encourage the

team" to create his or her own values sheets.

Possible topics
include:

—\
441bid., Chapter Six.
45Ibid.. pp. 105-106.

32

Money, how it is apportioned and treated.

Friendship, how one relates to those around him.

Love and sex, how one deals with intimate relationships.
Religion and morals, what one holds as fundamental beliefs.
Leisure, how it is used.

Politics and social organization, especially as it affects
the individual.

Work,,vocational choices, attitudes toward work.

Family, and how one behaves within it.

Maturity, what one strives for.

Charactergtraits, especially as they affect one's
behaviorfqb

 

 

 

OSOGJV COW-th-J

.—l

 

Lhe Three-Level Curriculum
No discussion of the methodology of values clarification
would be complete, however, without bringing in a particular
curricular theory which attempts to meld values clarification
with subject matter areas. Even before Values and Teaching was
Published, Simon and Harmin, in 1965, published an article which
set forth a curricular model which involves three levels of

Sabject matter.46’47 They describe these three different levels

thus:

Level I. This is subject matter composed of facts, details,
90d Specifics. Such subject matter we submit is difficult to
remember, of little interest to most students and of little
”59 even if it is remembered. It does, however, and unfortu-
"ately. provide the stuff for much of the teaching going on
"1 America's Classrooms today.

l-£e\lel II._ This subject matter goes beyond specifics and
"Wes towards generalizations. A generalization is here defined
as 9 . Statement of a relationship between concepts, or generalized
“PM butes of things.

I bid. 3 PP. 105-106.

46Raths, et al., Values and Teaching.

C t 47Merrill Harmin and Sidney B. Simon, "The Subject Matter
on roversy Revisited," Peabody Journal of Education, 42, 4 (January,

1965). pp. 194-205.

33

Level III. This subject matter is restricted to those
generalizations that in some way touch the personal life of
the student, his interests, concerns, or feelings. . . .
Unlike Level II, which may only involve the student intel-
lectually, Level III often affects his emotions, attitudes,
or values and is more directly concerned with helping him
discover his own personal way of living a richer, happier,

more productive life.
A The authors then go on to describe the sample lessons, one
eaCh in social studies, English, and science, using the three

levels, which they name "Fact-oriented" (Level I), "Generalization-

oriented"(Leve1 II), and"Value-oriented" (Level III).49

Harmin and Simon end their article with an appeal for more

teachers to "risk the uncharted seas of Level II and Level III

lessons." They feel that "the rewards in zest, increased produc-

tivity, and the sense that it adds up to something significant in

teaching makes the bumps and bruses all very worth whi 1e."50

Since 1965, numerous articles have appeared on the use
01‘ values clarification in practically every conceivable subject
matter area, including the humanities, English, foreign language,
eCOloay. agriculture, science, biology, health, art, geography.
home economics, music and so on. Most of these ideas have been

PU1led together by Simon, Harmin and Kirschenbaum in their 1973

POOR. Clarifying Values thrggh Subject Matter: jpflications for

Wfi‘
\
481bidu pp. 198-199.

491bid. . pp. 199-200.

5°Ibid., p. 204.

Merrill Harmin, Howard Kirschenbaum, and Sidney B. Simon,

51
Clarif '1“ Values thropgh Supiect Matter: Applications for the

93% (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1973).

 

34

The three level curriculum appears to be of considerable
use. It can certainly inject interest into those classrooms where
the norm is to deal only with facts; and where there is interest,
children can learn more. Secondly, it serves as a useful device
for teachers who are interested in dealing with values, but feel
thatit must somehow relate to their particular area of responsi-‘
bflity. This may be especially true of so-called, cut-and-dried
areas like science.

Those two reasons are certainly enough, in the eyes of
HMS writer to justify the existence of this particular curriculum

design. It has not, however, in this writer's opinion, had the

impact on classroom teaching that the specific values clarification

strategies have had .

CRITICISMS OF VALUES CLARIFICATION

r10>educational innovation which has reached the popular

Proportions that values clarification has, could possibly exist
Without f1£aving stirred some criticism. In the last several years,
C"iticisnns (rf values clarification have been advanced from a number
01’ quite different sources, from groups like the John Birch Society,
Other r"fight-wing political groups and fundamentalist religious
L organizations, to persons and groups involved in educational
psychology and philosophy.

The writer has identified seven major criticisms of values
clarifi Cation each of which will be presented as succinctly as

1305511119. and in turn be analyzed critically. The writer wants

35

‘U3nnke it clear, however, that his intention as a responder to

the various charges is not that of a defender or Vindicator of
values clarification, but rather that of a clarifier and questioner.

The seven major criticisms of values clarification identified
by the writer are reflected in the work of four scholars: John S.
Stewart, Alan L. Lockwood, Lawrence Kohlberg and Milton Rokeach.
While other critics of values clarification exist, the writer has
chosen to focus upon the arguments Of these four writers because
0f true significance of their criticisms, the responsible nature in
whicti they are presented, and the fact that their arguments are
representative of the vast majority of critics of values clarifi-
cation. The writer has chosen to ignore, at this point, criticisms
fNNn rnembers of right-wing political or fundamentalist religious
groups, because of the difficulty involved in ascertaining their
109i<:, due to the characteristically high degree of emotion which
seems to be contained in their attacks on values clarification.
The four critics who were chosen basically represent two

59110015 of thought within values education. Stewart, Lockwood

and Kohlberg are identified with "moral reasoning" or "cognitive
"0'31 development." Rokeach is identified with the "inculcation"
orientation. Prior to investigating the seven criticisms of values
clam“ification represented in the remarks of these thinkers, it
seems appropriate that their own values education approaches be
outlined briefly, so that the differences between them and the

V31 Ues clarification approach might become more apparent. These

thines will be quite abbreviated, and by no means are they

36

designed to represent the entirety of each approach and their own

peculiar complexities.

Moral ReasoninLand Development Approach

This approach grows out of the work of Lawrence Kohlberg

and his associates, including Stewart and Lockwood.

Kohlberg postulates that there are six cross-cultural and
sequential stages in the development of moral reasoning. The
Purpose of the values educator is "to help students develop more
complex moral reasoning patterns based on a higher set of values,‘I
and "to urge students to discuss the reasons for their value
choices and positions, not merely to share with others, but to
foster change in the stages of moral reasoning of students." This
is done primarily through the use of hypothetical moral dilemnas,
With students encouraged to argue and confront one another in non-
destructive ways. The role of the teacher is to help focus and

Guide the discussions.52

Iicwtion flaproach
Advocates of the inculcation approach believe that certain
values exist which are desirable, and that the responsibility of

eadllCators is to instill these values in students.
\

52Douglas P. Superka, Christine Ahrens, Judith E. Hedstrom,
LUPDEV‘ J. Ford, and Patricia L. Johnson, Values Education Source-
gc’Pk\EConceptual Approaches, Materials Analyses Jgnd an Annotated
W (Boulder, Colorado: Soc1al Sc1ence Educat1on
9°nsortium, Inc., 1976), pp. 4-5, 31-35. This book is also listed
1“ Mrces in Education, and can be Obtained in microfiche and
hard COpy from the ERIC Document Reproduction Services identified

as S0 008 489.

 

37

Superka, gp_glp_identify the Chief teaching methodologies
of the inculcation approach as follows: "modeling; positive and
negative reinforcement; mocking; nagging; manipulating alterna-
tives; providing incomplete or biased data; games and simulations;
role playing; discovery learning."53

Rokeach believes that each institution in society has the‘1
responsibility to inculcate certain values into individuals. He
a"Hues that the educational institution has the obligation to
Hmnflcate "educational values," such as the "terminal values" of
"a Sense of accomplishment, self-respect, wisdom and freedom,"
and the "instrumental values" of being "responsible, capable,

b1‘Oadminded and intellectual . "54

IESeven Major Criticisms of Values Clarification
The seven major criticisms of values clarification which
the writer isolated and identified are as follows:
1. Values clarification deals with "content" to the neglect
of "structure." (Stewart.)
2. Values clarification relies unduly upon peer pressure
in many of its activities. (Stewart.)
3. Values clarification is a form of "therapy," claims to

the contrary notwithstanding. (Lockwood.)

53Ibid.. pp. 4-5. 7-13.

54Milton Rokeach, "Toward a Philosophy of Value Education,"
y£l£§§§_£ducation,_Theory/Practice/Problems/Prospects, ed. by John
Miyer': Brian Burnham and John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Wforid Laurier University Press, 1975), pp. 117-118.

38

4. Values clarification utilizes a poor definition of a
"value." (Lockwood, Rokeach.)

5. Values Clarification claims values neutrality, but in
actuality teaches values. (Stewart, Rokeach.)

6. Values clarification fails to treat "moral" issues
adequately. (Kohlberg.)

7. Values clarification is "ethically" or "morally
relativistic." (Stewart, Lockwood, Kohlberg and
Rokeach.)

In the following seven sub-sections, the writer will attempt

to Present and explore each of these criticisms.

"Content," not "structure." In the June, 1975, issue of

 

He jitri Delta Kappan, Stewart wrote:

Perhaps a good place to begin is to deal with the super-
fhiciality of Values Clarification [sic]. Why isn't it enough?
Because, I believe, it deals primarily with the content of
values and somewhat with the process of valuing, but ignores
the most important aspect of the issue--namely, the structure
of values and valuing.

Stewart goes on to write that in its simplest terms, content and

Stl"Ucture may be described respectively as the "what" and the "why"

0f allranswer to a moral or value question expressed by a person.56

He concludes by writing:

A survey of the VC strategies and methods reveals the
'content focus, and also reveals the superficiality, banality,
and triviality of a greatsgeal of the questions, issues, and

activities VC deals with.
\

. '55John S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
crrtique," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), p. 684.

 

56Ibid., p. 684.
57Ibid.. p. 684.

39

As with each of the seven criticisms to be dealt with, two
questions must be posed about Stewart's charge. First, is the
criticism accurate, and if so, is the criticism important or
significant?

Before responding to the accuracy of Stewart's criticism,
however, the writer believes that there is an aspect of the
"COHtent-structure" dichotomy which needs to be spoken to. The

writer believes that the "content-structure" dichotomy is one
with ill-defined boundaries. It is quite possible for both content
and structure to be dealt with simultaneously, and perhaps even
unconsciously in values education. The two terms might better be
”Presented by a continuum than by an either-or proposition. Be
that as it may, does values clarification, in fact, deal primarily
with content to the neglect of structure as Stewart contends?

When Raths, gt_a__l__._ first outlined values clarification
theory and methodology, they wrote: "For us, it is less important
to know that a person values something, than it is to know M
he aY‘r‘ived at that 'Value."'58 From this statement, it is clear
”lit the M of values clarification was to focus primarily on
St"UCture and not on content. In practice, it may be that values
clarification deals with structure and content in an even-handed
manner, with essentially equal emphasis placed upon both of them.
Further‘more, valid questions may be raised with respect to Stewart's

contention that structure is the "most important aspect Of the
\

58Raths, et al., Values and Teachipg, p. 206.

 

40

issue." It may readily be argued that content can also lay claim
to importance. It matters that a person values racial justice,
Perhaps as much as it matters w_hy he does so.

Values clarification relies undul)I upon peerppressure.

Stewart also charges that:
. Considerably more important than VC'S superficiality is
its reliance on peer pressure and a tendency toward coercion
to the mean in many activities. In spite of the emphasis on
individuality and the many statements in the VC literature
about avoiding peer pressures, many of the strategies and
the social aspects of the methodology are highly conducive
to peer pressure, especially among highly sensitive teen-
agers and even adults who are particularly attuned to the
Judgments of others. The emphasis on frequent public affir-
mation of positions, for example, carries this danger.60
'No system of values education is going to eradicate peer
Pressure. The proponents of values clarification realize this,
and as Stewart points out, make numerous statements about how
to minimize its effects. It is not clear that Stewart, because
01‘ the possibility of peer pressure, would attempt to avoid M
pmgram of values education with teen-agers, yet such a position
might, appear to derive logically from his concern.

Moreover, in View Of the ubiquity of peer pressure, it
might be that a system of values education wherein the phenomena
01 Peer pressure could be dealt with Openly would be beneficial.
Values clarification offers such a possibility, for one of the

bas'lc tenets of values clarification involves "free Choice." A

per"5cm who chooses something as a result of peer pressure cannot
\

59Stewart, 9p. flu p. 684.

6°Ibid.. pp. 684-685.

go

41

be Said to have made a free choice. Explicitly helping teen-agers
consider if their choices are indeed freely made, can perhaps help
them learn to examine peer pressure explicitly and the degree to
which it may affect their decisions.

In any case, both in theory and in its suggested guidelines
for Practice, values clarification does not appear to rely on or
encourage peer pressure. 0n the contrary, values clarification
Offers a mechanism by which peer pressure can be explicitly dis-
cussed and explored, and quite possible be mitigated as a result.

Va\lues clarification is "therapy." Of the four critics
Cited in this section of Chapter 2, only Alan Lockwood criticizes
values clarification as "therapy." He compares the problems dealt
with, the goals, and the methodologies of Rogers' Client-Centered

Therapy and values clarification, and declares that they are

essential 1y identical .61

Lockwood feels that the declaration that values clarifi-

cation is a form of therapy is very important.

The claim that values clarification is a form of client-
centered therapy is significant in a number of ways. First,
it asserts that, in spite of their protestations, practitioners
01' Values clarification are employing a treatment which may
fairly be called therapy. Advocates of values clarification
should clarify their position on this point, especially since
they feel that therapy is inappropriate for the problems they
are treating. Second, the effective psychological processes
stimulated by values clarification Should not be Characterized
as r‘ational-intellectual. The processes st1mulated by
successful client-centered therapy would best be characterized
as emetional-affective. Finally, casting values education
curricula in the mold of therapy, with its pr1mary emphas1s

\
6.IAlan L. Lockwood, "A Critical View of Values Clarification,"
Teachers College Record, 77. 1 (September, 1975), pp. 40-44.

42

on personal dysfunction, unnecessarily restricts the range
of objectives, issues, and quesEions which may be encompassed
by values education curricula.6

The central problem with Lockwood's criticism hinges upon
the meaning to be ascribed to the word: "therapy." Common usage
of the word suggests an intervention of some sort, into a situation
where something is wrong, either a bodily dysfunction (as physical
therapy tries to correct), or a mental dysfunction (as psychotherapy
tries to correct). In any event, it is generally understood that
therapy 15 used with persons who are il_l_ in some manner, .and are
different from "healthy" or "normal" people.

While a reading of Values and Teachipg may suggest that
values clarification is designed to be used only with those who
exhibit non-valuing behaviors (apathetic, listless, flighty, etc.),

the leaders in values clarification currently believe that values

. . . . . . 63
confus10n is universal, and not conf1ned to certa1n 1nd1v1duals.

It is the hope of those involved in this new work that

all Students will learn the process during their years in
school . It seems ultimately important that every human being

be 9i ven the opportunity to become clearer about what he or

she wants, is living for, and may perhaps die for.
Every man, woman and child needs help 1n trying to mpg
sense‘out of the confusion and conflict Of todafs world?”

m added.)

In the sense, therefore, that "therapy" refers to procedures

designed to be applied only to a speCiC, "abnormal" population, the
\
621b1d,, pp. 45-56.

63Raths, et al., Values and Teachipg.

64Sidney 8. Simon and Polly deSherbinin, "Values Clarifi-
cation; It Can Start Gently and Grow Deep," Phi Delta Kappan, 56,

'0 (June. 1975), p. 680.

43

writer feels that Lockwood's criticism is not valid. Values
clarification procedures are not designed for abnormality--they
are designed for Everyman.

But there is another sense of the word "therapy," which
does involve practically a universal population. Many medical
dOCt01's. for example, feel that most Americans are physically
degepemted, and could use much more exercise in their lives and
a much more careful regulation of their dietary habits. In one
sense, prescribing a physical fitness program could be described
as a the"‘apeutic intervention, an attempt to return people to some
"ideal" or "normal" physical state. It is abnormal, in this sense,
to be Phi/sically unfit, even if ninety percent of the people in
America are that way. Doctors are making the value judgment that
it is "bad" to be physically unfit.

Is it "bad" not to have clear values? In Values and Teachipg,
that very question is dealt with.
It depends upon what one means by "bad." For a person in
a period of great change . . . few values may ex1st. For
those in a more stable portion of life, one might expect some
patterns of life to have been worked out based on free choice,

underStanding, and pride. If this has not happened, one would
SPSPECt that such a person is operating at a lower level of

l1fe than need be. . . . .
But, especially for ch11dren, the cruc1al questTOn 1s not

how many values one has or what those values are, but what
PM a person uses when faced with value-related deCTSions.

, Vile would be inclined to say that, from our set of values,
1" 13 "bad" not to use the valuing process.

\
65Raths, et al., Values and Teaching, p. 194.

44

Thus, in the sense that values clarification attempts to
offer remedy for an essentially universal malady, it can be said
to be a form of "therapy." (However, in using such an argUment
as this it can be said that in some schools where children con-
sistently have problems learning to compute, any attempts to help
them with their mathematics skills could also be labeled as
"therapy.")

For the sake of argument, then, the writer will assume
that, in a limited sense, values clarification is a form of
therapy and that Lockwood is correct in so calling it. Is this
an important criticism?

As mentioned above, Lockwood believes that such a criticism
is significant in three ways. To begin with, Lockwood feels that
because the advocates of values clarification feel so strongly that
values clarification should not be used for therapy, and because
values clarification _i_§_ therapy, that a basic inconsistency exists
which has not been dealt with.66

Lockwood argues that the "unmet emotional needs" identified
by Raths, 52131;, which are supposedly not to be treated by values
clarification, are virtually indistinguishable from the "unmet
67

values needs" which values clarification supposedly does treat.

Indeed, Raths, et al. have written:

It is important, regardless of what measuring system is
used, to eliminate from the list Of value-related behavioral

 

66
67

Lockwood, pp. 5115,, p. 45.
Ibid., p. 41.

45

problem cases all those who suffer from physical or emotional
disturbances, for those disturbances need treatment other than
value clarifying. . . . Children in need of physical or
emotional treatment should be helped to get those first.

Until a child feels emotionally secure, for instance, value-

clarifying experiences are probably of little benefit and may
even add to his disturbances.68

Raths, et a1. later write that "the behavior patterns
associated with unmet needs are usually distinguishable from those

"69

associated with unclear values. Thus, it should be quite evident

as to when values clarification can be appropriately used and when
it cannot.

Lockwood, however, believes that it is very difficult to
distinguish between the symptomologies of unmet values needs and
unmet emotional needs, as characterized by values clarification

pr0p0nents. He compares the two thusly:

 

 

 

 

Symptoms of Symptoms of
yumet Emotional Needs Unmet Values Needs
Aggression Overdissension
Withdrawal Apathy
Submission Overconformi ty
Regression to an F1 1 ghtiness
earlier age Indecisiveness 70
FEychosomatic illness Pretending/role-playing

Lockwood concludes that "This symptomology makes it difficult to

determine if values clarification is treating emotional needs or

value needs."7]

————7

68Raths, et al., Values and Teaching, p. 182.
69Ibid., p. 200.

7°Lockwood, pp,.gip., p. 41.

7'Ibid., p. 41.

46

The writer feels compelled to agree with Lockwood. While
trained psychologists r_n_ay be able to distinguish between values
reeds and emotional needs as described above, few Classroom teachers
wodkllikely be able to do so. Lockwood's criticism on this point
warnants further investigation. The writer has asked each of the
experts interviewed to respond to the question: "Is values Clarifi-
cation 'therapy?'" Their responses can be found in the Appendix
and are discussed in Chapter 4.

Lockwood further feels that his criticism of values clarifi-
catnnias therapy is significant because as such, it deals primarily
wiu1"emotional-affective" processes and not, as its proponents
claim, with primarily "rational-intellectual" processes.

While values Clarification historically has claimed to be
more cognitively oriented (but with an explicit recognition of
Wm nfle and importance of the affect), in the eyes of this writer
values clarification, in practice, has grown to be more affectively
oriented over the years. This belief is based on the writer's
personal experience as participant in a large number of values
clarification workshops over the past several years. It is what
led the writer to ask each of the experts. interviewed: "Is values
clarHHcation more affective in nature now than it was ten years
ago?" The responses to this question may be found in the Appendix
and are discussed in Chapter 4. The writer feels that Lockwood may

have a valid claim, but will withhold judgment until Chapter 4.

 

—'

72Ibid.. p. 45.

47

Finally, Lockwood feels that his criticism of values Clarifi-
cation as therapy is significant because as such, it deals primarily
with "personal" value problems, and neglects "interpersonal" value
problems. Because of its overwhelming personal nature, Lockwood
concluded that values clarification represents an "ethically
relativistic" position.73 His charge of relativism will be responded
to later, when this writer attempts to explore not only his charges
Of relativism, but also those of Stewart, Kohlberg and Rokeach.

Values clarification relies upon appoor definition of a

 

"value." Both Lockwood and Rokeach assail the definition of a

74 Lockwood believes

"value" as described in Values and Teaching.
that the definition reflects certain theoretical inadequacies. He
clams that the definition is poor (1) because it arbitrarily
distinguishes between values and such things as attitudes, beliefs,
innuests, and so on; (2) because it is unrealistic to expect a
FmrMMItO always be able to meet the seven criteria; (3) because

it gives no guides as to what actions should follow a particular
value; (4) because it fails to deal with the possibility of a
inrMNIholding conflicting values; and (5) because the definition
ernwmously leads people to believe that only through values
clarHHcation can a person become "positive, purposeful, enthusi-

astic and proud. "75

 

73
74
75

Ibid.. p. 46.
Raths, et al., Values and Teachipg, pp. 28-30.

Lockwood, pp. pip, pp. 37-40.

48

Rokeach objects to the "all or none" quality of the

definition of a "value" put forth by Raths, et al. in Values and
76

 

Teaching.
Such an all-or-none conception makes it difficult to
think in terms of such notions as value importance, value
hierarchy, value priority, or value conflict. More important,
it makes value measurement virtually meaningless and, conse-
quently, comparisons with others impossible.
The writer finds it difficult to respond to these criti-
cisms because it is unclear at this point if the leaders in values
clarification continue to define a "value" in the same way as it

78 When

vns defined in Values and Teaching ten years ago.
Ifirschenbaum suggested in his 1973 essay that "processes" better
represented the theory than "criteria," in effect he also said

that he no longer defined a "value" through the seven criteria.

He Offeredno definition in itsvstead.79 Furthermore, the extent
tovnnch others in values clarification have assumed Kirschenbaum's
posHfion in regard to "criteria" is not entirely clear. The extent
tovunch various experts agree with Kirschenbaum's reformulations,
as well as how each of them defines a "value" was a topic of conver-
satHNIin the interviews conducted, and information pertinent to

this criticism is therefore to be found in the Appendix and in

Chapter 4. In any event Lockwood's and Rokeach's criticisms may

 

76
77

Raths, et al., loc cit.

Rokeach, "Toward a Philosophy of Value Education," pp. 123-
124.

78Raths, et al., loc cit.

79Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification."

49

becmiticisms of a definition which is no longer current or which
iscmrrently in process of refonmulation.

Values Clarification claims neutrality; but actually teaches
(xntain values. Stewart and Rokeach believe that the advocates of
wflues clarification claim "values neutrality," but are actually
emcouraging certain values. Rokeach has written:

Value clarification's insistence about value neutrality
notwithstanding, an examination of its basic tenets suggests
that it nonetheless has certain value commitments that remain
silent, and that it moreover attempts through the back door
to inculcate students with these values.

'Hm values which Rokeach feels that values Clarification attempts
uiinculcate into students are things like broadmindedness, a

fuunfistic time perspective, independence, self—awareness, courage,

logical consistency, and reliability.81

Finally, he concludes that:

All these refer to values that are not all that different
innithose that I have empirically identified as educational
values. But a question remains: Is it not value-obfuscating
rather than value-clarifying to teach such values through the
back door, and at the same time give the impression of value
rmutrality through the front door?82

Stewart echoes many of Rokeach's concerns:

. . the judgmental nature of values clarification is pervasive.
lhe creators have built a methodology based on their own values,
vnnch are frequently in conflict. They claim value-neutrality
vnth regard to the content of the methodology. but fag; to see
that their own values are built into the methodology.

 

80Rokeach. pp. p_1__t_., p. 123.

8]Ibid., p. 123.

82
83

Ibid., p. 123.

Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification," p. 685.

50

The proponents of values clarification have never attempted
however, to hide the fact that certain values are built into the
values clarification process. They have written that in certain
instances where a teacher's expresSion of his or her value may
unduly influence students, it may be more appropriate for the
teacher to remain totally neutral. Furthermore, the emphasis is
upon each child's process of valuing, and not the content of the

value. Finally, the authors of Values and Teaching have stated

 

point blank that "from M set of values, it is 'bad' not to use

the valuing processes."84

In other words, Raths, et a1. admit
that they "value" the process of values clarification, and admit
that their values are a part of it.

Kirschenbaum, et a1. issue similar responses to the charge
of values neutrality. They believe that in a limited sense, values
clarification does attempt to be value free.

. when discussing value-laden area and controversial
issues, the value clarifying teacher or parent accepts all
viewpoints and does not try to impose his or her own views
(although these may be "shared"). In that sense, the
approach is "value free," and we can honestly say to parents
that we are not trying to imposg any set of values, but
rather teach a valuing process. 5

However, they go on to say:

NO matter what their viewpoint, a_ll students are asked
further clarifying questions. All are encouraged to keep

 

84Raths, et al., Values and Teaching, pp. 193-194.

85Howard Kirschenbaum, Merrill Harmin, Leland Howe, and
Sidney B. Simon, "In Defense of Values Clarification: A Position
Paper" (Saratoga Sprin s, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education
Center. 1975), p. 4. TMimeographed.)

51

developing their values through the use of the valuing processes.
And it should be clear from the process that values clarifi-
cation definitely promotes the value of choosing, prizing and
acting, or if one prefers, thinking, feeling, choosing, com-
municating, and acting. Thinking critically is regarded as
better than Choosing impulsively or thoughtlessly. Choosing
freely is considered better than yielding passively to authority
or peer pressure. And so onfi‘b

 

Only in a very narrow and explicit sense, therefore, can
wflues clarification be considered to be value free. Looking at
tMaprocess as a whole, however, one finds that the proponents of
vahns Clarification do not claim value neutrality, and are, on the
cmunary, quite willing to admit that they do encourage certain
values, and to identify what those values are.

Values clarification fails to treat "moral" issues ade-
Qmflgly. Kohlberg distinguishes between "morals" and "values,"
amihence also between "moral education" and "values education."
Hefeels that values clarification fails to discriminate between
"mnels" and "values," and the result is that values clarification
amt Up in a "relativistic" posture. While moral issues concern
"fahmess or justice," values issues do not, and therefore Kohlberg

feels that the two cannot and should not be treated in the same

manner. 8?

Kohlberg is correct in stating that values clarification

has not distinguished between "values" and "morals." Whether or

 

86Ibid.. p. 4.

85Lawrence Kohlberg, "The Relationship of Moral Education
to the Broader Field of Values Education," Values Education, Theory/
Practice/ProblemsLProspects, ed. by John Meyer, Brian Burnham and.
Hahn Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier Un1vers1ty

Press, 1975), pp. 79-82.

52

notimis relegates values clarification to a relativistic position,
asldNflberg contends, will be discussed in the following section.
'Hm writer has, in his interviews with the various experts consulted
ibr this study, asked each of them for their definitions of "morals"
aml"values," and in some cases, have asked them to respond to
KMflberg's criticism. The answers of the experts may be found in
He Appendix, and are discussed in Chapter 4.

Values Clarification is "relativistic." All of the critics

 

ciuxlthus far have either explicitly or implicitly labeled values
Clmnfication "culturally" or "ethically relativistic." Because of
tMeapparent unanimity of this view among critics of values clarifi-
cathnn and because of the seriousness of the charge, this criticism
1°5Pr0bab1y the most important of the seven criticisms dealt with
in HHS Chapter.
Stewart has written:
0f the criticisms made against Values Clarification, probably
none is made more frequently or more loudly than the charge
that it is inadequate, ineffective, and possibly even dangerous
because of its basic moral relativism.
While not explicitly using the term "relativistic" to
dennibe values clarification, Rokeach nonetheless implicitly
agrees with Stewart.
Proponents of the values Clarification movement advocate
a form of value education that cannot readily be identified
either as substantive value education or as the inculcation
of educational values. . . . The values that they would like
to help students "find" are private, subjective, and not

comparable from one individual or group to another. Little
or no consideration is given to the cultural, societal or

 

88Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification," p. 686.

53

iristitutional origins that shape the values of large numbers
()f’people in similar ways, or to the fact that a basic property
of human values is that they are shared, or to the fact that

triere is an intimate connection between institutional and
iridividual values.89

Kohlberg believes that,

In the general area of values . . . I believe that we must
adopt a relativistic stand about decisions, i.e., we should be
evigaged in developing valuing processes in some sense without
vworrying about what conclusions come out or what the principles

used are. . . . . 90

But th1s 15 not the case 1n the area of moral1ty.

Finally, Lockwood, of the four critics, has devoted the
host in his writings relative to this concern about values clarifi-
Imtion. He uses the term "ethical relativism" to describe the
unral position of values clarification, and explains the term as

follows:

In its simplest definition, ethical relativism holds that
one person's valuesare as good as another's: everyone is
entitled to his own Opinion; and when it comes to morality, 9]
there is no way of showing one opinion is better than another.

Lockwood believes that the Charge Of relativism is signifi-

Cmn:in a number of ways. First, while the values clarifiers seem to
Mesuggesting that "tolerance" is desirable, they would also have to
tolerate people who choose "intolerance." Secondly, the relativistic
naune of values clarification does not allow for the constructive
Yemflution of inter-personal value conflicts, since all values are

92

seen as of equal worth. Lockwood concludes by writing:

 

89Rokeach, pp, 513,, p. 122.

goKohlberg, pp. pip, p. 80.

g'Lockwood, "A Critical View of Values Clarification," p. 47.

921bid.. p. 48.

54

. . . a program of value education which devotes its attention
t!) questions of personal preference and desires presents a
trouncated and myopic View of morality. A program which avoids
ttie controversies associated with value conflict, conflict
rtesolution, and moral justification trivializes the complexity
(rf value issues in human affairs. Second, a value education
program which, perhaps unwittingly, is grounded in ethical
reelativism must accept the possibility that its students will
ennbrace ethical relativism as their moral point of View--
cflearly an achievement of dubious merit.

Kirschenbaum pp_plp_have attempted to respond to this very
sericnds charge of "relativism." Much of their reasoning as to why
they believe values clarification is _Tl_0‘_t_ relativistic is related
to their’arguments as to why values clarification is not "value-
imee." They feel that the values Clarifying teacher accepts all
\newpoints, and does not attempt to impose values, and that:
"Responses are not judged as better or worse; each student's Views
are treated with equal respect."94

However, they maintain that "here all relativism stops."
591 Students are encouraged to utilize the valuing processes, and
'Um valuing processes represent various value positions of the
adhors, e.g. critical thinking, considering consequences, free

choice, and so forth.95

They also write:

We can go even a step further, and we probably have erred
in not making this explicit often enough. Toward what end
are these valuing processes better than their counterparts?
Here, again, there are certain value judgments implicit in
each process. If we urge critical thinking, then we value

 

93Ibid.. p. 48.

94Kirschenbaum, et al., "In Defense of Values Clarification,"

95Ibid.. p. 4.

55

Toationality. If we promote divergent thinking, then we value
c:reativity. If we support moral reasoning as Kohlberg . . .
defines it, then we value Ijustice. If we uphold free choice,
i:hen we value autonomy or freedom. If we encourage "no-lose"
conflict resolution, then we value equality.

 

 

It seems to this writer that given such strong statements,
the I)roponents of values clarification are ppp_taking a relativistic
stance, as has been so often charged. Values clarification is not

a relativistic position, but is best described by the philosophical

position of "objective relativism."

Objective relativists believe that scientific methodology
Should be applied when making decisions, and therefore the conse-
cwences of an act should be a major factor in determining the

worth of that act. Sidney Hook has commented that:

The ppp_of thinking is more important than the what of
thinking, not because the two are separable, for the ppp_
refers to the what in a class of cases or situations, but
because it stresses the habits and morals of thought upon
which the quest for truth and its successive corrections

depend. 97

Compare Hook's reasoning with this passage from Values and

my:

For us, it is less important to know that a person values
something than it is to know ppp_he arrived at that "value."

Did he arrive there thoughtfully, proudly, actively, or is
he thoughtlessly mimicking a current style, reacting to a

nmmentary impulse, or whatever?

lhus, the process of values selection is very important to an

Objective relativist.

 

71

96Ibid.. p. 4.

97Sidney Hook, Education for Modern Man (New York: Knopf,
1963), p. 168.
98Raths, et al., Values and Teaching, p. 206.

56

Objective relativists reject pure relativism or subjectivism
as inadequate, for such a position offers no way out of conflicts,
and could possibly lead to a "might makes right" situation. 0n the
other hand, objective relativists also reject absolutism, because
such a position disregards situations and contexts, absolute values
are crften in conflict with one another, and there is little agree-
ment as to what should be "absolute."

Objective relativists argue that their position allows
flexibility in reacting to individual Situations, and leads to
conflict resolutions in which people are more likely to reach
agreement since a conmon methodology is being used.

An extensive exploration of the claim that values clarifi-
cation is objectively relativistic, and not relativistic or
Slle'ectivistic lies beyond the scope of the present study.
invertheless, the writer feels that the similarity between methods
espoused by objective relativism and values Clarification's reliance
onlogic, weighing of consequences, consideration of alternatives,

and so forth, is too clear to be denied.
RESEARCH IN VALUES CLARIFICATION

Prior to becoming identified with values clarification,
Raths was perhaps best known as a researcher. His involvement
with Ralph Tyler and the "Eight-Year Study," was one Of his most

notable research affiliations.99 It should be of no surprise then,

 

r’

99Conducted under the auspices of the Commission on the
Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Associa-
tion, the Eight Year Study is a landmark in educational research.

57

that Raths' interest in research would continue, even when he chose
to devote much of his time and effort to the study of what many
consider to be the "non-empirical" realm of values.

A number of the original research studies in values clarifi-
cation were in the form of doctoral dissertations performed by
Raths;' students at New York University. Most of them attempted
to measure the effect of values clarification upon the behavior
of studdents. This section will attempt to summarize some of the
more significant studies in the area, and also to draw some con-
clusions about the research which has been completed in values

Clarification as a whole.

1957-1965

In 1957, Albert Klevan reported the results of an experiment
in which values clarification techniques were utilized with a group
0f Students taking an education course at New York University.
mn1e the study lacked empirical purity with regard to the way in
\Nnch groups were matched, it did suggest that values clarification

tmflunques could be of help in assisting students toward greater

value Clarity and consistency.100

The following year, Sidney B. Simon reported a study
inwflving ten high school teachers, each of whom had been trained

in the use of the values clarification process. Each teacher

 

_f

10OAlbert Klevan, "An Investigation of a Methodology for
Value Clarification: Its Relationship to Consistency on Thinking,
purposefulness. and Human Relations" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,

New York University, 1957).

58

selected a student who was exhibiting non-valuing behaviors (apathy,
flightiness, etc.), and utilized valueclarifying strategies with
that student. Simon reported that there was little impact on the
behavior of the students, but speculated that the reason for that

lay with the teachers' difficulty in learning the values clarifi-

cation process, and not in the technique itself.'m

Simon's speculations were given some credence by a study
conducted by Goergia Brown. Brown utilized a research design
similar to Simon's, with the major exception being that elementary
level teachers and students were involved, instead of secondary
teachers and students. Brown reported significant behavioral

changes on the part of those Children exposed to the values

Clari fication process.102

James Raths submitted a more carefully controlled study in
1960 on the effects of values Clarification on the academic achieve-
ment of students. Raths matched six pairs of high school "under-
achievers" and randomly assigned half to an experimental group and
half to a control group. Within the experimental group, Raths

utilized a number of value clarifying techniques. Later, Raths

_s

'O'Sidney 8. Simon, "Value Clarification: Methodology and
Tests of an Hypothesis in an In-Service Program Relating to
Behavioral Changes in Secondary School Students" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1958).

102Georgia J. Brown, "An Investigation of a Methodology for
Value Clarification: Its Development, Demonstration and Application
fOr Teachers of the Elementary School" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion in process, New York University). as Cited by Raths, et al.,

yplues and Teachipg, p. 208.

59

reported that five of the six students in the experimental group

performed better academically than their counterparts.103

In 1961, Melvin Lang reported on a study conducted at the
college level. Like J. Raths, he used matched pairs of students,

but included "apathetic" and "nagging dissenters" as well as

"underachievers." He also made provisions for something that

J. Raths had ignored, and made sure that those students in the
control group received an equivalent amount of attention as the

experimental group, even though the qualitative nature of that
attention was quite different. However, Lang's findings were not
conclusive. The values clarification strategies seemed to work

better with the "underachievers" than with the others.'04 Lang

also did a follow-up study two years later, and found that there

had not been any long term carry over in the gains previously

made with the "underachievers."105
1966-on

From about 1966 to 1970, little research about values

clarification was published or reported. One can only speculate

 

 

103James Raths, "An Application of Clarifying Techniques
to Academic Underachievers in High School" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1960).

'04Melvin Lang, "An Investigation of the Relationship of
value Clarification to Underachievement and Certain Other Behavioral
Characteristics of Selected College Students" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1961).

105Cited in Raths, et al., Values and Teaching, p. 213.

60

as to the reason for this lack, but it is possible that the
tremendous emphasis that was being placed during this time upon

the implementation of values clarification may have been a contri-

buting factor. However, beginning in 1971-72, there was a resurg-

ence of interest in values clarification research.

For example, in 1972 Richard L. Curwin submitted a dis-

sertation entitled: "Values Clarification Approach to Teaching

Secondary English Methods." In this study, values clarification

was used to inject a more "affective" base into a college course

designed for preservice secondary English teachers. Curwin con-

cluded that the revised course had been both "useful and enjoyable

as perceived by the students." He recommended that more affectively

oriented materials be used in the education of teachers.106

In 1973, Thomas Covault completed an important dissertation

involving values clarification. His study was probably the most

t1°9ht1y controlled up to then of all of the experiments done involving

values clarification.

Covault worked with two experimental groups and two control

groups consisting of fifth graders. He spent an equal amount of

time with all of the groups. However, in the experimental groups

where values clarification strategies were used, he found that
students exhibited "valuing" behaviors more frequently in a number

of ways, including self-concept, "initiation of self-direction of

_f

106Richard L. Curwin, "Values Clarification Approach to
Teaching Secondary English Methods" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, 1972).

61

classroom activities," "positive attitude towards learning," and

exhibited fewer of the "non-valuing behaviors."'07

Howard Kirschenbaum reported of a study headed by Jay Clark,

performed under the auspices of "Operation Future" in Visalia,

California. While the results were still being analyzed, prelimi-

nary"findings showed a very high correlation between non-valuing
behaviors and drug usage. In the second part of the study, the
effects of values clarification on non-valuing behaviors and drug

usage were scrutinized. Here is how Kirschenbaum reported the

results:

The effect of the independent variable on the six traits
was mixed. . . . In the area of drug use, the gains were un-
mistakably significant, as indicated in preliminary report.
. . Not only were these results statistically significant,
in many cases the changes were dramatic in degree. . . . Its
implications could be profound, both for further research
and for educational practice.108

In a different drug-related study, sponsored by the Florida
State Department of Education, Bryan C. Smith compared two methods
in teaching drug education: "the traditional teacher confined
aPproach, and the values clarification group-centered process."
Thistudy was conducted with preservice elementary school teachers,

amiit was discovered that the values clarification approach was

 

107Thomas J. Covault, "The Application of Value Clarifi-
cation‘Teaching Strategies with Fifth Grade Students to Investigate
lheir Influence on Students"Se1f-Concept and Related Classroom
Coping Behaviors" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1973).

108Howard Kirschenbaum, "Recent Research in Values Clarifi-
cation," Values Education, Theory, Practice/Problems[Prospects, ed.
by John Meyer, Brian Burnham, and John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975), p. 73.

62

"superior in all ways measured." The measures used had both
cognitive and affective dimensions. Smith found that members

of the values clarification group "read more independently, achieved
greater gain scores in affective and cognitive testing, and they

developed a sense of community that brought them together to solve

problems ."109

Finally, Jack Osman, writing in the Journal of School
M, reported a significant increase in the degree of self- .
actualization (as measured by Shostrom's Personal Orientation /
Inventory) in a class of future health educators, who had been
taught values clarification strategies. His study lacked a control
group, however, so it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions

from it alone.”0

Mary of Research on Values Clarification

There can be no doubt as to the difficulty involved in
conducting research in the area of values. In many ways, research
methodology in this area of education is still in its infancy,
and it is not yet clear if so-called "traditional" research
aPproaches are either applicable or appropriate in the area of
values. It is possible that an entirely new formulation of
research methodology may be needed in order for significant

research to occur in this area.

\

109Bryan C. Smith, "Values Clarification in Drug Education:

gsgomparative Study," Journal of Drug_Education, 3, 4 (Winter, 1973),
~376. .

noJack Osman, "The Use of Selected Values Clarifying
Strategies in Health Education," Journal of School Health, 43, 10
(January, 1974), pp. 621-623. '

63

Be that as it may, some things can be said relative to the
research completed thus far in values clarification. First, one
must acknowledge the inconclusiveness of the research. Some studies
reveal positive effects of values clarification, others show little
or no effect for values clarification. At the same time, one is
struck by the multiplicity and range of dependent variables which
to date have been chosen for research within values clarification.
They range from "self-concept" to "academic achievement," from
"interest in a class" to "drug usage," and so on.

Both of these points are, in the writer's opinion, important
and deserving of further exploration. Much more intensive determi-
nations urgently need to be made as to the effects of values
Clarification. There are strong indications that values clarifi-
cation procedures do have effects, but it is not yet clear as to
what the various effects are. Furthermore many researchers seem
to think that values clarification is a panacea and are attempting
1:0 Utilize it in a wide variety of settings, despite statements from
the leaders of values clarification as to the limitations of the
approach.

Clearly more research needs to be done in values clarifi-
cation. To solicit suggestions along these lines, one of the
questions put to each of the experts dealt with the nature of
Proposed research in values clarification. Their responses may

be examined in the Appendix of this study, and are discussed in

Chapter 4.

64

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2

The author has attempted to highlight the development of
values clarification as reflected in its literature. NO single
chapter, however, can fully comprehend the tremendous amount that
has been written about it. Kirschenbaum, p_t__a_l_._ list one hundred
and eighty-four different books, articles, and media packages
produced between 1965 and 1975 which deal with values clarifi-
cation. For purposes of the present study, some selecting had
to be done in order to generate a representative over-View for
inclusion in this review of relevant literature. The author's
attempt was to present an accurate picture of values clarification,
and he hopes and believes that no major aspects of current theory,
practice, or criticisms of values Clarification have been omitted.

The writer has attempted to Show the genesis of values
Clarification, starting with Dewey's ideas and Raths' adaptations
Of them. Attention has been given to the basic theory of values
clarification, to its rationale and methodology, to criticisms of
1't. and finally to research conducted in it.

The quantity of information currently available regarding
values clarification would itself suggest that the procedures
Already have had a notable impact on American education. However.
little or no research has been done to assess that impact. Nor
have any syStematic historical accounts been written relative to
the Phenomena of the emergence values Clarification, i.e., how it

grew so quickly into a national "movement." Finally, no research

65
has been conducted to assess the changes which have occurred in
values clarification theory and practice, or with regard to where
values clarification is likely to go during the coming ten years.

It is these final aspects which the writer finds most interesting,

and with which the remainder of this dissertation is concerned.

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the research methodology used by
the writer in this dissertation. Generally speaking, two basic
research questions were posed:

1. In what ways have the theory and practice of values

clarification changed since 1966?

2. In what directions is values clarification likely to

move during the next ten years?

To gather data relative to these two questions, the writer
identified, contacted, and requested to interview fourteen experts
filvalues education. An Interview Guide was constructed to facili-
iate and order the interview process. The interviews were recorded
(Niaudio tape. transcribed, and a copy of the transcript returned
'Uieach expert for editing. At this time, the writer could also
adchr'clarification of any ambiguous remarks made by the experts,
and/or ask further questions. Finally, using the edited transcripts
as a data base, the writer attempted to analyze them in such a way
ae'u>answer the two major research questions and certain sub-

questions.

66

67

METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING THE EXPERTS

The writer was interested in utilizing data from both pro-
ponents and critics of values clarification. While many possibili-
ties existed with regard to the field of experts from which to
Choose, two criteria were imposed arbitrarily by the writer in the
selection of the experts to be contacted. The first criterion was
that a ratio of approximately two proponents of values clarification
to one Critic was to be maintained. The rationale for this parti-
cular ratio was as follows: This dissertation is primarily focused
upon theoretical and methodological issues m values clarifi-
cation, and only practitioners and supporters of values clarifi-
cation have the "inside" View that comes from a long term association
With a particular approach. However, while such proponents are
likely to have access to information that those outside of values
clarification may not, their Views might be "internally biased,"
$0 to speak. Therefore, critics of values Clarification who are
familiar with the general self-apparent, "external" aspects of it,
and Who also represent a different approach to values education,
were also consulted and were perceived as important sources of
data for identifying issues which might be obscured or distorted
if seen only from an "insider's" point of view.

The second criterion imposed by the writer was that each
expert be a prominent member of his field. "Prominence" in this
sense, was taken to mean that the person had published in the area,

and was generally considered to be a leader in the area by other

68

scholars. The rationale for this criterion was that prominent
figures are often key figures, in terms of the directions in which
movements in education have gone and will go in the future.

With these criteria in mind, the writer identified the
following educators and "experts," and contacted each of them to
request their participation in the study.

1. Louis E. Raths, adjunct Professor, State University
College, Fredonia, New York. Dr. Raths is the senior author of
Values and Teaching, as well as the author of numerous articles on
values, valuing and values clarification. He is recognized by

most authorities as the creator of values clarification.1

2. Merrill Harmin, Professor, Southern Illinois University

at Edwardsville, Illinois.’ ' Dr. .H'armin is a co-author of Values and

 

Teaching, and an author of numerous other books and articles dealing
with values clarification. He has also served as‘a leader of many
workshOps on values clarification in various locations in the United
States.

3. Sidney B. Simon, Professor, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts. Dr. Simon is also a co-author of M
W, and numerous other books and articles dealing with
values clarification. He has also .led many. workshops in values

clarificatiOn .in different-parts of. the. U'nitediStates and abroad.

x

1For a complete listing of the books and articles written
by the experts in values clarification, and for a partial listing
of materials by the critics of values clarification, the reader is
directed to consult the bibliography of this dissertation.

69,

4. Howard Kirschenbaum, Director, National Humanistic
Education Center, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. Kirschenbaum
is the author of numerous books and articles on values clarification.
He has also worked as a leader of many workshops on values clarifi-
cation, and has coordinated the dissemination of information con-
cerning values clarification from his center.

5. Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Assistant Director,
National Humanistic Education Center, Saratoga Springs, New York.
Ms. Glaser-Kirschenbaum is an emerging leader in values clarifi-
cation, has facilitated many workshops in values clarification,
and recently has been utilizing values clarification in new and
innovative ways with women and with school counselors.

6. Leland N. Howe, Associate Professor, Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Howe is the author of books and
articles in values clarification, and has also led many workshops
on the approach.

7.~ Mary Martha Howe, Director, Philadelphia Humanistic
Education Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Howe is the
co-author of PersonalizinLEducation: Values Clarification and
132m. and has led many workshops in values clarification.

8. James Raths, Professor, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois. Dr. Raths is the author of a number of early articles
30d research reports dealing with values clarification. He is the
son of Louis Raths.

9. Joel Goodman, Assistant Director for Program Develop-

ment and Consultation Services, National Humanistic Education

70

Center, Saratoga Springs, New York.. Dr. Goodman is the author of
numerous articles in values clarification, and has led many work-
ShOPS on the subject as well.

10. Michael Scrivens, Professor, University of California,
Berkley, California. Dr. Scrivens is a well-known philosopher and
Cl‘ltic of many values education approaches, including values
clarification.

ll. John S. Stewart, Director of Research and Development,

American Institute for Character Education, San Antonio, Texas.
Dr.Stewart is the author of numerous publications on moral
development, and is a well-known and ardent critic of values
clarification.

l2. Milton Rokeach, Professor, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington. Dr. Rokeach is the author of numerous publi-
cations on the inculcation approach to values education, and is an
outspoken critic of values clarification.

13. Alan L. Lockwood, Assistant Professor, University of
Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Dr. Lockwood is the
author of a number of publications on moral development education,
and has written extensively of his criticisms of values clarifi-
cation.

l4. Lawrence Metcalf, Professor, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois. Dr. Metcalf served as the editor of the forty-
first yearbook of the National Council for the Social Studies,

entitled: Values Education: Rationale, Strategies and Procedures.

71

Dr. Metcalf's book serves to illustrate still another approach to
Values education.

Of these fourteen experts, the first nine were clearly
Proponents of values clarification, the following four were clearly
critics of values clarification, and the last one, Metcalf, was in
a position which was less clearly critical of values clarification
but was inferred to be 50. Thus, there was an approximate ratio
0f two to one proponents to critics present in the original list
Of experts.

0f the fourteen experts contacted, five did not participate
in the study. Metcalf, Scrivens, and M. Howe failed to respond to
the invitation sent to them. J. Raths and L. Howe declined to
participate in the study. The former indicated that he had not
been involved in values clarification for some time, and that
since the writer was interviewing his father (Louis Raths), he
felt there was no information that would be of benefit that he
could add to what his father had to say. The latter, L. Howe,
indicated that he was currently re-thinking his position on values
clarification, and was not ready at this time to share his views
publicly.

0f the nine who did agree to participate in the study, six

\were clearly proponents of values clarification, and three were

clearly critics of it. Hence, the ratio of two proponents to one

critic was kept intact.

72
METHOD OF CONTACTING THE EXPERTS

Each expert was contacted initially by way of a letter from
the writer. Because of the personal nature of the relationship
between the writer and many of the experts, a form letter was not
used. However, each letter did contain the following information:
a description of the purpose of the study; an overview of the
methodology to be used in the study; a specific description of
the participant's role in the study; and an invitation to partici-
Pate.

Upon receiving an affirmative response from an expert, the
writer would then mail the expert a copy of the Interview Agreement
Fonn (see Appendix A) and a copy of the Interview Guide (see
Appendix B). A date and time for the interview would then be

established, either by further correspondence or by telephone.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

An Interview Agreement Form was created by the writer and
sent to each participating expert. The purpose of the form was to
clearly establish the fact that the writer had secured the permission
of each expert to record his or her interview, and to reproduce the
transcript of that interview in this dissertation and/or possibly
other works by the writer.

Several of the experts objected to the phrase "and possibly
other publications," and struck it from the agreement.

The fOrm also served as a vehicle for establishing telephone

ruwnbers, dates and times for conducting the interview. A blank

73

Interview Agreement Form may be examined in Appendix A. The com-
Pleted Interview Agreement Forms are contained in Appendix B. The
telephone numbers of the experts have been removed, since it seemed
clear that the experts might desire not to have their telephone

numbers publicly known.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEW GUIDE

An Interview Guide was created by the writer, and was made
available to each of the experts prior to their interview. The
Purpose of the Interview Guide was to bring some regularity to
the questions being asked of the various experts. The questions
contained in the Interview Guide were primarily sub-questions of

the two major research questions mentioned previously. The Inter-

view Guide may be examined in Appendix C.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEW PROCESS

The interviews were conducted during the month of April,
1976. L. Raths, Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Kirschenbaum and Goodman
inere interviewed in person by the writer. Simon was interviewed
both in person (an exploratory interview, in October of 1975) and

by telephone (a follow up, April l976). The remaining experts

were interviewed via telephone.

 

2Because of legal requirements, the writer contacted the
Michigan Bell Telephone Company and consulted with them in regard
to the use of tape recording equipment in conjunction with telephone
conversations. The company later installed devices in the writer's
lumne which would allow him to tape record the interviews conducted
by telephone. Since permission was. secured from each interviewee
prior to the interview, the company waived the use of an automatic

recording "beeper."

74

While an Interview Guide was utilized, some words as to
£9! it was used are important. First, the Interview Guide was,
as its title suggests, a "guide." At times, some questions were
Put to the experts by the writer in different ways than the way
they appear on the guide. At other times, certain questions were
omitted, and/or others added.

The rationale for this use of the Interview Guide and
indeed, the entire interview process, is quite simple. The inter-
View process was selected for use by the writer as a data gathering
method because of its flexibility. In the early stages of the
study (viz., in the exploratory interview with Sidney Simon) it
became apparent to the writer that he would need to be able to
probe the responses of the various experts in depth, and that
certain questions contained on the Interview Guide were not appro-
priate for all of the experts. For example, in reference to the
latter point, certain questions might be appropriate for Raths,
since he was the founder of values clarification, but not for a
person like Glaser-Kirschenbaum, who has been involved in values
clarification for relatively fewer years.

Despite the flexibility of the writer's use of.the Inter-
view Guide and the interview process, the writer is persuaded
that no major issues were left out of any individual's testimony,
and that each expert was able to respond quite adequately to the

two najor'research questions posed previously.

The interviews varied in length from forty-five minutes to

‘UNO and one-half hours. The differentiation in time represents a

75

number of factors, including pauses, interruptions, or the varying
loquaciousness among individual interviewees. The writer did not
consciously attempt to give any one individual more time than
another.

Following each interview, the writer would transcribe it,
and note any points which he felt needed further clarification.
Many of these points referred to "footnote information," e.g.,
last names of people mentioned in the interview by them, publishers
for upcoming books, and so forth. Other points were of a more
substantive nature, and included requests for clarification of
certain passages, follow-up questions, questions which were missed
the first time, etc. The interviewee was requested to respond to
these points in writing, and return their answers with the tran-
script. John Stewart failed to return his transcript or to reply
to the writer's requests for clarification.

At the same time, the interviewee had the opportunity to
edit his or her remarks, and restate any items which he or she
felt were ambiguous, incomplete or innacurate. Merrill Harmin
and Howard Kirschenbaum's interviews, for various reasons, are
printed with their permission in their original, unedited form.
4A.copy of the form letter sent with each of the transcripts may
be examined in Appendix D.

Upon receiving the edited versions of each expert's tran-
script, the writer had each transcript retyped. The nine transcripts

land their attached Interview Agreement Forms may be examined in

Appendices E through M.

76
SELF-INTERVIEW

The writer also attempted to answer most of the questions
contained in the Interview Guide himself. This was done during the
month of March 1976 prior to any of the interviews conducted with
the experts, with the one exception of the partial interview done
With Simon in October of 1975. The self-interview was conducted
in an effort to determine what assumptions the writer might have
been making, and, once aware of these assumptions, assist the writer
in helping him maintain his objectivity when questioning the experts,
and to increase his awareness of the possibility of "leading" the
experts. The results of this exercise are discussed in Chapter 4.
The answers given by the writer to the questions contained in the

self-interview may be found in Appendix N of this dissertation.
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS

The task of analyzing the data contained in the interviews
was difficult in many respects. However, the writer attempted to
deal with these data in an objectively critical fashion, much as
a literary critic attempts to deal objectively with a new novel,
drama, collection of poems, for what have you.

The data were analyzed by comparing and contrasting the
responses of the experts to the two major research questions, and
‘to certain sub-questions which, during the course of the interview
process, emerged as significant, primarily because of the importance

placed upon them by the experts. The two major research questions,

77

and their respective sub-questions, which serve as the basis for
ChaPter 4, are as follows:

Major Research Question #1. In what ways have the theory_
23d practice of values clarification changed since 1966?

Sub-Question #la. In what ways has values clarification
affected the lives of those who have used it?

Sub-Question #lb. In what ways has the theory of values
Clarification been modified since 1966?

Sub-Question #lc. What are the major criticisms of values
clarification and how do the proponents of values clarification
respond to them?

.Sub-Question #ld. Is values clarification more "affective"
in nature in 1976 than it was in 1966?

Sub-Question #le. To what degree are certain key words
in values education commonly defined by the experts consulted?

Sub-Question #lf. Is values clarification being misused
and if so, what can be done to insure it against such misuse?

Major Research Question #2. In what directions is values
clarification likely to move during the next ten years?

Sub-Question #2a. What might the future hold in regard to
the widespread "popularity" of values clarification?

Sub-Question #Zb. Who is likely to play key or influential
roles within values clarification during the next ten years?

Sub-Question #2c. What philosophical issues and/or research

issues does values clarification need to confront during the next

ten years?

78

Sub-Question #Zd. Ideally, what do the various experts hope
will happen to values clarification during the next ten years?

On the basis of his intensive efforts in comparing and
contrasting the responses of the experts to the various specified
questions, the writer believes that he cannot fairly be charged
With being arbitrary in choosing items from the data to "prove a
P0int." Furthermore, the edited transcripts of the interviews
are reproduced in the appendices in their entirety, and the reader
hooefully will form his or her own conclusions from the data for
comparison with those which the writer has made. The interpretations
0f the data are the subject of Chapter 4.

Basically, the critical procedure followed was for the
writer to comb through each interview in search of comments relative
to each sub-question, and summarize them for comparison with each
other. At times, additional weight would be given to the testimony
of some experts if they felt that they had a particularly well
thought out position and/or the other experts added disclaimers
about their ability to testify knowledgably on a particular subject.
After weighing the evidence, the writer offers conclusions based
upon his interpretation of the data, paying particular attention
to both the quality of the testimony (first-hand knowledge, for
example, versus unfOUnded speculation) and the quantity of the

testimony (e.g., what does the preponderance of testimony indi-

cate?).

Chapter 4
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF DATA
INTRODUCTION

This chapter concerns itself with the analysis of data
collected through the methodology described in Chapter 3. General-
izations, recommendations, conclusions and so forth are presented
in Chapter 5.

Each sub-question identified in Chapter 3 is analyzed
through the comparison and contrast of experts' responses to them,
with the experts' remarks presented by direct quotation and/or
These various responses to each of the sub-questions

summary.
are then evaluated, and conclusions drawn in regard to each sub-

question. Conclusions drawn in regard to the two major research
questions are discussed in Chapter 5. The chapter concludes with

a comparison of the experts' responses to those of the writer

through his self-interview.

MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE SUB-QUESTIONS

Once again, here are the two major research questions (to
be discussed in Chapter 5) and their respective sub-questions (to

be discussed in the remainder of this chapter).

79

80

Major Research Question #1. In what ways have the theory
and practice of values clarification changed since l966?

Sub-Question #la. In what ways has values clarification
affected the lives of those who have used it? .

Sub-Question #lb. In what ways has the theory of values
clarification been modified since l966?

Sub-Question #lc. What are the major criticisms of values
clarification and how do the proponents 0f values clarification
reSpond to them?

Sub-Question #ld. Is values clarification more "affective"
in nature in 1976 than it was in l966?

Sub-Question #le. To what degree are certain key words in
values education commonly defined by the experts consulted?

Sub-Question #lf. Is values clarification being misused
and if so, what can be done to insure it against such misuse?

Major Research Question #2. In what directions is values
clarification likely to move during the next ten years?

.Sub-Question #2a. What might the future hold in regard to
the widespread "popularity" of values clarification?

Sub-Question #2b. Who is likely to play key or influential
roles within values clarification during the next ten years?

Sub-Question #2c. What philosophical issues and/or research
issues does values clarification need to confront during the next
ten years?

Sub-Question #2d. Ideally, what do the various experts hope

will happen to values clarification during the next ten years?

- all"

81

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub—Question #la. VIn what ways
has valges clarification affected the lives of those who have used
:iE?"

The responses to this sub-question varied greatly. In the
interview process, data relative to this particular sub-question
was gathered by asking the experts not only how they perceived the
effect of values clarification on the lives of those trained in
it, but especially in the case of those eXperts who were proponents
of values clarification, how values clarification had affected
their own lives.

Merrill Harmin's responses were somewhat atypical. Dr.
Harmin felt that in terms of his own life, the major effect of
values clarification was to give him "a huge exposure and advantage."
For very few people, in his opinion, does values clarification in
itself have that great of an impact. "For the larger proportion,
it's a reaffirmation of some things they have sensed, but not been
able to express." Dr. Harmin concludes by suggesting that the
reason why values clarification "hasn't had much of an impact on
me is because I was that way befbre.that." In other words, Dr.
Harmin feltvthat prior to learning of values clarification itself,

he was already practicing and had already internalized many of

its tenets.

Louis Raths responded in a different fashion. He offered
a number of individual cases from his many years of experience in
values clarification wherein values clarification had, in his

opinion, had a profound impact on the lives of others. He

summarizes them by stating: "There have been a number of cases
where people have just said: 'By golly,ya know, it really shook
me.'" It is this kind of effect which Dr. Raths says has the
most meaning for him.

Within his own life, Dr. Raths offered a number of off-
the-record anecdotes as to how values clarification had affected
his own life, particularly as a professional. He ends with the
following remarks:

I think that when many people remain quiet in a choice
situation, it isn't so much because they are afraid to
speak, as it is they don't know what they believe, not
having seen clearly, through life or living and experiences
and reading, where they stand. They remain mute. Now all .
too commonly, it is said about them that they're afraid to
talk. Now the fear, as I see it, may be there, but the
fear, I think, is more related to that jj_they talk, they

wouldn't know what they were talking about. It was that
they weren't clear.

Sidney Simon offered remarks similar to Raths'. He says
that "I just have a file full of people who have simply said it's
changed their lives." He also remarks that "I just don't imagine
I can put my finger on ten or twelve other things that have made
lives change that much." And in terms of his own life, Dr. Simon
is equally full of praise for values clarification, and for Louis

Raths.

I think if anybody could track down the way I've lived
my life for the last ten years, they would see the values
work operating more and more ...............

I just can't imagine anybody studying with Fritz Perls, who
had more impact on their life than Louis Raths had on mine.

Howard Kirschenbaum's testimony was similar to Harmin's.

In regard to his own life, he felt that values clarification

82

83

Preinforced what I was doing already, and that was: continually
examining my own life-~not wanting to settle for less than my
dreams and the life that I prize and cherish." He does not credit
values clarification with changing his life per se.

In terms of the effect of values clarification on the
lives of other people, Dr. Kirschenbaum differentiates between
its effects personally and professionally.

I think for many individuals, professionally it's their
first jumping-off point into the whole area of humanistic
education. And that really continues to evolve and grow in
them, and makes considerable difference in their professional
lives.

Personally, I think perhaps the effect would be the same
as it was on me: that being exposed to the theory of values
clarification and related approaches gives people more con-
fidence in their own search, in their own growth--strengthens
that resolve.

Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum stated that "I try to use the
processes when I go about making decisions and dealing with my own
value conflicts." Ms. Glaser-Kirschenbaum also mentions that, in
her opinion, values clarification had affected the lives of others
as well. Some teachers have given her feedback in regard to the
effectiveness and practicality of values clarification. Furthermore,
she cites continued interest in training on the part of teachers
and other members of the helping professions and the proliferation
of training programs utilizing values clarification, as more
evidence for the positive impact values clarification has had and
continues to have.

Joel Goodman offered a number of anecdotes, exemplary of

the great influence he feels that values clarification has had on

84

his life. Like Glaser'Kirschenbaum, he too finds himself using

the valuing processes:

In a specific sense, I find myself using a number of the
skills really naturally: I'm compulsive about looking for
alternatives; and sometimes I think about consequences to the
point where I get bruises from sitting on the fence for so
long. And an increasingly important area for me is the whole
notion of acting on my values, and a most particular sense
of that with regard to different social issues dealing with
forms of oppression.

In terms of the effect of values clarification upon the
lives of others, he says "that's actually been one of the things
that's kept me going: the realization that it ggg§_make a
difference for people to get involved in this kind of thing."

Dr. Goodman then offered several illustrations of how values
clarification had, indeed, affected the lives of people he had
known.

Finally, John Stewart sees values calrification as having
deeply affected the lives of many people who have used it, but in
both positive and negative ways. On the positive side, Stewart

acknowledges that:

I think that one of the main things that values clarifi-
cation has brought to the field is a general opening up and
warming up of the educational environment. I think that it
would be difficult to be exposed to something like values
clarification with the tremendous legacy of traditional edu-
cation and all its rigidity and formalism without it doing a

number of things.
Some of the things he refers to are an awareness of the problems
of traditional education and "a general tendency to look at some
of the more humanistic" aspects of education. Hence, Stewart

applauds the reflection he feels values clarification encourages.

85

On the other hand, he believes that values clarification
has had some negative impacts, especially in the area of "peer
IconfOrmity and peer influence," and in "selling a totally rela-
tivistic approach to values and morality."1

Values clarification has apparently had an impact of some
sort on all people involved with it. For some, its an affirmation
of some general ideas and beliefs about values education, and for
others it is an entirely new concept and entrance into the broader
field of "humanistic" education. Furthermore, values clarification
appears to have affected lives to a degree which suggests that it
is much more than a teaching methodology. It is a process for
decision-making and living which tends to permeate one's life.

Based upon the evidence presented by the various experts,
values clarification appears to have deeply influenced the lives
of many people, often in very dramatic ways.. Values clarification
has impacted not only classroom teaching, but people's relation-
ships with spouses, parents, friends, and children. Such a moving
force would tend to belie the statements of'those who characterize
values clarification as a "fad."

Analysis and evaluation of Sub-Question #lb. "In what ways
has the theory of values clarification been modified since 1966?"

To some extent, this question has been discussed in
Chapter 2, in the section entitled "Kirschenbaum's Modifications."
However, there is some question as to what extent Kirschenbaum's
theoretical changes have been adopted by his colleagues, or are

known to the critics of values clarification theory.

 

1These criticisms are discussed in Chapter 2.

..

86

Both Alan Lockwood and Milton Rokeach expressed the fact
that they were generally unaware of Kirschenbaum's suggestions.
Of the critics, only John Stewart expresses familiarity with
Kirschenbaum's efforts, yet he is unsure as to the universal
acceptance of them by his colleagues, for "In none of the other
literature have I seen any change."

Kirschenbaum, however, believes that his colleagues do
agree with at least two of his modifications:

I think in terms of these latter two concepts: expanding
the concept of the processes, and making more explicit the
idea of what the outcome of values clarification might be in
a social context--I think my colleagues agree with me,
specifically because Simon, Harmin, Howe and I wrote a
position paper in which we used that formulation, so they
were all willing to have their names publicly go with that
concept. But I think personally, they don't use it as much
in their own work. I'd like to believe, though, that that's
the direction that we're going in.

Both Simon and Harmin do admit that they do not utilize
Kirschenbaum's modifications in their own work. Simon finds
Rath's original theory to be "satisfactory, clear, and suitable
as it is." However he does not have any great disagreements with
what Kirschenbaum has proposed.

Harmin, in his workshops in values clarification, still
presents the theory "as it was traditionally presented," and
questions a broadening of the theory, for then values clarification
"becomes something other than values clarification. . . ." He does '

admit, however, that in his workshops he no longer refers to

"Criteria" of a value, but of valuing "processes," which is one

of Kirschenbaum's suggestions.

 

87

Glaser-Kirschenbaum believes that in recent years, her
husband, Howard Kirschenbaum, has indeed emerged as the primary
imec>t~ist. She does not speculate, however, as to the degree to
imi<2li others in values clarification have assumed his reformulations.

Raths speaks only indirectly to this question, and most of
his remarks are in the context of sub-question #lc, dealing with
changes in the practice of values clarification, and are more
appropriately discussed there. When later asked in a follow-up
letter to respond to Kirschenbaum's suggested modifications, Raths
stated that he did not know what they were, and could therefore
not reply to my question.

Goodman credits Kirschenbaum with having generated some
theoretical changes, and also with those changes as having an
impact on his own thinking. Like Harmin, he cites the change from
“criteria" to "processes" or "skills." He also offers a number
of different interpretations to the theory himself, which tend to
expand the theory, but not nearly to the extent that Kirschenbaum's
efforts do. For example, he speaks of "extrapersonal skills" as
one area which he feels needs to be explored in values clarifi-
cation.

The above responses appear to say that the theory of values
clarification is undergoing some changes by some of its proponents,
but it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the extent_
to which values clarification has changed as yet. Certainly, it
would appear that most if not all of the current leaders in values

clarification now speak of valuing "processes? in lieu of the

88

original notion of Vcriteria.V Beyond this, while Kirschenbaum and
to a lesser degree, Goodman, have in their own work modified the
theory, there is no indication that they or any of the remaining
leaders in values clarification have abandoned Raths' basic con-
ceptualizations. Kirschenbaum's claim of support notwithstanding,
it is the opinion of the author that from the point of view of
theory, values clarification is in a somewhat ambiguous or transi-
tional posture. There is little evidence to suggest that the
forthcoming revision of Values and Teaching? will likely resolve
current ambiguities or advance theoretical frameworks to new
closures. .Harmin, who is heading the revision efforts, has stated
that the theory will be handled in Raths' way. The only tenable
conclusion suggested at this point seems to be that the theory of
values clarification has slightly changed in the last ten years,
while several suggestions have been put forth to change the theory
even more. Only the course of the next_ten years will reveal to
what extent the theory will continue to change, if at all.

Analysis and evaluation of Sub-Question #lc. "What are
the major criticisms of values clarification, and how do the
prgponents of values clarification respond to them?"

In Chapter 2, the writer identified a number of major
criticisms of values clarification based upon a review of related

literature, and attempted to respond to them. In this section,

 

2Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon, Values
and Teaching: Workingfiwith Values in the Classroom (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill, Inc., l966).

89

criticism of values clarification are listed by the various experts,
and some responses are offered by the proponents of values clarifi-
cation. Generally, the criticisms are quite similar to those
identified by the writer in Chapter 2.

Milton Rokeach criticizes values clarification in a number
of ways. He rejects the definition of a "value" offered by Raths,

3 as too subjective, and hence joins other critics who label

2L_al_-.
values clarification an "ethically relativistic" position. Dr.
Rokeach further believes that values clarification is too "self-
centered," to the point of failing to explore societal or institu-
tional values. Furthermore, he says he distrusts "any approach
'where you can't measure that which you are talking about." Finally,
Dr. Rokeach dismisses the notion of the process of valuing as
"awfully vague."

Alan Lockwood admits that "I'm not real fond of it [values
clarification] as an approach, for various reasons." Throughout
his interview, Dr. Lockwood offers a number of criticisms of values
clarification in support of his feelings about it.

Lockwood believes that values.clarification is actually
a form of "therapy," but that its supporters will not acknowledge
that fact. As a result, values clarification, in his opinion,
focuses less upon moral issues, and more upon less consequential

issues of liking and disliking. Furthermore, values clarification

tends to deal more with "content" than "form" or "structure" in

 

3Raths, et al., Ibid.

90

valuing. Lockwood severely criticizes the research or lack of
Ngood, quality research,V and encourages proponents of values
clarification to do better, more complete research "that has got
some sort of methodological integrity, according to the general
canons of social science research." Like Rokeach, Lockwood criti-
cizes values clarification as being "ethically relativistic or
narcissistic or egocentric in their views." He also sees the
issue of "privacy rights" being important, with the possibility
of infringement upon those rights by persons using values clarifi-
cation. Finally, Dr. Lockwood feels that the leaders of values
clarification must become more explicit about its goals.

John Stewart reiterated some of the criticisms he had made

previously about values clarification in the Phi Delta Kappan.4

 

Dr. Stewart criticizes what he sees as the "peer conformity
and peer influence" which he sees as a part of the valuesiclarification
approach. He also declares that:

By forcing sensitive children and teenagers into making
public claims, public statements can bring about premature
forclosure on the ideas, and can bring about people becoming
committed to things that they may not be really committed to,
but once having made public statements and going on record,
there is an effect there and I think that is a danger.

Dr. Stewart's final major misgiving about values clarifi-

cation is a reverberation of Lockwood's and Rokeach's, and that is

that values clarification is ethically relativistic.

 

4John S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critique," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), 684-688.

91

Dr. Stewart also responds to Lockwood's contention with
regard to the "therapeutic" purpose and method of values clarifi-
cation. He first suggests that a clear definition of the word
"therapy" is needed. Stewart suggests that there are at least two
basic meanings applied to "therapy." One is associated with illness,
and the other with change in a situation. In the latter sense,
Stewart contends that all educational practices have a therapeutic
element. He cites the reflection by many leaders in values clarifi-
cation of the danger in utilizing the approach with emotionally or
mentally disturbed children. However, he does feel that values
clarification is being used by professionals in therapeutic circles,
and ends up agreeing with Lockwood, but with qualifications.

Merrill Harmin states that the main negative criticism of
values clarification he hears is that "people say it's 'mushy,’
it's philosophically not crisp, sometimes inconsistent, and some-
times dumb." Furthermore, he believes that values clarification
is criticized for being too "affective," for "giving to emotional
things."

Dr. Harmin responds to the latter charge by suggesting
that values clarification has three components: .thought, feeling
and action, and that it is supported by those who have programs
with similar components, and criticized by those who capitalize
on only one or two components.

Dr. Harmin's professed posture in regard to the criticism's

he enumerated would be to respond by using the theory, and to take

92

4a position of dialogue, rather than one of trying to convince the
critics.

Harmin does not agree that the process of values clarifi-
cation or the proponents of values clarification are value-free,
but does not offer substantial support for his opinion in the
interview.

Sidney Simon cites a number of criticisms of values clarifi-
cation, and attempts to respond to each of them. To the charge
that values clarification is "simplistic," Simon replies that he
sees such a criticism as "about twenty per-cent envy, fifteen per-
cent protection of something they enjoy more."

Simon acknowledges the common charge of "relativism," but
feels that people fail to grasp adequately what motivated a rela-
tivistic stance: the highly moralistic atmosphere of the late
fifties and early sixties. Like Lockwood and Rokeach, Simon speaks
of the "inadequate research," which he feels is a "justifiable
account." To those who feel that values clarification is not
supported by an adequate theory, Dr. Simon offers his own opinion
that, "It's been a very adequate theory for me."

Finally, Dr. Simon feels that a "menacing" criticism issues
forth from "parents who feel that values clarification belongs to
the home, and it shouldn't be the province of the schools." He
believes that such a criticism is very difficult to deal with,
because of the high emotions usually involved with such sentiments.

Howard Kirschenbaum responds to Lockwood's charge that

values clarification is a form of "therapy“ in a fashion similar

93

to Stewart. Dr. Kirschenbaum states that such a criticism depends
heavily on the definition of the word "therapy" used. He states:

To the extent that therapy implies making sense and clarity
out of confusion and inconsistency; to the extent that therapy
implies helping people become somewhat more aware of their
feelings and their hopes and their goals and some of the con-
flicts which are getting in the way of that, and some of the
things they need to do in their lives to get where they want
to go--yes, values clarification is a "therapeutic" intervention.

But to the extent you mean by "therapy" an in-depth psycho-
logical exploration, a foray into our inner world where we get
in touch and deal with feelings that are fairly deep-rooted;
to the extent that we mean by "therapy" dealing with signifi-
cant psychological distress--no, I don't see values clarifi-
cation as "therapy."

Joel Goodman believes that one of the most troublesome
criticisms of values clarification deals with the issue of,

"Where do I draw the line in terms of when I 'expose' and
when I 'impose,' or feel like imposing?" On a real practical,
everyday level, I think that's a question that teachers face
all the time. On a more long-range level, it's a question which
I think is important on a society-wide level.

Dr. Goodman points to a number of moral issues, like racism,
sexism and so forth, and wonders aloud as to when it is appropriate
to intervene and become more directive in values areas. He admits
that he is not entirely clear on this issue himself, and does not
offer a firm resolution for the criticism.

Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum chose to respond to the notion
of relativism in values clarification. She states that:

I think there are certain values perspectives that are

assumed. I don't think it is totally value-free. I think

we assume that thinking is better than non-thinking, that
certain ways of looking at problems, taking a look at choices,
are better than other ways, that acting is something that we
value. I think inherrent in values clarification are certain
kinds of values that certain processes are better than other

processes, as ways of looking at areas of confusion and con-
flict.

94

Hence, she does not see values clarification in an ethically
relativistic position, as charged by so many.

Finally, Louis Raths identifies and responds to two major
criticisms, both of which have been previously mentioned: that
values clarification is "relativistic," and that it is a form of
"therapy."

To the former charge, Raths points out the accusation that
values clarifiers are ethical relativists in turn implies that "you
should be cultural positivists." However, if this is the case,
the accusation is "almost ridiculous," because at this point in
our history there are no universal absolute cultural values.

In regard to the latter point, Raths denies strongly that
values clarification is a form of therapy. He questions if giving
help where it is needed automatically qualifies something as
"therapy," by comparing the use of values clarification to the use
of special spelling instruction for a poor speller, or to food
for a hungry man. He states that:

There is something in this matter of human relations, in
which the central quality is hgmag, It isn't professional-
medical, professional-legal, professional this or that. It's
a sensitivity to see something missing, and to help out.

This writer is convinced that the many criticisms of
values clarification identified by the experts are quite signifi-
cant and will continue to be made until the proponents of values
clarification sort through them more thoroughly than they have thus

far. There appears to be universal agreement, for example, with

regard to the importance of the issue of ethical relativism, and

95

.yet the responses of the proponents of values clarification while
perhaps profound, have not been fully expressed and explored.

Some of the pr0ponents of values clarification appear to
have an adequate grasp as to what the major criticisms are, and
of the deep philosophical implications of some of them, yet none
of them are "philosophers“ in the usual sense of the word. The
writer believes that if values clarification theory is to remain
viable its proponents must be willing to explore these issues and
assume similarly critical postures.

Certainly, the problems of relativism, inadequate or
incomplete research, the charge that values clarification is
"therapy," and other concerns should and must be dealt with. It
is possible that the last ten years of values clarification, with
its focus upon implimentation, has seen the neglect of philosophical
and theoretical issues. The time has come,.in this writer's opinion,
for responses to be formulated, thoughtfully and carefully.

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub-Question #ld, "Is values
clarification more 'affective' in nature in 1976 than it was in
.1299? "

The intent of this question is to focus primarily upon
whether the practice of values clarification has grown to be more
“affective" in nature during the last ten years. The question as
to whether the theory of values clarification has been modified to
include a more "affective" orientation, or if the theory has changed
at all, is open to debate, as explained previously in the discussion

of sub-question #lb.

96

Several of the authorities consulted responded by stating
that in the hands of some practicioners, values clarification had
indeed become more affective in nature. For example, Glaser-
Kirschenbaum stated that, in her opinion, "I think Sid's [Simon]
teaching of values clarification has become more affective." How-
ever, she felt that in her own work and in that of her husband,
Howard Kirschenbaum, there was still an emphasis upon "thinking
skills." She concluded by saying: ". . . I think the affective
realm is an important part of the valuing process, but not exclusively
so."

Harmin also suggests that any shift in emphasis within
values clarification is probably the result of its use by particular
individuals including himself, which is "mostly attributable to the
fact that those of us who are doing it, personally are slipping
into more affective interests." However, Harmin also suggests
that "the population in general is getting more concerned with
their feelings. I don't think values clarification strictly defined
has become more affective."

Simon replies to the question of the possibility of any
affective shift in values clarification by stating that "In my
hands it has [become more affective]." He characterizes Raths as
a "beautifully cognitive human being," and feels that Harmin is
"more cognitive than I." Implicit in these statements is the
opinion that the use of values clarification is highly individual,
and that if it is more affective in nature, it is because its

practitioners have greater affective interests themselves.

97

Kirschenbaum believes that while there has always been an
affective aspect of values clarification as reflected in "prizing
and cherishing," he thinks that "in our work over the last several
.years, influenced by other affective approaches, we've asked people
to look more at their whole feeling realm inside." He continues
by saying:

50 yes, I would say that there is some evidence that we're
more--there's more emphasis on the affective realm. But I
wouldn't call that a major change, because it seems to me that
even though sometimes in values workshops feelings play a
bigger part, a lot of that might be due to the personality of
the facilitator, or the fact that the facilitator just chooses
to bring in some things from a different approach.

Thus, Kirschenbaum joins all of the experts mentioned previously
in this section in emphasizing the importance of the individual
teacher in determining the degree of affect in values clarification.

Goodman does not see where values clarification has neces-
sarily grown to be more affective in and of itself, but again, he
sees procedure as heavily influenced by the person utilizing it.

It's more "affective" in the sense that, I think, at
least in my own work, I've been incorporating more and more
branches of affective education or humanistic education. But
I think it's always been affective, at least in terms of
focusing on what people prize and cherish. So I haven't
noticed many major changes in that. Not really.

Stewart acknowledges that he has only limited knowledge
of the status of values clarification ten years ago, and "can
really only speculate" as to whether values clarification is more
affective now than it was in 1966. However, his guess is that
values clarification probably is more affective now, and that it:

. . moved more and more away from a so-called, purely
"rational" and "cognitive" approach, because it came along i

98

in that middle and late sixties when the whole thrust was away
from that and against the post—Sputnik era, into a general,
humanistic, affective orientation, if you recall that period.
And I think values clarification came to be identified with
the affective rather than the cognitive, in spite of the fact
that it was designed as a rational and cognitive kind of ap-
proach to reflecting on values. . . .

Stewart refuses, however, to dichotomize affect and
cognition, and would much prefer to see the situation in "organismic,
integrated" terms.

Raths cited a shift in values clarification towards more
affective things as one of the major changes he has observed over
the last ten years. He feels that the whole area of affect was
underplayed in Values and Teaching,5 and that while more attention
is being given to feelings in the values clarification process now,
that some of that is a result of certain feelings-related material
being edited from the book. Raths says: "Now I may be wrong on
this, but I would suggest that this is one of the things that has
happened since the book was published--there's been more attention
given to feelings."

In summary, the writer feels that it is difficult to
declare absolutely if values clarification jt§e1f_is more affective
in nature in 1976 than it was in 1966. Certainly, as it is being
utilized by many of the major leaders in the field, it appears that
it is being wedded with other, more affective approaches.

It is safe to say that more affective things are happening

inithin values clarification, most probably because of the personal

 

5Raths, et al., Values and Teaching.

99

interests of the leaders in values clarification. Kirschenbaum,
for one, has attempted to emphasize affect to a greater extent in
the theory, but it is not known to what degree his theoretical
modifications have gained acceptance. Whether or not these
affective interests will ultimately find themselves to be formally
acknowledged to be a part of values clarification is one question
which the leaders themselves need to deal with.

Analysis and evaluation of Sub-(flestion #13, "To what degree
are certain key words in values education commonly defined by the
experts consulted?"

The intent of this sub-question is to investigate the
degree to which certain frequently used words in values education
are similarly or dissimilarly defined. The writer assumes that
clear communication should exist between persons engaged in various
approaches within values education, and that such communication
can occur only if the frequently utilized words and terms of the
discipline are commonly defined and understood. While this question
was originally designed to provide background data for the writer,
it became increasingly apparent that the responses, while only
indirectly associated with the major research questions, were
important in themselves. The above sub-question is listed as a
part of the first major research question because the definitions
of the certain key terms inquired about provide a unique context
for the assessment of the various remarks of the experts.

The writer identified the following key words for defini-

tion by some of the experts: "values,“ "beliefs,” "attitudes,"

TOO

"feelings," "morals,V and Vabsolutes.f As stated previously, the
intent of this exercise was to familiarize the writer with the
meanings of these words held by each expert, especially those
experts not well known by the writer.

Some experts felt that definitions of words were either
unimportant in themselves, or unimportant in terms of the particular
values work they are engaged in. For example, when asked to define
a "value," Harmin said that he would define it through the "Seven
Criteria." However, he states:

But I would probably add that it's probably not too impor-
tant, how we define it. Life is a process, and what's
important is what we g9, how we I321; what we think, Not
how we define things.

Kirschenbaum is ready to accept most any definitions for
the words identified above. His advice to those looking for
definitions is to "go ask Merriam Webster." However, he speculates
that such an attitude might lead some people to regard him as "anti-
intellectual or unscholarly." He then goes on to offer personal
definitions for each of the key words.

This study is limited by the fact that not all experts
were asked to define the key words, nor were all responses tape
recorded when given. However, the preliminary evidence, based
upon a close reading of the transcripts, suggests a wide divergence
of opinion amongst the experts within the definitions themselves,
and also in the importance of the definitions. Certainly, more

research is needed in this area. It is possible that much of the

criticism leveled by proponents of one approach against those of

lOl

another approach stems from the lack of a clear understanding of
the theory, philosophy, and meanings employed.

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub:Question #lf, "Is values
Iglarjfication being misused and if so,,what can be done to help
insure it against such misuse?"

Like any educational approach, values clarification is
open to misinterpretation and possibly even misuse by some educators.
The writer attempted to assess the possibility of misuse and explore
some methods of quality control with each of the proponents of
values clarification who are still actively involved in the dis-
semination of it.

Harmin sees little evidence of values clarification being
misused. "The larger evidence is that people gpp;t_use it," he
says. Harmin speculated that for many people, "it doesn't work
for them the way it works for us," and they eventually drop the
whole thing. But it shouldn't necessarily work in the same ways
for everyone he says, for "We're different people. We have
different audiences. We have different responsibilities."

Simon agrees with Harmin, from the standpoint that he
hears very few reports of values clarification being misused. Even
when it is being misused, he doubts if it could have a greatly
damaging effect on children. He says: "I think kids are so
effective at turning off a teacher who is bad. I really do. Just
witness how hard it is to get kids to quit chewing gum, or whatever.

They're not afraid." Simon adds that in all these years, he has

102

never heard of a single person who has "flipped-out" as a result of
values clarification.

As for how "quality control" can be built into values
clarification, Simon offers this observation:

Well, it's interesting. I think to make the exercises in
some ways so scary, a certain percentage in the training
process, that it scares people away who should be scared
away. I've never said that as clearly, but I think it would
be very effective. Simply to make it menacing in their own
lives, so they say that: "Well, I think values clarification
doesn't work," and they'll stay away from it.

He does not think that there should be rigid controls,

like being able to write a thesis on the subject or create a certain
number of strategies, for example.

Glaser-Kirschenbaum believes that the majority of educators
using values clarification use it wisely, "but for some people it's
still very seductive to use values clarification as a means of making
a point." To counteract this, she devotes a good deal of time in
the workshops she conducts to the examination of how and how not
to create and use values clarifying strategies. "But you can't
guarantee that everyone who goes through your training program is
going to practice it with the same intent as you do," she says.

Glaser-Kirschenbaum is also a certified Parent Effectiveness
Trainer, and so is aware of that system, with its rigid quality
controls, and values clarification, with virtually no quality
controls. While she sees advantages to both approaches, in the
end she concludes that she "would lean more towards the accrediting."

Goodman says that he has heard "a number of different

horror stories, and that makes me all the more conscientious and

103

dedicated to trying to be explicit about some of the ethical issues."
He does not know absolutely if these misuses are severely hurting
children, but is sure that he "wouldn't want to have a kid of mine
involved in that kind of setting."

Goodman feels that more work is needed in defining and
exploring the ethical issues involved in values clarification,
particularly by classroom practicioners.

Kirschenbaum reported that "now and then" he hears of cases
where values clarification has been misused. However, he admits
that he doesn't know how widespread this misuse is.

Kirschenbaum has also done a good deal of thinking about
the whole area of quality control. He admits that this is an issue
which has troubled many of the leaders for years. "Our behavior
has always tended to be rather permissive," he says. In the early
seventies, the decision was made not to attempt to copyright values
clarification, and he believes that ". . . in a sense that was a
decision . . . to give it away." Kirschenbaum later adds:

- In hindsight, we could see how quickly it spread and
people began to use it, and if we had known that tpgp, maybe
we would have done it differently. But I don't want to be
too hard on us then, it seemed like the way to go.

Hence, while there have been no all out efforts at quality
control, there have been some. Kirschenbaum cites the creation of
an "Advanced Values Clarification Workshop" for trainers and the
establishment of a Values Clarification Trainers Network, "in

which we hoped people would stay in touch with each other and

therefore continue to improve their work by this affiliation."

104

Kirschenbaum also mentions a new book which he has written, Ag
Advanced Values Clarification Handbook for Trainers and Experienced
Teachers,6 which he hopes will also contribute to quality control.
Kirschenbaum sums up his stance and to a degree, that of his col-
leagues, as follows:

I think the area of quality control is something we chose
not to exercise a control over. We hope to exercise some
influence, but its really gotten beyond us. Values clarifi-
cation now is something which I think is very much in the
public domain. And fairly soon after we published the Values
Clarification Handbook, within a year after we published that,
I don't think we could have controlled it if we wanted to. I
think that decision would have to have been made back at a
time when we just had no idea of how popular values clarifi-
cation was going to become.

Apparently, the vast majority of those utilizing values
clarification are doing so relatively competently and ethically,
though perhaps some persons are not. Whether or not any misuse
could lead to situations in which severe psychological harm to
children could come about is doubtful. Nevertheless the matter
may be serious enough to warrant further investigation. At this
time, it would be impossible to enforce strict quality controls
for trainers and teachers of values clarification, yet more efforts
like those of the Values Clarification Trainers Network and
Kirschenbaum's new book could be undertaken to encourage voluntary
quality control. Steps might include attempts to gather together

persons responsible for major values clarification programs in the

 

6Howard Kirschenbaum, An Advanged Values Clarification
Handbook for Trainers and Experienced Teachers Tpublisher and
publication date to be established).

105

country at some type of symposia, or it might be advisable to try
to engender some type of quasi-certification of trainers, perhaps
through the trainers network.

The proponents of values clarification need to assess more
systematically the competence of practitioners in the field, so
that they can rely on more than hearsay evidence in determining
the extent of misuse. Such research might be a valuable guide
to the construction of future workshop models for values clarifi-
cation.

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub1Question #2a. "What might
the future hold inregard to the widespread "popularity" of values
clarification?"

There is a wide divergence of opinion with regard to the
continuing popularity of values clarification amongst educators.
Some experts see values clarification as.a fad and on its way out,
while others see it as a viable movement which will continue to
play an important role in values education.

Rokeach characterizes values clarification as a fad and
something with which people eventually become disaffected.

’I fear people will eventually get bOred with it. I

am not sure the exercises are worth all that time in the

classroom, too many of them may be wasting the students'
time.

Lockwood states that he has little hard data to work with
regarding the future of values clarification, other than "gut
reaction." However, he reports that of those pe0ple who have

spoken to him of their experiences with values clarification, a

106

lot are saying that "It worked O.K. for a while, but the kids got
tired of it."

Lockwood also speculates that the more values clarification
becomes "therapy oriented," the less it will be utilized by class-
room teachers and the more it will be left to school counselors.
Furthermore, Lockwood sees another trend developing, involving
the use of values clarification with preservice teachers, trying
to help them "to figure out what they believe in in terms of edu-
cation, and so on."

Stewart, like Rokeach, characterizes values clarification
as a "fad," and believes that "as a 'fad,' it has already peaked,
it is already over the hill." However, this does not mean, in
Stewart's opinion, that values clarification will cease to have
an impact upon values education.

. at a deeper level, a lot of the things of values clarifi-

cation have probably already become an inherrent part of the
behavior of teachers. I suspect that those who were most

deeply affected by it, have simply incorporated it into their
whole approach, . . .

As a matter of fact, its passing into oblivion as a fad may
actually enhance its capability of becoming part of the main-
stream of education, . . .

Stewart also sees the future of values clarification inti-
mately related to the future of other humanistic educational
practices. He believes a serious rift exists between those educators
interested in more "affective" things, and those who are not. Such

a split, Stewart contends, has led us to the point where

. education is in serious crisis, and within the next five
to ten years, there are going to have to be either some very

107

dramatic changes, or a continued falling off of the credibility
and importance of education or schooling as we now know it will
occur.
Stewart concludes by suggesting that the present "conservative
swing in the country" may cause people to reject "the positive
aspects of values clarification, without even bothering to find
out what it's all about."

Glaser-Kirschenbaum, to a degree, agrees with Stewart and
Rokeach's contention that values clarification is somewhat of a
"fad." She says ". . . to some extent, there is some fadism in
values clarification. I hate to admit that. I don't like to see
it." Yet despite this, values clarification will not, in her
opinion, fade away.

I think the concepts, some of the basic concepts of values
clarification will remain. They may become re-integrated,
they may become re-defined, but I think they'll live on. I
think just even the existence of values clarification helped
to legitimize the considering of moral issues for classroom
and public use and discussion. So it may change form, but
I think it will continue to live.

Harmin assumes a position quite similar to Glaser-
Kirschenbaum, and suggests that the popularity of values clarifi-
cation may wane, since it appears that it "couldn't get much more
popular." However, values clarification may quite possibly continue
to exist, because

. . . in a funny way values clarification gets at the heart
of many things that have never been crisp, such as democracy,
and self-direction, and mental health. Now it's not the
complete of any of those things, but since it connects to

so many central and critical things, it might hang around
a while in one form or another. It's hard to say. I'm not

sure.

108

Goodman seemingly is both optimistic and pessimistic about
the future of values clarification. He believes that in some schools
and among some educators, values clarification has been perceived
as "just another fad" and something else will take its place. Yet,
Goodman also states that:

I'm surprised at how many people often find values clarifi-

‘ cation to be something new that they never heard of. I think
there still is ground to be plowed in terms of introducing
people to it. So I think there will probably be two con-
flicting and yet simultaneous directions: in some places
it will die-out, phase-out, and in other places it'll grow.

Simon is quite optimistic about the future of values
clarification. "There will still be places which haven't heard of
it and will be as hungry for it as the people who have found it
in the last ten years." Like Glaser-Kirschenbaum, he foresees the
possibility of it joining with other aspects of humanistic edu-

cation:

It will be joined and wedded together, just as I think T.A.
is a marvelously eclectic kind of therapy--Re-Evaluation
Counseling the most eclectic of them all--values clarification
will be absorbed into lots of other things and it will absorb
lots of other things, as I've absorbed into the Re-Evaluation
Counseling work. It has, to me, enough unique theory to be
able to keep its identity as its read along.

Kirschenbaum, among all of the experts, has probably done
the greatest amount of thinking about the future of values clarifi-
cation, as indicated by an extensive chapter on its future in a
forthcoming book.7 Kirschenbaum maintains that "the traditional
values clarification approach will remain a distinct and viable

force in education." He further believes "there's every reason

 

7Howard Kirschenbaum, Ibid.

109

to believe that many more people will become involved in values
clarification or remain.in values clarification." Kirschenbaum
concludes by stating that "I really do believe that it's not going
to die out in the next couple of years."

Once again the writer finds it difficult to offer an
unequivocal evaluation of the data and reach conclusions. From
the evidence, it would appear that by some measures of popularity,
such as the number of pertinent journal articles, values clarifi-
cation may be declining in popularity. Yet the evidence also sug-
gests that the leaders in values clarification are still very
.active in the field, as demonstrated by their continuing publi-
cations in values clarification and their belief in the existence
of many untouched geographical areas. .And so, on a very basic level,
values clarification may well continue its level of "popularity,"
while losing some of its appeal to academicians.

It is apparent that in the eyes of most of the experts,
values clarification is closely allied with related movements in
affective and/or humanistic education. To some, this means that
as the broader areas are subjected to increasing attack, values
clarification may find itself rejected by many. To others, this
suggests that values clarification will become integrated with
other approaches, with the question as to whether or not it will
eventually lose its identity in question.

The writer believes that, at least for the next ten years,
values clarification will continue to exist as a separate entity,

while at the same time being integrated into other approaches like

110

Transactional Analysis, Re-Evaluation Counseling and so forth on

an experimental basis. Many of the approaches within humanistic
education are quite eclectic, including values clarification itself,
and ultimately, the lines separating these approaches will probably
blur.

Whether or not values clarification is only a fad is some-
thing which may better be decided in 1986, than in 1976. At the
present time, the writer can understand those who label it a "fad"
or a "bandwagon," and as Glaser-Kirschenbaum says, there may be
some of that element in the movement. Yet it is hard to believe
that persons who are well acquainted with it and well trained in
it could ever become "bored" with it, as Rokeach and Lockwood sug-
gest is the experience of many educators. Perhaps values clarifi-
cation is in a position similar to numerous other educational
innovations from our past.which have gained rapid popularity only
to be forgotten a short time later. Quite possibly, the failure
ofthese past innovations can be traced to the inability or un-
willingness of many educators to fully comprehend and internalize
the concepts involved in these innovations. Thus, if educators
perceive values clarification as a "bag of tricks" without sub-
stance, it may well prove to be "just another fad."

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub-Question #2b, "Who is likely
to play key or influential roles within values clarification during
the next ten years?"

The writer believes that it is relatively safe to say that

since 1966, the leadership in the(values clarification movement has

111

rested primarily with four persons: Raths, Simon, Harmin and
Kirschenbaum. Others have certainly contributed to the field, but
the above four have appeared to have had a national impact and
were instrumental in the vast majority of publications in the area.
To whom may values clarifiers look for leadership during
the upcoming decade? The answer to this question could have important
curricular ramifications.
~Based upon the testimony given by the experts, it would
appear that it is likely that at least three of the above four
leaders will continue to have a major influence on values clarifi-
cation. Raths' dipegt influence has declined over the years, as
his age and health have unfortunately kept him from playing a more
active role. However, his indirect influence is deep and permanent,
and reflected in the three men who will continue to influence the
values clarification movement: Simon, Harmin and Kirschenbaum.
Goodman and Glaser-Kirschenbaum, themselves emerging
leaders in the area, believe that leadership may come from persons
not as yet identified, primarily students of the four original
leaders. Glaser-Kirschenbaum has stated:
I think it might be more likely that certain students of
Raths, Harmin, Simon and Kirschenbaum, who are beginning to
work in moral education and values education, may be ones
who do more of the critical thinking, integrating, theorizing,
and research validating, than any of the four originators will.
Two other names consistently mentioned as emerging leaders

are Leland and Mary Martha Howe. Through their work with the

Philadelphia Humanistic Education Center, they are contributing a

112

good deal to the values clarification movement, in the estimation
of some experts.

Kirschenbaum believes that those who were influential
during the first ten years will "continue to be thought of by the
public at large as leaders in values clarification." Furthermore,
he believes that leaders will emerge in special applications of
values clarification. He concludes by saying:

I just don't know how exactly it's all going to evolve,
and I guess what I'm saying is: I think that the people who
in the past have been identified as leaders, will continue
to be leaders, and others will be seen as offering some leader-
ship in some applications of values clarification.

Simon does not believe that much will be done in the area
of values clarification alone, but that it will be integrated and
"somewhat synthesized" with other approaches, and cites Leland and
Mary Martha Howe as persons beginning to do work in that area. He
agrees with Kirschenbaum in that he, too, sees the probability of
new leaders emerging within specialized applications of values
clarification like alcoholics education and drug education.

Stewart sees Kirschenbaum and Goodman as potential primary
leaders during the next decade. He qualifies his prediction by
akcnowledging that he does not frequently associate with leaders
in values clarification, and hence it is difficult to speculate.
Stewart also pays the writer a compliment by naming him as one
person who could also contribute to the area.

As stated previously, it was the intent of this sub-question

to focus on the area of leadership in values clarification during

the next ten years. The writer finds it difficult to answer with

113

the degree of certainty he felt in the responses of most of the
experts. "Values Clarification," unlike Parent Effectiveness
Training," for example, is not a trademark, and is not an entity
controlled by a board of directors. Values clarification has
become a part of the public domain.. This means that practically
anyone can call anything values clarification. Thus, when specu-
lating about the future of values clarification, it might be best
to speculate about the "Raths theory and practice of values
clarification" or some other distinctive discriptor to set it
apart from other forms of values clarification which may possibly
evolve.

The Raths version of values clarification will undoubtedly
continue to be deeply influenced by Simon, Kirschenbaum, and Harmin.
However, persons like the Howe's, Goodman, Glaser-Kirschenbaum and,
the writer, may be among those who assume increasing responsibility
also for the continuing growth of values clarification.

While there is not, in a strict sense, a national "leader-
ship" in values clarification like that in P.E.T., this fact does
not appear to represent any particular liability. The wide base
of involvement has encouraged experimentation and involvement
sometimes lacking in rigidly controlled systems. On the other
hand, there is little evidence of any national planning in the area
of values clarification, with the possible exception of an informal
annual get-together amongst most of the proponents of values clarifi-
cation interviewed. These people may do well to consider a more

active national program in leadership within values clarification.

114

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub-Question #2c, "Whatyphilo-

 

sophical issues and/or research issues does values clarification
need to confront during the next ten_years?"

This area of inquiry was essentially designed as an "agenda
building" effort for values clarification. In other words, the
intent was to identify both broad and specific concerns which values
clarifiers need to face during the next decade. For the most part,
this inquiry was limited to research issues and philosophical
issues. Often, there was a good deal of similarity between
"research” concerns and "philosophical" concerns.

Rokeach asks two very basic questions of the proponents of
values clarification: "At what point is the student 'value-
clarified?‘ And how do you know when you've reached that point?",
and ". . . demonstrable effects of values clarification. Do they
exist or do they not exist?" In regard to this latter question,
Rokeach states that this "would be the foremost question I would
ask of that or any other values education approach. And if there
are no demonstrable effects, I have no idea what people are excited
about." ,

Stewart identifies several issues which he feels should be
addressed by values clarifiers. "One would be an integration of
values clarification with the developmental approach. I see that
as a E!§£:" He also sees a great need for a deeper, better conceptu-
alized philosophical basis, which would include the resolution of
the charge of ethical relativism. Stewart concludes his remarks

about philosophical issues and values clarification thusly:

115

I think it's also going to have to come to grips with
something that I peculiarly highlight in all my work, and
that is the fact that the answer or the answers to this whole
problem of values clarification and other forms of values and
moral development are getting at, are not going to be solved
by pedagogy and technology and strategies and gimmicks, and
that kind of thing. . . . I think we're eventually going to
have to say: "Look, technology's fine, pedagogy's fine,
curriculum"s fine--but we got to start doing something about
changing the overall nature of education and educational
environments and educational administration, and all those
kinds of things," because that's where the really serious
problems are, and I think that's where the mainstream of edu-
cation is, and I don't think that's going to come about by
constantly going on, developing strategies .-. ..if values
clarification is going to remain around and have an enduring
impact, I think it's got to move above and beyond technology,
pedagogy, strategies. In other words, I guess what we need is
to stop working on creating more strategies and start saying:
"Hey. What does values clarification say about the whole

problem?"

As for research, Stewart admits that the area of values is
"a damn hard area to do research in." Nevertheless, like Rokeach,
he would welcome research which "objectively" investigated the
claims of values clarification "to see if there's really foundation
for them." If such basic research were to be conducted, "then that
research in itself would begin to be informative about what other
kinds of research to conceptualize." Such research, Stewart con-
tends, need not be done "to gefgpg_itself, but to clarify itself."

0f the three critics of values clarification interviewed,
Lockwood has probably done the most thinking in this particular
area of inquiry, for he is presently involved in a formal project
aimed at investigating the adequacy of research completed in values
clarification, and has also written an unpublished paper identifying

issues values clarifiers need to confront.

116

In the latter area, Lockwood lists several issues which
he feels should be on an "agenda" for values clarification. First,
he feels that there is a problem in "their failure to distinguish
between moral and non-moral value issues in their approach." Also,
like Stewart, he feels the charge of ethical relativism, "The
absence of social conscience in their approach . . . would be a
second item." Lockwood also cites the "therapy problem," discussed
previously and the problem of "privacy rights," or rather the
invasion thereof, as important issues. Finally he names an issue
which also has reached implications, that of the questions con-
cerning the goal of values clarification. He says that we need
"to get more coherent statements of what the leaders of the movement
see as the outcomes that they're working toward."

In the line of research, Lockwood severely criticizes the
methodology used in past research, and particularly the multiplicity

of variables.

If you're trying to marry that approach to virtually every
social problem that a researcher can think of--you know I
don't know if they've done research on trying to find out
if values clarification leads to greater sexual satisfaction
in marriage, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that come out.
Lookwood also names small sample size, lack of adequate
controls and so forth as other deficiencies which future research
needs to erase.
As stated previously, Lockwood also encourages research on
just what the outcomes of the values clarification approach are.
Research in the area of whether or not values clarification can

produce stage changes in moral reasoning are not "a high priority"

117

with him, even though he does have a doctoral candidate working on
that very question. ‘

Kirschenbaum believes that any future research in values
clarification should focus on the area of testing the long-range
hypotheses of values clarification which "suggest that confusion
and conflict, when the valuing processes are applied to them,
will change to clarity and commitment and . . . socially construc-
tive behavior." To measure this, Kirschenbaum suggests that new
instruments be devised or old instruments be adapted to assess
"the nature of people's lack of clarity and confusion about values
issues" and related areas. Like the critics of values clarifi-
cation, Kirschenbaum is interested in measuring the effects of
values clarification, and the reasons for those effects, if any.

Harmin takes a different stance than Kirschenbaum in
regard to future research. He does not see the need for any
particular research in values clarification. He adds that "I
don't have much faith in the effects of research. It doesn't
seem to have made a hell of a lot of difference in the field that
I've done a lot of research in."

Simon frankly responds that the type of research he would
like to see completed in values clarification is the type "that
will call off the people who say there's not enough research."

He adds that he would.welcome research aimed at answering some of

the following questions:

What would happen if instead of the first freshman

semester courses that people take in college, they would
have a program in values clarification and "education of

118

the self." Would that lead ultimately to greater academic
adjustment, greater solid, long-range marriages and child
rearing qualities?

Simon also identifies a number of issues which he feels
the proponents of values clarification need to deal with. They
include the issue of "quality control" (discussed previously),
the adequacy of the original theory, and how to use values clarifi-
cation with some sort of developmental framework. He also identifies
"fundamentalist" parents as a major obstacle, and feels that that
whole issue warrants further exploration.

Glaser-Kirschenbaum is of the opinion that "you can raise:
research questions forever." Like Stewart and Simon, she would
like to see research done in the area of values clarification
integrating with developmental psychology. Glaser-Kirschenbaum
also believes that research is needed to explore the relationship
between values clarification and self-concept. Finally, she is
interested in research in the area of student retention and compre-
hension when "traditionally" taught and when taught with a lot of
values clarifying activities added:

I'd be interested in just the basic issue of comparing the
teaching of subject matter in a traditional mode, with the
teaching of subject matter with a lot of third-level teaching,
to see if there is any difference in student retention and
comprehension, and helping students to make sense of the subject
matter and how it relates to their own lives.

Glaser-Kirschenbaum sees a need to look critically at
values clarification during the next decade, and "critique what

'needs to be changed, and then work on bringing about those changes."

She admits that she sees "through a glass darkly on this one," and

119

cannot be more concrete as to the specific issues she feels needs
_ to be explored.

Goodman agrees that research needs to be done, but that
certain ethical issues relating to the purpose of such research
need to be explored. ". . . I wouldn't want research to be done on
a 'band-aid' basis." That is, he doesn't want people to see values
clarification as a panacea for such problems as vandalism or drug
abuse. ,

In regard to specific research needs, Goodman believes
there are two types of research which should be conducted in
values clarification. One type is an "evaluation type“ of research,
consisting of things like case studies, "in which people document
how they've developed, implemented and evaluated a particular
program." A second type of research is "traditional, hard core"
research, in which the effects of values clarification are measured,
in terms of self-concept and in terms of what teaching methodologies
seem to be most effective.

Finally, Goodman joins a number of the other experts in
expressing the hope that values clarifiers will look at how values
clarification can be integrated with other values education
approaches, particularly Kohlberg's developmental perspective.

Lastly, Raths tells of some things which he would like to
see researched in values clarification- He states that he would
like to see high school and college students exposed to a number
of world problems, like poverty, religion, social class, freedom

and so-forth, and see what would be the effect of all of this.

120

Presumably, while Raths does not explicitly state this, he would be
interested primarily on the effects of this experiment on yalpe§,

Raths also feels that it is important to respond to the
many charges which have eminated from the Kohlbergians, and does
so himself in the interview quite frequently. Thus, many of the
issues raised by persons like Stewart and Lockwood would, in Rath's
estimation, be appropriate things for which to formulate coherent
responses.

Based upon the evidence given, at least two major research
questions emerge as of primary importance. One is the question of
the effects, "demonstrable effects" to use Rokeach's language, of
the values clarification approach. While research in the area of
values is difficult, as Stewart acknowledges, it is not impossible,
even though new techniques and instruments may have to be devised.
Secondly, the area of melding together values clarification and
cognitive moral'developmentalism alSo appears to be an important
thrust for the future.

There are several philosophical issues which also emerge
as significant based upon the frequency of their inclusion in the
expert's testimony. Certainly, the entire issue of relativism
and whether or not values clarification is indeed ethically rela-
tivistic needs to be resolved and put to rest. Related to the
first of two major research questions in the preceding paragraph,
the philosophical goals of values clarification need to be examined
and stated as clearly as possible. Both of these relate to the

need for an extensive and deep explanation and exploration of the

121

philosophical tenets of values clarification. While needed, this
area may have to wait some time before being dealt with for the
values clarification experts interviewed, for all of their cre-
ativity, insights and practicality, are not professional philosophers,
nor do they appear as though they wish to become so.

Analysis and Evaluation of Sub-Question #2d, "Ideally,_what
do the various experts consulted hppe will happen to values clarifi-
cation during the next ten years?"

This sub-question was designed to help focus attention on
the hopes and dreams the experts have for values clarification.
While the writer recognizes the differences that often exist
between the "real" and the "ideal," he feels that far too often
people focus on what they think will be, without consideration
for what can be or should be. Somewhere it is said that ideals,
like stars, are not meant to be reached but to act as our constant
guides. The writer is convinced that if even half of the edu-
cational movements which have occurred in the United States since
1900 had been allowed to fully blossom into their ideals, instead
of being "nipped in the bud" and permitted to whither away, our
entire system of learning, teaching and schooling would look far
different from and better than the way it does today.

This is not to suggest that naive adventures or ill-conceived
"reforms" are desirable. What the writer does mean is that one not
allow the sometimes seemingly infertile and repressive reactions of

the present to ore-occupy one's thinking to the point where daily

122

survival becomes everything, and original goals and aspirations be
fOrever lost.
0f the critics interviewed, only Stewart responded specifi—
cally to the question concerning an ideal future for values clarifi-
cation. Rokeach and Lockwood were both asked questions of a more
general nature, regarding an ideal future for the broader area of
values education. While the latter two experts' remarks do not
directly deal with this section's sub-question, their responses are
of general interest and are briefly discussed below.
Rokeach would like to see the time come when he could say:
We've really become very sophisticated about it, and we
now have reached the state of knowledge in this area so that
the children that we are responsible for have a more profound
insight into their own values and into the values of the
significant individuals and groups that they are likely to
encounter in their'lives. How nice it would be to be able '
to say that.
However, Dr. Rokeach immediately adds that he does not see this as
a likely occurrence. What j§_more likely, in his opinion, is that
values education will end up as nothing more than a series of fads.
Lockwood hopes that values education will be "taken
seriously, and not treated as just some 'fad,'" had become more
sophisticated and had answered some of the research and philosophi-
cal questions he feels are important. He speaks hopefully, too,
of a possible integration of "citizenship education" with develop-

mental education, "in particular so that persons understand what it

means to respect the rights of another.person."

123

Stewart would like to see values clarification recognize
its limitations and change by seeking clarification of itself and
accepting criticisms. Stewart says:

I would love to be able to say . . . values clarification

outgrew its infancy, survived its childhood and youth, and
is now become really serious, really mature, and very deep,
and now is tackling things much more profoundly and with
greater depth, is able to make really significant claims
about what it's doing, and it's constantly changing.

Harmin would "like to see more dialogue with Kohlberg's
people." Out of this dialogue, he would hope to see some differ-
ences dissolved and cooperative efforts begun. "Other than that,"
he states, "I think that things will take care of themselves, some-
how."

Simon hopes that values clarification will "spread widely
and deeply," and that it will never be referred to as a “fad."
What is important is that teachers' lives be deeply affected and
changed by it, and that they in turn deeply affect and change the
"lives of the children they work with." Finally, he would hope
that ten years from now he would be able to say that values
clarification

. chased out of curriculum some of the "boondoggliness"

and nonsense that occupies a lot of people's time, and that
the results were felt across the whole nation, because more
and more people who learned to look at their lives, and think
about what they really wanted, and learned how to say yes and
no to things, were living lives of greater beauty.

Glaser-Kirschenbaum would like to see values clarification
assume a much more integrative approach to values.

Glaser-Kirschenbaum also sees an "exciting" future for

women's issues in values clarification, and ideally would like to

-‘.. __ &_~_,'

124

see the values clarification approach applied more widely in this

whole area.
Goodman would welcome a future wherein the research and

philosophical issues of values clarification were recognized and
dealt with, and wherein those who utilized values clarification

came to fully understand and internalize the approach.

Furthermore, Goodman likes to dream of an ideal classroom
in which values clarification had been in use, and characterizes
such a classroom as a place in which the curriculum was "an

emerging one," where students could get into the "real world,"

where there would be no "put down statements," and where students

can assume responsibility for their own lives. He would hope that

such a classroom would be a place where

when the bell rings at 3:30 they wouldn't fold up

than-.1 books and fold up their minds, and wait until 8:30
the next morning to open them both back up again, but that
people would be going out really talking to one another,

and trying to get each other's ideas.
Like all innovators, it is clear that the proponents of

values clarification hope that their efforts will not'have been

for (flanght. Their hope is to change American education for the

better, and ultimately make life better for children.

There is ample evidence as well, that there is a strong
“We that values clarification will become stronger and more
mature in itself, while at the same time seeing its advocates

explore new relationships with other approaches. particularly

Kohl berg ' s.

125

Will those who in the future attempt to utilize values
clarification, utilize it wisely? Will values clarification affect
their lives deeply? Will it prove to be more than a fad? It's
proponents h0pe so, and so does the writer.

COMPARISON OF SELF-INTERVIEW DATA WITH THE PRECEDING

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF SUB-QUESTIONS

Of the ten sub—questions posed in this chapter, four were
not dealt with at all by the writer in the self-interview process
(lb, 1e, lf, and 2d). The remaining sub-questions were answered
by the writer at least partially, through similar questions or
combinations thereof.

Generally speaking, there was a high degree of congruence
between the responses of the experts, particularly the proponents
of values clarification, and the responses of the writer. In
retrospect, this does not seem to be eSpecially surprising since
the writer is personally acquainted with most of the proponents
and indeed, was trained in the use of the values clarification
process by them. Thus, there is a great deal of common data which
would suggest similar conclusions.

Yet there were some differences between the writer's
responses and those of the experts. For example, in regard to
the point as to whether or not values clarification is more
"affective" in nature now than it was in 1966, the writer definitely
felt that yes, values clarification was more affective. Many of
the proponents of the approach, however, felt that values clarifi-

cation itself had not changed so much, but that certain practicioners

126

of it had incorporated more affective materials as their own personal
interest in affective education had grown.

Another point of slight departure involved the future of
values clarification's popularity. The author saw values clarifi-
cation continuing as a very popular technique in itself. Others
felt that it was more likely that values clarification will become
integrated into and combined with other humanistic approaches to
education.

For the most part, however, there were no significant
differences between the writer's testimony and those of the experts.

As stated previously, the intent of this exercise was to
help the writer identify any further assumptions he might be making
besides those already listed in Chapter 1, and to help him become
aware of the possibility of "leading" the experts.

No new assumptions were unearthed by the writer as a result
of this exercise, but it was beneficial in reminding him of the
possibility of "leading" the experts. As a result, the author made
every effort to assume a non-directive and non-argumentative posture
during the interview process. To a large degree, the writer believes
the transcripts of the interviews will reveal that this is what in
fact occurred.

The self-interview process, as perceived by the writer, was
never designed to be a major part of this thesis, but served more
of a "consciousness raising" function. This function was successful,

in his opinion, and was a valuable aid.

Chapter 5
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION

This chapter includes a summary of findings as they relate
to the two major research questions, and is based upon the con-
clusions reached about the sub-questions discussed in Chapter 4.
Also included in this chapter is a summary of the thesis as a whole,
general conclusions and recommendations, and finally some personal
reflections about this dissertation and the process which was

involved in its production.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Major Research Question #1. In what ways have the theory
and practice of values clarification changed since 1966?

There is little doubt that in the last ten years, values
clarification has had a major impact on education and educators.
To some, the impact has not been great enough. The writer recalls
vividly the moment during his interview with Raths, when Raths
asked in a deliberate and almost melancholy tone: "How does it
happen, do you suppose, that we haven't made more of a dent?" And
it is true that most teachers do not use values clarifying tech-
niques, and that by far the predominant mode in values education is
moralizing. And yet, the writer does not feel melancholy or even

127

128

powerless by the realization that "we haven't made more of a dent."
Perhaps strangely, the author feels optimistic and invigorated.

Part of this optimism is rooted in the responses to the
first major research question, quoted above. As the following
discussion will reveal, the writer feels that values clarification
has, for the most part, had a dynamic and productive history since
1966.

In what ways pa§_values clarification changed, theoretically
and methodologically since 1966? The writer sees three major changes
as having occurred: (1) the method of values clarification has
increasingly become one of the most practical, usable tools in
education; (2) there has been both in theory and in practice, an
increasingly explicit recognition and/or affirmation of the role
of affect in the process of valuing; and (3) there have been an
increasing number of questions and/or criticisms leveled in regard
to values clarification theory and practice, both from within and
without the movement.

In 1966, Values and Teachipg_was the only major work com-
pleted on values clarification. In the ten years which followed,
approximately two hundred other resources, books, journal articles,
media packages and so forth would become available. The number of
workshops offered in values clarification would grow from a dozen
or so per year in 1966, to hundreds a year by 1976. Likewise, the
practitioners of the approach, a very small number initially, would

number in the thousands a decade later. In short, all available

129

evidence indicates a groundswell of enthusiasm for values clarifi-
cation on the parts of educators from all parts of the country.

An examination of these publications and workshops help
explain why values clarification has grown so quickly. With the
exception of some work by Kirschenbaum, the overwhelming emphasis
in values clarification has been in the area of implementation.
Hundreds of teaching strategies have been designed for immediate
use in the classroom, workshops in the subject are experiential,
and persons can actually §e§_the approach at work. It appeals to
teachers because it is something they can "use on Monday morning."

The writer estimates that at least 97% of all the materials
produced relative to values clarification since 1966, have had as

their major focus, the utilization of approach. This certainly

 

must represent a change from 1966, when only a few teaching
strategies existed for its use.

Also occurring since 1966 has been the increasingly explicit
recognition and/or affirmation of the role of affect in the valuing
process. There is some question as to whether or not this repre-
sents an entirely new awareness, or is more accurately described
as an expansion of the affective components in the original theory.
Kirschenbaum tends to think of his changes as expansions of the
'theory, yet his changes may also be the product of his interest
in affective aspects of education, and thus are in a sense a new
recognition of the fact that our feelings do have a major part to

Play in our entire lives, including our values.

130

Nevertheless, values clarification has grown to include
more "affective" strategies and theoretical considerations, and
in the writer's opinion, has also grown to be considered by the
public a part of affective education.

Finally, since 1966 the number of criticisms of and
questions about values clarification has dramatically increased.
While this does not represent a change in the theory or the practice
of values clarification per se, it does indicate changes in per-
ceptions about the theory and practice of values clarification,
and may well give clues as to the future of the approach.

In the early sixties, the criticisms of values clarification
were few, and when given, generally positive. In 1976, the criti-
cisms of values clarification are many, generally negative, and
often laced with passion. Not all of this criticism of the latter
sort is offered entirely by opponents of values clarification
either. As values clarification has grown and attracted a greater
following, many of its proponents have brought fresh and questioning
prospectives to the movement,.and have criticized certain aspects
of the theory and practice.

Thus, one change which has occurred in that the theory of
values clarification is beginning to reflect some of these criti-
cisms either by refuting earlier positions or by expanding its
concepts. For example, the notion of "criteria" for a value, with
the possible exception of Raths, has been practically universally
modified to the notion of "processes." On the other hand, the

original concept of the role of affect, represented in the Raths'

131

theory by "prizing and caring," has been expanded by Kirschenbaum
to the general category of "openness to one's inner experiences."
Kirschenbaum's further elaborations, including the shift from
"public affirmation" to "appropriate sharing," the addition of
"socially constructive behavior" to the outcomes of values clarifi-
cation, and some other relatively minor modifications are more
fully described and discussed in Chapter 2 and in Chapter 4.

What is the significance of these changes? The writer
believes that the above changes are significant in the following
ways:

1. As a result of both the practicality and sometimes
controversial nature of values clarification, interest in the
broader field of values education has been greatly increased.
Stewart, in his interview with the writer said that ". . . if
values clarification has had any effect and can have any effect,
surely for a lot of people it has helped them become more self-
reflective. If we ever needed anything in education, it certainly
is that." And Rokeach, obviously not an enthusiastic proponent
of the values clarification, has written:

All such reservations about values clarification notwith-

standing, I believe that the values clarification movement

has made an extremely important contribution to modern edu-
cation. It has succeeded in getting across the proposition
that beyond making students aware of facts and concepts it

is also important to make them aware of their own values.

Such a broadening of educational objectives now has a universal

fact validity, largely because of the pioneering work of
proponents of values clarification.

 

1Milton Rokeach, "Toward a Philosophy of Value Education,"
Values Educatiop,_Theory/PracticelProblemsyProspects, ed. by John
Meyer, Brian Burnham and John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1975).

132

2. Related to its broadening of the interest in values
education, for many pepple, exposure to values clarification
activities serves as their first step into related areas of
humanistic education,_group process, interpersonal communications,
and personal growth experiences. Simon believes that ". . . there
is something, and probably always will be something, about values
clarification, as one of the shrewdest, best places to get people
drawn into humanistic education." The writer himself was motivated
to investigate other areas of humanistic education, largely due
to his initial involvement with values clarification, and knows
dozens of people with similar backgrounds.

Again, it is the practicality of values clarification which

 

attracts so many, and from that initial attraction, affords oppor-
tunities for exploration in other approaches in humanistic education.

3. ,The wide-spread acceptance of values clarification which

 

has arisen in greatypart because of its usefulness and applicability,

 

can serve as a general comment of interest to curriculum developers
regardless of their special field of interest. Teachers appear to
be most attracted to utilitarian concepts and teaching strategies.
Thus, curriculum developers in Kohlberg's area may well take heed
and attempt to meld a solid, practical and attractive classroom _
methodology with their already well developed theoretical base.

4. The changes which have occurred within the theory and

 

practice of values clarification demonstrate both the gynamism and
permanence of the approach. On the one hand, values clarification

is a changing, evolving theory and practice. On the other hand, the

-\o

s!- u

133

very fact that values clarification could have survived its own rapid
pace, and sometimes harsh criticisms, demonstrates a strength which
suggests that it is something much more than a fad, and is here to
stay.

5. Finally, the changes which have occurred to this point
demonstrate the need for the_proponents of values clarification to
continue to_perform research and development tasks within the
approach. Values clarification has come a long way, but must
still face some unresolved questions and its own self-criticism
in the future.

Major Research Question #2. In what directions is values
clarification likely to move during the next ten years?

The writer believes he has demonstrated the strength and
vitality posessed by values clarification during the last decade,
but what of the next ten years? Will values clarification remain
tremendously popular, fade into oblivion, or what? What issues
and problems should the leaders of the values clarification approach
grapple with in the future? What issues need to be resolved if
values clarification is to grow?

The author accumulated data relevant to this question, and
presents his findings below. The reader should keep in mind, how-
ever, that these predictions are all speculative in nature, and
some are much more speculative than others. For example, certain
individuals may decide to exercise a large amount of control and
planning over their lives, and hence can rather accurately predict

what they will be doing in the future. On the other hand, no one

134

can totally control "movements" within education, for they are the
composite of many individuals, some of whom may act or react in
unpredictable fashions. Furthermore, certain individuals, because
of their roles as past and present leaders in the values clarifi-
cation field, are more likely to influence and shape the future of
the approach than other, less known persons.

After examining the data the writer feels that the following
points reflect likely directions for values clarification: (l) the
present level of the popularity of the values clarification approach
will begin to wane, and will level off at some point, but will
remain an important force in education; (2) as an approach, values
clarification will become integrated with similar approaches, and
experimentally linked with less similar approaches as well; (3) the
leadership in values clarification will develop into at least two
groups, generalists and specialists, and (4) the leaders of values
clarification possess some beautiful and touching dreams for the
future of values clarification, which can help focus future efforts
in the area.

As previously stated, much of the appeal of values clarifi-
cation lies in its utility and practicality. During the next decade,
the writer believes that these qualities will not be diminished but
enhanced, primarily through the further publication of books and
media packages. Both Kirschenbaum and Simon are soon going to
release new books dealing with applications of the approach, and
Harmin is working on further developments in his media approaches.

There is also evidence that other persons will contribute literature

135

to the field in specialized values clarification applications, like
religious education or substance abuse education.

Because of its continuing practicality, the writer believes
that values clarification will continue to be a popular approach.
However, to paraphrase Harmin, it is difficult to see how it can
become any more popular. And like Glaser-Kirschenbaum, the writer
believes that there probably is some fadism involved. The net effect
will be, in the writer's opinion, a slight decline in the popularity
of values clarification as its fad-attracted practitioners move on
to other bandwagons, but a steady and significant population of
supporters will continue to play active roles in values clarifi-
cation.

In addition, some of the most visible indicators of the
approach's appeal may change. In the past, there has been a
fantastic proliferation of books, articles, etc. dealing with
values clarification. While materials will continue to be published,
it seems inconceivable that the past rate of publications appearing
will ever be duplicated. Instead, the writer believes that there
will be increasing amounts of less formal developments, e.g. curri-
culum developments in highly specialized areas, with only limited
public appeal. Such areas could include religious education and
substance abuse education, as mentioned above, or other appli-
cations like specific subject matters, certain social problems,
and so forth.

This suggests a broadening of the types of persons utilizing

values clarification. In 1966, values clarification was primarily

136

designed for use by classroom teachers, and in 1976 the writer
believes that, in the eye of the public, this is still the case.
Yet there are indications that other members of the helping
professions, e.g. social workers, psychologists, doctors, nurses,
youth organizations and others are becoming attracted to values
clarification in increasing numbers. So in some areas, there may
actually be an increase in values clarification's popularity, but
overall, the writer still believes that its popularity will A
slightly decline.

Just as values clarification will become integrated with
new areas of content, it will also become integrated with new
areas of process. That is, the values clarification approach will
be integrated with other approaches in values education and/or
humanistic education. In the writer's estimation, this will
occur primarily in two ways. One will involve the expanding
interests of the leaders in values clarification, and the second
will involve more deliberate, experimental attempts at theoretical
and methodological integration.

In regard to the first point, the writer believes that
as certain key leaders within values clarification become inter-
ested in other approaches in values education and/or humanistic
education, they will tend to integrate these various approaches
with each other. For example, Simon believes that those in Re-
Evaluation Counseling should spend more time with values clarifying

activities:

137

I . . . wish that Re-Evaluation Counseling spent more time
doing the values clarifying exercises, and I think they could
get to some important material faster and in somewhat more
efficient ways than the random "what's on top."

Goodman refers to himself as "eclectic," and in practice,
this writer knows through observation of Goodman as a workshop
leader, he does integrate values clarification with other approaches,
like Self-Science Education, creative problem solving and so forth.
Finally, at the two Advanced Values Clarification workshops attended
by the writer, and led by Kirschenbaum,.Glaser-Kirschenbaum and
Harmin, there have always been opportunities for the workshop
participants to explore other approaches in education, like
Achievement Motivation, Re-Evaluation Counseling, and even
Kohlberg's moral education. Thus, in a number of ways these
integrations are already starting to occur, and the writer
believes that these "personal" integrations will continue.

At a different level, some persons will strive for some
theoretical and methodological integrations beyond personal inter-
est. For example, the evidence from the transcripts overwhelmingly
suggests that there will be a good deal of thinking as to how
values clarification and Kohlberg's approach can be integrated.
Indeed, Lockwood mentions that a graduate student of his is writing
a doctoral dissertation on the effects of values clarification on
stages of moral reasoning (as defined by Kohlberg). As the effects
of values clarification on other areas of human experience emerge,
it will likely become integrated with other educational processes,

perhaps things like Parent Effectiveness Training, Gestalt

138

psychology and so forth. As a matter of fact, values clarification
being the eclectic approach that it is, one might even be able to
argue at this point that it 1; integrated with a number of other
educational processes.

Occurring simultaneously with the above changes, the leader-
ship of values clarification will be affected by the emergence of
a new group of leaders in specialized areas of application. During
the past decade, the leadership of values clarification has rested
primarily with Raths, Harmin, Simon and Kirschenbaum, all generalists
in the approach from the standpoint that they have worked on the
concept of clarifying values in universal classroom terms. While
each of them has suggested uses for values clarification in, for
example, specific subject matter areas, they have not done so to
any degree which approaches the general work they have done.

However, there are some indications now that, in the future,
certain persons will emerge as leaders in values clarification with
a more specified focus, like drug education or religious education.
Kirschenbaum mentions Ronald and Doris Larson, for example, as
emerging leaders in values clarification in religious education.
Simon speaks of a state of New York program using values clarifi-
cation in alcoholics education. Thus, it appears that while Harmin,
Simon and Kirschenbaum will remain influential as generalists,
they will be joined by specialists as leaders in values clarification.

The writer further believes that there is the possibility
of more generalists joining in the leadership of values clarification.

Goodman, for example, represents such a possibility. The writer

139

perceives himself as a values clarification generalist, and hopes
to someday have an impact on the theory and methodology of values
clarification.

The integration of values clarification with other approaches
may be contingent upon the resolution of some criticisms of values
clarification. The common criticism of values clarification repre-
senting an ethically relativistic approach is one which certainly
must be resolved if it is to be integrated with the moral reasoning
approach of Kohlberg, for example. There also is an almost universal
concern over the effects of values clarification, and the lack of
tightly controlled research to identify and quantify these effects.
It is clear to the writer that research is one of the areas in which
more work must be done in values clarifiCation during the next ten
years if it is to be integrated with some other approaches in values
education.

Finally, the future holds, at the very least in potential,
powerful and moving possibilities for values clarification. For
example, at one point in his interview, Rokeach asks when one
becomes "values-clarified." While not directly responding to Rokeach
himself, Raths, in a letter to the writer, says that one should never
feel that he or she has "arrived" at ultimate clarification, for
clarification, like "truth," is something which one may continually
seek but never find. It is the process of values clarification
which is important, and it is this very process which the writer
believes constitutes a portion of the powerful and moving possibili-

ties ahead for values clarification.

140

Another portion of the possible future for values clarifi-
cation involves visions of what a values clarifying society or school
might be like. For example, Goodman envisions a values clarifying
classroom of the future as one free of killer statements, engaged
in "real world activities, and asking a lot of questions themselves."
It's seemingly such a simple, revolutionary idea, that the students
in addition to being responsible for giving answers can also ask
some of the questions. Simon hopes that values clarification will
ultimately lead to a society in which people "were living lives of
greater beauty."

While values clarification itself is not a panacea for
society's ills, nonetheless the writer believes that it could, if
widely practiced, open the door and provide opportunities for
solutions to our problems to emerge. Will this happen? Will
values clarification lead to a better society? Cynics will say
no, values clarification will not effect our society to any great
extent. Idealists will say yes, and perhaps lend themselves to
other possibilities. This writer assumes a third position: .It
is impossible to predict our future with great accuracy, and no
one knows for such the fate of values clarification. Yet without
dreams, without hopes, and without yearning--values clarification
has no future, and has already died.

What is the significance of these predictions about the
future of values clarification? The writer believes that they are

significant in the following ways:

141

1. Values clarification is going to remain an influential
and popular approach within values education, a fact which should
not be ignored by the designers of curricula. Values clarification
has a practicality attractive to classroom teachers, and in an age
where inservice education is routinely assailed by teachers as
irrelevant or too theoretical, values clarification can serve as
a vehicle for introducing teachers to the broader area of values
education and/or humanistic education.

2. As values clarification becomes integrated with other
approachesl the need for dialogue between the proponents of values
clarification and related_epproaches becomes increasingly vital.
The writer believes that many of the experts consulted in this
thesis would welcome such an opportunity to share their concerns
and mutually look towards the future.

Yet while there is interest in such a "meeting of the minds,"
there has been little in the way of action towards this. Such a
conference, symposium, convention or whatever would require a good
deal of planning as well as substantial financial support. Hence,
an organization of some sort rather than a given individual might
best be equipped to undertake such a project. The National
Humanistic Education Center or the Social Science Education
Consortium are two organizations which the author feels might
appropriately budget the time, energy and finances required to
sponsor such an event.

3. The above twp_points highlight the need for the leaders

of values clarification to more systematically evaluate their past,

142

and collectively look towards the future. The available evidence
indicates that there is little mutual planning done among the
proponents of values clarification consulted, except in areas
like schedule planning for workshops and so on.

The writer believes that both current leaders in values
clarification and emerging leaders in the field, should come
together at least on an annual basis, and deal with concerns,
problems and proposals relative to values clarification. One
agenda item needing immediate attention would be the issue of
ethical relativism, and how that could be more adequately dealt
with than in the past. Another might be the insufficient research.
A third could be laying the groundwork for a meeting with leaders
from related educational approaches. Still another agenda item
could deal with the question of how "ideal" futures become "real,"

and planning appropriately for such ideals.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Much has happened to values clarification and its leaders
since 1966. The theory and practice of the approach has swept
across the country, and has touched countless thousands of lives.
It has given birth to hundreds of publications, and has brought
fame and, to a degree, fortune to some of its leaders. More than
any other singular factor, values clarification has contributed to
the legitimacy of values as an area for educational research and
development. It has prompted much controversy, from the highly

scholarly criticisms of some, to the highly emotional attacks of

143

others. Values clarification has inmeasurably contributed to the
personal and professional growth of many persons, including the
author. In the writer's opinion, values clarification has both
directly and indirectly been one of the most impactful educational
movements in the last ten years.

The writer has attempted to demonstrate that values clarifi-
cation has been a dynamic yet constant force in education since
1966. Values clarification has become increasingly more practical
over the years as a result of the many publications containing
simple lessons or "strategies," and thus has become a very popular
approach amongst teachers. Also as the years went by, the role of
affect in the valuing process became more important. Finally, as
the popularity and widespread availability of values clarifying
materials increased, so did the criticisms of values clarification,
both from advocates and opponents of the approach.

The author has also attempted to shed some light on what
the future of values clarification will resemble. It appears that
values clarification will remain a popular educational tool, although
the popularity may be reflected in different ways than in the past.
During the next ten years, attempts will be made to integrate values
clarification with other methodologies both because of formal edu-
cational experimentation and informal linkages by its present leaders
as their own interests expand. The leadership of values clarification
will become more diversified, with generalists being joined by
specialists as important figures in the movement. Finally, there

are some dreams and hopes for values clarification which could lead

144

to a world highly different from that which exists today should
they be realized. And while these dreams and hopes may be un-
attainable, just as absolute clarity in values may be unattainable,
it does not mean that one should not make any attempt.

In order for values clarification to realize its full
potential, the author believes that the following action proposals
should be followed:

1. The leaders of the values clarification movement must
make a concerted effort to improve communications amongst them-
selves in terms of future efforts to strengthen the values clarifi-
cation approach.

2. The leaders of the values clarification movement must
make a concerted effort to establish and maintain communications
with the leaders of related movements in values education, especially
the developmental approach.

3. The research base of values clarification needs to be
strengthened and in the very least, the following questions need
to be explored:

A. What are the effects of values clarification on:
student self-concept?
student achievement?
teacher-student relations?
student behavior?

teacher behavior?

B. Does values calrification effect stage of moral
development? Stage of cognitive development?

C. What effect, if any, does values clarification have
on the affective growth of a child?

145

4. The philosophical base of values clarification needs to
be strengthened and in the very least, the following questions need
to be explored:

A. Is values clarification ethically relativistic?

B. What are the goals of values clarification and what-
justifies them?

C. Is values clarification a form of "therapy?"

D. How is a "value" conceived of in values clarification?
SUMMARY

This dissertation concerned itself with two basic research
questions:

1. In what ways have the theory and practice of values

clarification changed since 1966?

2. In what directions is values clarification likely to

move during the next ten years?

To gather data relevant to these questions, the author
identified and contacted fourteen leading experts in values clarifi-
cation and/or values education, with an approximate ratio of two
proponents of values clarification to one critic of values clarifi-
cation. Of the fourteen experts contacted, nine agreed to partici-
pate in the study: Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, Sidney B. Simon,
Howard Kirschenbaum, Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Joel Goodman,

John S. Stewart, Alan L. Lockwood, and Milton Rokeach. An interview
guide was constructed, and the nine experts were interviewed and
the interview tape recorded. Prior to the interviews of the

experts, however, the writer answered most of the questions of

146

an argumentative nature himself in an attempt to discover any
assumptions that he may have been unconsciously making and to
increase his awareness of the possibility of "leading" the experts
during their interviews. These interviews were then transcribed
and a transcript returned to each of the experts for editing and
clarification. Finally, the edited versions of the transcripts
served as the data base from which the author operated.

The author also undertook a review of relevant literature,
and in particular concerned himself with the evolution of values
clarification practice and theory. The pioneering work of Raths
was highlighted, as were the later contributions of Kirschenbaum.
Special attention was also given to the major criticisms of values
clarification, which were then discussed and in some instances
replied to by the writer.

In analyzing the data, the author broke down both of the
basic research questions into several sub-questions each, and by
comparing and contrasting the responses of the various experts to
the sub-questions, attempted ultimately to gather information which
would yield answers to the two major research questions. The
results of the analysis and evaluation of these sub-questions were
then compared with the responses of the writer to his self-interview,
and while the results of this exercise were mixed, by and large the
writer had responded in a fashion similar to the proponents of
values clarification.

In regard to the two major research questions, the author

came to the following conclusions: (1) since 1966, values

147

clarification has become an increasingly practical and usable edu-
cational tool; (2) since 1966, there has been an increasingly more
explicit role for affect in values clarification; (3) since 1966,
.the number of questions and concerns relative to values clarification
has increased greatly; (4) values clarification will remain a popular
aPproach in values education during the next decade; (5) values

Clarification will become increasingly integrated with other

disciplines and educational processes during the next decade;

(5) the leadership in values clarification will become more
diVer‘sified during the next ten years as generalists in the
aimmach are joined by specialists in the approach as applied
to Specific areas: (7) ideally, values clarification can have a

great impact on American education and society, and that ideals

are an important part of human experience in terms of future
Planni ng.

The significance of these conclusions was thought by the

Writer to be the following: (1) values clarification, at least
Part-331 1y, is responsible for generating increased public interest
I" the broader area of values education; (2) values clarification
has ‘i ntroduced many people to humanistic educational programs and

précti ces; (3) values clarification's popularity is partially an

outgrowth of its practicality and applicability, and curriculum

P 7 a
thY‘s should remember this in designing new curricula; (4)
ya 7 ”es
0V9 h

0'7 ‘3

clarification has been a dynamic yet stable approach, changing
the years but also maintaining itself and not passing into

P On; (5) there is a need for the leaders of values clarification

148

to continue to perform research and development tasks; (6) values
clarification is likely to remain a potent and popular approach
within values education during the next decade; (7) there is a

need for increased communications between the leaders of values
clarification and the leaders of related approaches; (8) two major
Points which need to be explored by values clarifiers in the future
are the charges of ethical relativism and the insufficient research
as to the effects of values clarification.

The dissertation closes with some broad action proposals
based upon the conclusions given above, which include the improve-
ment of internal communications amongst the leaders in values
Clarification and between their leaders and leaders of related

movements, and steps to strengthen the research and philosophical

bases -

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

While I do not attempt to hide the fact that values clarifi-
Cation has played an important role in my life, I also feel that I
made every attempt to deal with the two major research questions
and the data concerning them in an objectively critical manner.
Yet 31 1 research, including the most empirical and tightly controlled
Vari Qty, ultimately has a subjective component. What is important
other. a is that this subjective component be minimized if research
Is to be meaningful.

Yet on the other hand, as Carl Rogers has suggested, perhaps

'1
gm.”
conception of science is needed, in which emotions join more

149

"objective" data as information of equal importance. Only time
will tell how future research will resolve this matter.

At this point, however, I feel it is appropriate to explicitly
share some feelings I have had during the process of writing this
dissertation. I chose the topic area of values clarification for
Several reasons. First, values clarification is a process which,
inlnany ways, has deeply moved my life and, in my hands, the lives

of others. It is a part of my life which I know will stay with me
forever. Secondly, I believe that the questions I have attempted
to answer are of great importance to practitioners of values
Clarification, curriculum designers, and students of educational
hiStc>r:)/. _Thirdly, to borrow a phrase from my dear friend, Joel
GOOdman, I wanted this dissertation to be "fun, but not for fun."
In other words, any subject worthy of all the time and effort of
a dissertation, for me, had to have a pleasurable as well as serious
Side~ This does not mean that there have not been painful moments--
times when things appeared hopeless, problems insurmountable, or
dead} ‘3 nes far too close--certainly there have been times when I
have exloerienced those feelings. But by and large, there was more
p1 easuf‘e than pain in the composition of this thesis, more nurturance
than ki lling, and more growth than retardation.
During the course of this study, certain "feelings" kept

Cho .
D :31 ng up from time to time in me which I believe should be

”6 ta
0P

, despite the fact that I have little in the area of hard
1:0 support them. For example, I feel that the present amounts

bi ticism being leveled against values clarification may have

 

150

been brought upon by its proponents past emphasis on techniques to
the neglect of any great emphasis on underlying philosophy, theory,
Goals or objectives. While all of the advocates of the approach
have stated that values clarification is m than strategies, their
Past behaviors, including publications, by and large offer a strong
Case to the contrary. In any event, I find it understandable why
80 many critics of the approach, who may not have access to any
More data than that contained in publications or workshops, conclude
that values clarification is nothing more than a "bag of tricks."
Yet on the other hand, the major proponents of values
Clari fication (with the possible exception of Raths) are not
"Philosophers" in the usual sense of the word. Simon, Harmin and
KIV‘SChenbaum, for example, have shown themselves to be excellent
pract‘i tioners and designers of curricula. Perhaps it is unrealistic
to expe ct them to be excellent philosophers as well. However, if
this ‘i s the case, and these men are not "philosophers," who will
answer the deep philosophical questions raised by the critics of
val Lies clarification? Who will devote years of their life to the
”eve 1 opment of a clear psychophilosophical base for values clarifi-
cati O '1?
Possibly another factor which has contributed to the many
::; :73 c:‘isms of values clarification is involved in the approach
“f 1 f a which is aimed at clarifying and not telling. The proponents
‘hQ approach, when asked questions, often respond in ways which

or
e designed to help the questioner decide things for himself or

he?"
89" ‘f, and not to offer concrete answers. In a recent workshop

151‘

in values clarification which I attended, for example, a person rose
to ask the workshop leader as to the conception of man assumed by
Values clarification? Such a question would appear to be a fairly
Straightforward, "philosophical" query. The leader responded in a
t.Vpical "clarifying" manner, and attempted to help the individual
become clearer about the issue. Only when pressed did the leader
answer the question directly. Such behavior was not deliberate
eVasiveness in my mind, but nonetheless could be perceived as such
by some scholars.
Finally, some basic questions have occurred to me which I
"997 must be dealt with in the future in addition to those previously
identi fied. One question deals with the fact that in values clarifi-
Cation , both "values" and "clarification" are always somehow con-

”E’C ted - This may seem logical on the one hand, yet on the other it

r - . . . . . .
aises some interesting pomts. For example, Is it the clarlflcatlon

o . . . . . . .
f N that is Vltal 1n the approach, or 15 lt clarlflcatlon

 

. which might include the clarificationof beliefs, opinions,
a q.
ttj tudes, feelings, or behaviors as well as values? Could it be

U)
at by limiting itself to values clarification, this particular

 

approach is limiting itself unnecessarily or is perhaps even mis-
1::he$enting itself? Such questions are, in my opinion, worth
k 1‘ “9 into.
lfi“ Last but not least, while I have already acknowledged the
‘1‘“? butions of so many of the persons who have been so helpful
to me, I feel a final word of appreciation must go to Louis Raths.

I -
W1 1 1 never forget my meeting with Dr. Raths in his home in Dunkirk,

L

 

 

152

New York. He immediately made me feel at ease, and soon we were
talking like old friends. Yet throughout our conversation, I

felt awed, as if I were in the presence of a sage. And indeed I
Was. For it is the brilliance, the wisdom, the intuition, the
Caring and the dedication of this singular man that created values
Clarification. Dr. Raths has been, and shall continue to be, one

Of the most influential teachers in my life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

153

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramowitz, Mildred,and Macari, Claudia. "Values Clarification in
Junior High School." Educational Leadership, 29, 7 (April,
1972), 621-626.

Albert, E. M., and Kluckhon, C. Selected Bibliography on Values,
Ethics, and Aesthetics in the Behavioral Sciences and
Philosophy: 1920-1958. New York: Free Press, 1959.

 

 

A7berty, Harold Bernard. Reorganizing the High School Curriculum.
_“_* New York: MacMillan Co., 1947.
Barman , Charles R. "Integrating Value Clarification with High
School Biology." The American Biologleeacher, 37, 3
(March, 1975), 150-154.

 

Barman - Charles. "Value Clarification and Biology." The American
Biology Teacher, 36, 4 (April, 1974), 241-242.

 

 

89h} ‘7 n9, Herman E., Jr. "What do we Value in Teacher Education?"
The Informer, 3, l (February-March, 1973), 1-3.

 

B

orger. - Bonnie; H0pp, Joyce W.; and Raettig, Velma. "Values Clarifi-
cation and the Cardiac Patient." Health Education Monographs,
3, 2 (Summer, 1974), 191-199.

 

B
ergo“ - Minnie B. "Valuing, Helping, Thinkin , Resolving." Child-
hood Education, 49, 5 (February, 19733, 242-245.

 

Qe
to? 3 Edward, and Kirschenbaum, Howard. Teaching Health Education

with a Focus on Values." Upper Jay, N.Y.:; National
Humanistic Education Center, 1973. (Mimeographed.)

 

Blah
euelc, David A. "Student Teaching and the Valuing Process." _N_e_vy
Directions in Teachipg, 4, 4 (Winter, 1975).

 

30‘.
to" 3 Robert. Values Clarification for Educators. Cazenovia,

N.Y.: Ridge Consultants, 1974.

ta
ta;
teal , 0.. et a1. Value Clarification in Social Studies: Six
Formats of the Values Sheet. Gainesville, Florida: Florida
Educational Research and Development Council, University
of Florida, 1974.

Can
Steel, .1. Doyle, and Stahl, Robert J. Value Clarification in the
Classroom: A Primer. Pacific Palisades, Ca.: Goodyear
Publishing, 1975.

 

154

 

 

155

Cheney, Ruth. "Youth, Sexuality and Value Clarification." Findings,
(Fall, 1970), 14-16. '

Clegg. Ambrose A., Jr., and Hills, James L. "A Strategy for Exploring
Values and Valuing in the Social Studies." The College of
Education Record. University of Washington (May, 1968),
67-68.

 

Colby, Ann. Review of Values and Teaching; Working with Values in
the Classroom, by Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney
B. Simon, and Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical
Strategies for Teachers and Students, by Sidney B. Simon,
Leland W. Howe and Howard Kirschenbaum, Harvard Educational
Review, 45, 1 (February, 1975), 134-143.

Colea. Troy. "How many of You . . .?" Grade Teacher (November,
1971), pp. 28+.

Covau‘l t, Thomas J. "The Application of Value Clarification Teaching
Strategies with Fifth Grade Students to Investigate their
Influence on Students' Self-Concept and Related Classroom
Coping and Interacting Behaviors." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1973.

Curwi n , Geri3 "Pages from my Autobiography." Trend. 8. 1 (Spring,
1972 .

Cami n . Geri, etal. Search for Values. Villa Maria, Pa.: The
Center for Learning, Inc., 1972.

,. Geri, and Curwin, Richard. "Building Trust: A Starting
Point for Clarifying Values." Learning, 3, 6 (February,
1975), 30-33; 36.

C -

"m1 n . Richard L. "Values Clarification Approach to Teaching
Secondary English Methods.". Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, 1972.

CL:.—,_, -
" '1,. Richard; Curwin, Geri; and the editors of Learnjpg Magazine.
Developingllndividual Values in the Classroom. Palo Alto,
Ca.: Learning Handbooks, 1974.

(:Ll'—1_'
7‘ "I. Richard, and Fuhrmann, Barbara. Discovering Your Teaching
I) Self. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
SEE:
hosiers, Marian, and Santosuosso, John. Personalizing the Study
of Foreign Cultures. Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic
Education Center, 1975.
We), a John. Moral Principles in Education. New York: Philosophical
Library, 1959.

 

156

*‘Dewey, John. Theory of Valuation, Vol. II, No. 4 of the International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Edited by Otto Neurath.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939.

 

Dreischmeiers, W. B. "Teaching for a change in Attitude: Values

Clarification." Agricultural Education Magazine. (December,
1974), pp. 129-30.

EVans, Clyde. "Facing Up to Values." Teacher, 92, 4 (December,
1974), 16-18; 72-73.

Fiske, Edward. "New Techniques Help Pupils Develop Values." flep_
York Times, April 30, 1975, p. 33.

Foricrinelli, Joseph, and Engeman, Thomas. "Value Education in the
Public School." Thrust, 4, 1 (October, 1974), 13-16.

I“ Ffickz, Ralph. "Values: Games are not Enough." Teacher, 91, 4
(December, 1973), 8-9.

Genéltt, H. B.; Varenhorst, Barbara; and Carey, Richard. Deciding:
A Leaders Guide and Deciding; A Student Workbook. New
York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1972.

Gauge . Betty Anne, and Santosuosso, John. "Values Clarification for
Ecology." Science Teacher, 41, 2 (February, 1974), 37-39.

G°°dman, Joel. "An Application of Value Clarification to the
Teaching of Psychology." Periodically, 2, 4 (April, 1972).

 

Goodman , Joel. "Sid Simon on Values: No Moralizers or Manipulators
Allowed." Nations Schools, 92, 6 (December, 1973), 39-42.

woodman , Joel, and Hawkins, Laurie. "Value Clarification: Meeting
a Challenge in Education." Collogpy, 5, 5 (May, 1972),
15-18.

300
dmah , Joel; Simon, Sidney; and Witort, Ron. "Tackling Racism
by Clarifying Values." Todey's Education, 63, 1 (January,
. 1973), 37-38.

 

fira‘y
’ l=arnum. "Doing Something about Values." Learning, 1, 2

G (December, 1972), 15-18.
”a
y ’ Farnum. "Kohlberg and Simon." Learning, 1, 2 (December,
1972), 19.

 

157

Green, Diane; Stewart, Patricia; and Kirschenbaum, Howard.
"Training a Large Public School System in Values Clarifi-
cation." Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education
Center, 1973. (Mineographed.)

Green, Jeffrey. "One Thing I Wish Mr. Green did More of Is . . ."
Humanistic Educators Network, 1, 2. Saratoga Springs, N.Y.:
National Humanistic Education Center, 1974.

Green, Kathleen. "Values Clarification Theory in ESL and Bilingial
Education." Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly,
9, 2 (June, 1975), 155-164.

GI‘eenberg, Jerrold S. "Behavior Modification and Values Clarifi-
cation and Their Research Implications." Journal of School
Health, 45, 2 (February, 1975), 91-95.

”dfeman, John. "Teaching and Valuing Process." Wisconsin Education
Association, 100, 10 (May, 1968), 5.

 

H87 7. E3rian. Values Clarification as Learning Process: A Guidebook.
New York: Pafilist Press,_l973.

H“ 7 3 Brian. Values Clarification as Learning Process: A Sourcebook.
New York: Paulist Press, 1973.

”“777 : Brian, and Smith, Maury. Values Clarification as Learning
Process: Handbook for Christian Educators. New York:
Paulist Press, 1973.

Her-d1 n , Joy. "Values Clarification, Micro-Counseling, Education
of the Self, and Achievement Motivation Training: A
Critique." Meform. (University of Massachusetts School
of Education, Spring, 1975, 30-36.

’if‘tt1 -
a " '1 a Merrill. Makipg Sense of our Lives. Niles, Ill.: Argus
Communications, 1973-74.

 

Mar-tr,
7i '1 : Merrill. People Projects. Menlo Park, Ca.: Addison-
Wessley, 1973.
Ma - '
Y‘rr‘-. " s Merrill. Process Posters: Making Sense of Our Lives

 

Series. Niles, Ill}: Argus Communications, 1974.

j "i s Merrill. Value Cassettes: Making Sense of Our Lives Series.
Niles, 111.: Argus Communications, 1974.

a. Merrill. "Values in the Classroom: An Alternative to
Moralizing." Inservice Trainlpg for Teachers of the Gifted.
Edited by William Rogge and G. Edward Stormer. Champaign,
111.: Stipes Publishing Co., 1966.

158

Harmin, Merrill, and Gregory, Tom. Teachipg Is. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, 1974.

 

‘* Harmin, Merrill; Kirschenbaum, Howard; and Simon, Sidney B.
Clarifying Values Through Subject Matter: Applications
for the Classroom. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1973.

 

Harmin, Merrill; Kirschenbaum, Howard; and Simon, Sidney B. "The
Search for Values with a Focus on Math." National
Association of Elementary School Principals, Teaching
Mathematics in the Elementary School. Washington, D.C.:
National Association of Elementary School Principals,
National Education Association, and the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics, 1970.

 

Harnriri, Merrill; Kirschenbaum, Howard; and Simon, Sidney 8. "Teaching
History with a Focus on Values." Social Education, 33, 5
(May, 1969), 568-570.

Harmin , Merrill; Kirschenbaum, Howard; and Simon, Sidney 8.
"Teaching Science with a Focus on Values." Science Teacher,
37, 1 (January, 1970), 16-20.

Harm‘i n , Merrill; Hisenholtz, Bernard; and Simon, Sidney 8. "Teaching
for Value Clarity." Changing_Education, 4, 1 (Spring, 1969),
20-22.

’9‘: "mi h , Merrill, and Simon, Sidney B. "How to Help Students Learn
. . . About Themselves." The High School Journal (March,
1972). pp. 256-264.

 

Harm‘i n - Merrill, and Simon, Sidney B. "The Subject Matter Controversy
Revisited." Peabody Journal of Education, 42, 4 (January,
1965), 194-205.

1 "l . Merrill, and Simon, Sidney 8. "Using the Humanities for
Value Clarification." Impact (Journal of the New York
State A500), 8, 3 (Spring, 1968), 27-30.

1 '1 . Merrill, and Simon, Sidney B. "Values." Teachers Handbook.
Edited by Dwight Allen and Eli Seifman. Glenview, 111.:
F1 Scott Foresman, 1971.
iii-‘11 ..
1 7‘. Merrill, and Simon, Sidney 8. "Values and Teaching: A
Humane Process." Educational Leadership, 24, 6 (March,
1967), 517-525.

‘bak -
““1 h Merrill, and Simon, Sidney B. "Working with Values in the

Classroom." Scholastic Teacher, 89,.13 (January 6, 1967),
16-17; 24.

 

159

Hawley, Robert C. "Values and Decision Making." Independent School
Bulletin, 32, 1 (October, 1972), 19-23.

Hawley, Robert. Value Exploration through Role Playing. New York:
Hart Publishing Co., 1975.

Hawley, Robert,and Hawley, Isabel. Human Values in the Classroom:
A Handbook for Teachers. New York: Hart Publishing Co.,
1975.

Hook, Sidney. Education for Modern Man.. New York: Knopf, 1963.

“OPP. Joyce. "VC for Sixth Graders." School Health Review, 5, l
(January-February, 1974), 34-35.

Howe, Leland, et a1. "Clarifying Values through Foreign Language
Study." Hispania, 56, 2 (May, 1973), 404-406.

Howe. Leland. "Group Dynamics and Values Clarification." Forum.
(J.C. Penney Company Magazine for Home Economists), Spring/
Summer, 1972, p. 12.

ibWe. l.e1and, and Howe, Mary Martha. Personalizing Education:
Values Clarification and Beyond. New York: Hart Publishing
Co., 1975.

thy; 'Tr~evor. A Values Clarification Design as an Organizational
Develppment Intervention. Mount St. Alban, Washington,
D.C.: Project Test Pattern, 1973.

Huggins , Kenneth 8. "Alternatives in Values Clarification." The
National Elementary Principal, 54, 2 (November-December,
1974), 76-79.

Johns<>ri, Patricia. "Understanding and Using Values." 1975 YMCA
Yearbook and Official Roster. New York: National Board
of Young Men's Christian Association, 1975.

 

Jones 3 Clayton. "Can Schools Teach Ethics?" The Christian Science
Monitor, December 23, 1974, pp. l-2.

Kelley’ Paul, and Conroy, Gladys. "A Promotive Health Plan for
Preventing Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the Schools." Arizona .
Medicine, XXIX, No. 1 (January, 1972), pp. 54-56.

K'l ngman, Barry. The Development of Value Clarification Skills:
_Initial Efforts in An Eight Grade Social Studies Class.
Stony Brook, N.Y.: State University of New York,
American Historical Association Education Project, 1974.

160

- Kirschenbaum, Howard. "Beyond Values Clarification." Readings in
Values Clarification. Edited by Sidney B. Simon and Howard
Kirschenbaum. Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973.

 

 

—- Kirschenbaum, Howard. "Clarifying Values at the Family Table."
Upper Jay, N.Y.: Adirondack Mountain Humanistic Center,
1971. (Mimeographed.)

Kirschenbaum, Howard. "Clarifying Values Clarification: Some
Theoretical Issues." Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic
Education Center, 1975. (Mimeographed.)

Kirschenbaum, Howard. "Current Research in Values Clarification."
Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education Center,
November, 1975. (Mimeographed.)

Kirschenbaum, Howard. "The Free Choice English Curriculum." Upper
Jay, N.Y.: Adirondack Mountain Humanistic Education Center,
1972. (Mimeographed.)

Kirschenbaum, Howard. "Recent Research in Values Clarification."
Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education Center, 1974.
Reprinted in John Meyer, Brian Burnham and John Cholvat,
eds. Values Education: Theory/PracticeyProblems/Prospects.
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
1975.

Kirschenbaum, Howard.) "Sensitivity Modules." Media and Methods.
(February, 1970), pp. 36+.

Kirschenbaum3 Howard. "The Listening Game." Colloguy, 3, 8 (October,
1970 , 12-15.

Kirschenbaum, Howard. "Sensitivity Modules." Media and Methods,
6, 6 (February, 1970), 36-38.

Kirschenbaum, Howard, and Bacher, Robert. Clarifying Our Values:
A Listening Post Program. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House. 1971.

Kirschenbaum, et al. "In Defense of Values Clarification: A
Position Paper." Humanistic Educators Network. (National
Humanistic Education Center, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.), 1, 7
(November, 1975). (Mineographed.)

Kirschenbaum, Howard; Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Barbara; and Gray,
Russell Dent, III. "Values Clarification: An Annotated
Bibliography, 1965-1975. Saratoga Springs, N.Y.: National
Humanistic Education Center, 1976. (Mimeographed.)

Kirschenbaum, Howard; Harmin, Merrill; Howe, Leland; and Simon,
Sidney B. "In Defense of Values Clarification." Saratoga
Springs, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education Center,
1975. (Mimeographed.)

161

Kirschenbaum, Howard, and Simon, Sidney B., eds. Readings in Values
Clarification. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1973.

 

Kirschenbaum, Howard, and Simon, Sidney 8. "Teaching English with a
Focus on Values." The English Journal, 58, 7 (October,
1969). 1071-1076; 1113.

Kirschenbaum, Howard, and Simon, Sidney B. ."Values and the Futures
Movement in Education." Learning for Tomorrow: The Role
of the Future in Education. Edited by Alvin Toffler. New
York: Vintage Books, 1974.

 

Klevan, Albert. "An Investigation of a Methodology for Values
Clarification: Its Relationship to Consistency on
Thinking, Purposefulness, and Human Relations." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1957.

 

Klevan, Albert. "Clarifying as a Teachin Process." Educational
Leadership, 25, 5 (February, 1968?, 454-458.

Knapp. Clifford E. "Attitudes and Values in Environmental Edu-
cation." The Journal of Environmental Education, 3, 4
(Summer, 1972), 26-29.

 

Knapp, Clifford E. "The Environment: Children Explore Their
Values." Instructor Magazine, 81, 7 (March, 1972),.116-118.

 

Knapp. Clifford E. "Teaching Environmental Education with a Focus
on Values." Upper Jay, N.Y.: Adirondack Mountain Humanistic
Education Center, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

Knapp, Clifford, and DuShane, Judith. "Clarifying Values for a
Better Environment." Counselipg and Values, 18, 4 (Summer,
1974), 266-271.

Knapp, Clifford, and Warren, Lynnanne.. "Outdoor Environmental
Values Clarification." Environmental Education Repert,
February, 1975, p. 8.

. Kohlberg, Lawrence. "The Relationship of Moral Education to the
Broader Field of Values Education." Values Education,
TheoryllPractice/Problems/Proepects. Edited by John Meyer,
Brian Burnham, and John Cholvat. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975.

Kracht, James B., and Bochm, Richard G.. "Feelings About the
Community: Using Value Clarification in and out of the
Classroom." Journal of Geography_(April, 1975), pp. 198-
206.

162

Lieberman, Phyllis, and Simon, Sidney B. "A School's Responsibility:
Worthy Use of Leisure Time." The Clearing House (April,
1965), pp. 502-505.

 

Lieberman, Phyllis, and Simon, Sidney B. "Current Events and Values."
Social Education, 29, 8 (December, 1965), 523-533.

 

Lieberman, Phyllis, and Simon, Sidney B. "Values and Student Writing."
Educational Leadership (March, 1965), pp. 414-421+.

 

Lockwood, Alan L. "A Critical View of Values Clarification."
Teachers College Record, 77, 1 (September, 1975), 35-50.

 

McBride, Alfred. "Values are Back in the Picture." America, 128,
15 (April, 1973), 359-361.

Mears, Michael. "Who's Sid Simon and What is all this about Values
Clarification?" Media and Methods, 9, 7 (March, 1973),
30-37.

 

Michalak, Daniel A. "The Clarification of Values." Im rovin
College and University Teachipg, 18, 2 (Spring, 1970),
100-101.

 

Morel, Stefano. Human Dynamics in Foreign Language Series: Human
Dynamics in Italian: Teacher's Manual and Student Workbook.
Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education Center, 1975.

 

 

Morrison, Eleanor, and Price, Mila Underhill. Values in Sexuality:
A New Approach to Sex Education. New York: Hart Publishing,
1974.

 

Nash, Robert, and Shiman, David. "The English Teacher as Questioner."
English Journal, 63, 9 (December, 1974), 38-44.

Olmo, Barbara. "The Threat of New Ideas: A Values Clarification
' Lesson." Adolescence, X, No. 39 (Fall, 1975), pp. 456-462.

 

Osman, Jack. "A Rationale for Using Value Clarification in Health
Education." The Journal of School Health, XLIII, No. 10
(December, 1973),pp. 621-623.

Osman, Jack. "Teaching Nutrition with a Focus on Values." Nutrition
News, 36, 2 (April, 1973), 5.

Osman, Jack. "The Use of Selected Values Clarifying Strategies in
Health Education." Journal of School Health, 44, 1 (January,
1974), 21-25.

Osman, Jack, and Kenny, Bonnie. "Value Growth through Dru Education."
School Health Review, 5, l (January-February, 1974 , 25-30.

163

Paulson, Wayne. Deciding_for Myself: A Values Clarification
Series. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1974.

 

Poetker, Joel. "A Strategy for Value Clarification." Social Science
Record, 11, 1 (Autumn, 1973), 3-5.

 

Proudman, Colin. Values. New York: Friendship Press, 1972. (Board
Game.

Raths, James. "An Application of Clarifying Techniques to Academic
Underachievers in High School." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
New York University, 1960.

- Raths, Louis E. "Approaches to the Measurement of Values." ‘ggp-
cational Research Bulletin, XIX, No. 10 (May 8, 1940),
pp. 275-282+.

 

Raths, Louis E. "Clarifying Values." Curriculum for Today's Bays
and Girls. Edited by R. S. Fleming. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963.

Raths, Louis E. "How Children Build Meanings." Childhood Education,
30, 3 (December, 1954), 159-160.

 

Raths, Louis E. Teaching for Learning, Columbus: Charles E.
Merrill, 1969.

 

Raths, Louis E. "Values are Fundamental." Childhood Education,
February, 1959, pp. 246-247.

 

Raths, Louis E. "What is Teaching?" Educational Leadership, 55, 5
(December, 1955), pp. 146-147.

Raths, Louis E.; Harmin, Merrill; and Simon, Sidney B. "Helping
Children Clarify Values." NEA Journal, 56, 7 (October,
1967), 12-15. Note: NEA Journal is now titled Today's
Education.

 

 

Raths, Louis E.; Harmin, Merrill; and Simon, Sidney B. Values and
Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom. Columbus,
Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, Publishing Co., 1966.

 

Rees, Floyd 0. "Teaching the Valuing Process in Sex Education."
School Health Review, 3, 2 (March-April, 1972), 2-4.

Rees, Floyd D. "Teaching Values Through Health Education." School
Health Review, 1, 1 (February, 1970), 15-17.

Roberts, Dina Fried, and Roberts, Gilbert. "Techniques for Confronting
Sex Role Stereotyping." School Psychology Digest, Summer,
1973, pp. 47-54. ,

164

1, Rogers, Carl A. "A Modern Approach to the Valuing Process." Freedom
' to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.,
1969.

-— Rokeach, Milton. "Toward a Philosophy of Value Education." Values
Education, Theory/Practice/Problems/Proepects. Edited by
John Meyer, Brian Burnham and John Cholvat. Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975.

Sadker, David; Sadker, Myra; and Simon, Sidney B. "Clarifying
Sexist Values." Social Education, 37, 8 (December, 1973),
756-760.

 

Santosuosso, John. "Should Schools Deal in Values Clarification?"
The Watman Educational Services Bulletin, 3, 10 (June, 1974),
2.

Schindler-Rainman, Eva. "Are Values out of Style?" Journal of
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, Fall,
1970: Pp. 18-22.

 

Schlaadt, Richard. "Implementing the Values Clarification Process."
School Health Review, 5, 1 (January-February, 1974), lO-12.

 

Shattuck, J. Bruce. "Using the Sciences for Value Clarification."
Science Education, 54, 1 (January-March, 1970), 9-11.

Simon, Sidney 8. "Dinner Table Learning." Colloguy, 4, 11
(December, 1971), 34-37.

Simon, Sidney B. "Election Year and Dinner Table Learning."
Colloguy, 5, 9 (October, 1972), 23-25.

Simon, Sidney B. Meetipg Yourself Halfway, Niles, 111.: Argus
Communications, 1974.

Simon, Sidney B. "Promoting the Search for Values." Education
Opportunity Forum, 1,.4 (Fall, 1969), 75-84.

Simon, Sidney B. "The Search for Values." Edvance, 1, 3 (May/
June, 1971), 1-3; 6.

Simon, Sidney B. "Sensitizing Modules: A Cure for 'Senioritis.'"
Scholastic Teacher, September 21, 1970, pp. 28-29; 42.

 

Simon, Sidney 8. ."Talking to Parents about Values Clarification."
The Watman Education Services Bulletin, 3, 10 (June, 1974),

1-2.

Simon, Sidney B. "The Teacher Educator in Value Development."
Phi Delta Kappan, 53, 10 (June, 1972), 649-651.

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

165

 

 

 

 

 

Sidney 8. "Star. Trek," Breaking Opt. Edited by Don
Briggs. New York: David—McKay, 1973.

Sidney 8. "Three Ways to Teach Church School." Colloguy,

3, 1 (January, 1970), 37-38.

Sidney B. "Two Newer Strategies for Value Clarification,"
Edvance, 2, 1 (September October, 1971), 6.

Sidney B. "Value Clarification: Methodology and Tests of
an Hypothesis in an In-Service Program Relating to Behavioral
Changes in Secondary School Students." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1958.

Sidney B. "Values Clarification and Shalom." Collpguy, 5, 7
.(July-August, 1972), 18-21.

Sidney B. "Value Systems Techniques." New York: Episcopal
Church, 1970. (Film) Hamilton Wright, Producer. Available
from ROA's Films, 1969 North Astor Street, Milwaukee, Wi.

Sidney B. "Values and Teaching." Religious Education, 68, 2
(March-April, 1973), 183-194.

Sidney B. "Values C1arification--a Tool for Counselors."
Personnel and Guardian Journal, 51, 9 (May, 1973), 614-618.
Sidney 8. "Values Clarification vs. Indoctrination." Social

Education, 35, 8 (December, 1971), 902-905; 915.

Sidney B. "A Values Clarifier Looks at Poverty." Issues
Today, 5, 14 (April 13, 1973), 1-2.

Sidney 8. Values in Teachipg, Dayton, Ohio: Creative
Sights and Sounds, 1974. (Cassettes.)

Sidney B. "What Do You Value?" Forum (J. C. Penney Company
Magazine for home economists), Spring/Summer, 1972, 4-5.

Sidney B. "What Schools should be Doing about Values
Clarification." NAASP Bulletin (February, 1974), pp. 54-60.

Sidney B. "Your Values are Showing." Colloquy, 3, 1
(January, 1970), 20-32.

Sidney B., and Bohn, Mary Bradford. "What Schools Should

be Doing about Values Clarification." NAASP Bulletin, 58,

379 (February, 1974), 54-60.

"Teaching Afro-American

Sidney B., and Carnes, Alice.
Educational Leadership,

History with a Focus on Values."
27, 3 (December, 1969), 222-224.

 

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon.

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

Simon.

Simon,

Simon,

Simon,

166

Sidney B., and Clark Jay. BeginninglValues Clarificetion:
Strategjes for the Classroom. San Diego: Pennant Press,
1975. (Note: First printing was entitled More Values
Clarification.)

 

 

 

 

Sidney B.; Curwin, Geri; and Hartwell, Marie. "Teaching
Values." Girl Scout Leader, 14, 4 (June, 1972), 12-13.

 

Sidney 8.; Daitch, Patricia; and Hartwell, Marie. "Value
Clarification: New Mission for Religious Education."
Catechist, 5, 1 (September, 1971), 8-9; 31.

Sidney B.; Daitch, Patricia; and Hartwell, Marie. "Value
Clarification: Part II." Catechist, 5, 2 (October, 1971),
36-38.

Sidney 8.; Daitch, Patricia; and Hartwell, Marie. "Value
Clarification: Part III." Catechist, 5, 3 (November,
1971), 28-29.

"Values Clarification:
Phi Delta Kappan, 56,

Sidney B., and de Sherbinin, Polly.
It Can Start Gently and Grow Deep."
10 (June, 1975), 679-683.

Sidney B., and Goodman, Joel. "Values Clarification: Focus
on Work and Leisure." Today's Catholic Teacher, 7, 1
(September, 1973), 11-15.

Sidney B., and Goodman, Joel. "Ways of Teaching/Learning."
Adult Leader, 6, 1 (September-0ctober-November, 1973).

 

Sidney B., and Harmin, Merrill. "Subject Matter with a
Focus on Values." Educational Leadership, 26, 1 (October,
1969), 34-39. Reprinted as "Focus on Values for More Relevant

 

 

 

Schools." NJEA Review, 43, 2 (October, 1969).

Sidney B., and Hart, Lois. "Values Clarification." Learning
with Adults, 1, 6 (June, 1973), 15-18.
Sidney B., and Hart, Lois. "Values Clarification: Making
Your New Year Better." Cross Talk, 2, 4 (1973).

Sidney B., and Hartwell, Marie. "Personal Growth through

Advertising." Colloguy, 5, 11 (December, 1972), 12-15.

Sidney B., and Hartwell, Marie. "Values Clarification: A
Heritage of Wisdom." Curriculum Trends, January, 1973.

Sidney B.; Hawley, Roberts; and Britton, David. Composition
for Personal Growth: Values Clarification through Writing.
Amherst, Ma.:- Education Research Associates, 1971, and New
York: Hart Publishing Co., 1973.

167

car Simon, Sidney B.; Howe, Leland W.; and Kirschenbaum, Howard. Values

Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for
Teachers and Students. New York: Hart Publishing Co.,
1972.

 

 

Simon, Sidney B.; Kirschenbaum, Howard; and Fuhrmann, Barbara. Ag
Introduction to Values Clarification. New York: J. C.
Penney Co., 1972.

 

Simon, Sidney B.; Kirschenbaum, Howard; and Howe, Leland. '"Strategies
for Value Clarification." Forum (J. C. Penney Company
Magazine for home economists), Spring/Summer, 1972, 8-11.

Simon, Sidney B., and Massey, Sara. "Values Clarification: A
Strategy in the Search for Self." Educational Leadership,
30, 8 (May, 1973). 738-739.

Simon, Sidney B., and O'Rourke, Robert. "Getting to Know You."
Educational Leadership, 32, 8 (May, 1975), 524-526.

 

Simon, Sidney B.; Sadker, Myra; and Sadker, David. "Where do they
Stand?" Instructor, 84, 1 (August/September, 1974), 110;
112; 119.

 

Simon, Sidney, and Sparago, Edi. "Values: Clarification and Action."
Momentum, 2, 4 (December, 1971), 4-9.

Smith, Bryan C. "Values Clarification in Drug Education." Journal
of Drug Education, Vol. 3 & 4 (Winter, 1973).

Smith, Maury, ed. Retreat Resources: Volume I: Retreats for
7 Clergy and Religions. New York: Paulist Press, 1975.

Smith, Maury. "Some Implications of Value Clarification for
Organization Development." The 1973 Annual Handbook for
Gropp Facilitators. Edited by J. William Pfeiffer and
John E. Jones. Iowa City, 1a.: University Associates,
1973.

.e Stewart, John S. "Clarifying Values Clarification: A Critique."

Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), 684-688.

Stoller, Phyllis, et a1. Real Communication in French. Upper Jay,.
N.Y.: National Humanistic Education Center, 1974.

Superka, Douglas. "Approaches to Values Education." Social Science
Education Consortium Newsletter, November, 1974.

Superka, Douglas P. "A Typology of Valuing Theories and Values
Education Approaches." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Berkley, 1973.

168

Superka, Douglas P., et a1. Values Education Sourcebook. Conceptual
Approaches, Materials Analyses, and an Annotated Bibliogrephy,
Boulder, Co.: Social Science Education Consortum, Inc.,
1976). Also listed in Resources in Education, #50 008 489.

 

 

Thal, Helen M., and Holcombe, Melinda. "Value Clarification:
Putting Life and Work in Perspective." American Vocational
Journal, 48, 9 (December, 1973), 25-27.

 

Thomas, W. A Comprehensive Bibliography on the Values Concept.
Grand Rapids, Mi.: Project on Student Values, 1967.

 

Warren, Carrie Lee. "Value Strategies in Mental Health." School
Health Review, 5, l (January-February, 1974), 22-24.

"Watergate Emphasizes Need to Teach Ways of Choosing Values."
Pennsylvania School Journal, September, 1973, pp. 20-22.

 

Weber, Sister Helen. Value Prompters. Denver: Alternatives in
Religious Education, Inc., Commission on Educational
Ministries, Colorado Council of Churches, 1973.

 

Westerhoff, John H., III. "How Can We Teach Values?" Colloguy,
3, 1 (January, 1970), 17-19.

Wilkinson, Charles. "Value Learning Replaces School Religious
Classes." The Calgary Herald, September 14, 1974, p. 38.

Wilson, Virginia, and Wattenmaker, Beverly. "Can We Humanize Foreign
Language Education?" Upper Jay, N.Y.:, National Humanistic
Education Center, 1973. (Mimeographed.)

Wilson, Virginia, and Wattenmaker, Beverly. Real Communication in
Foreign Languege. Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic
EducatiOn Center, 1973.

Wilson, Virginia, and Wattenmaker, Beverly. Real Communication in
Spanish. Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education
Center, 1973. .

 

Wolfe, David, and Howe, Leland. "Personalizing Foreign Language
Instruction." Foreign Lapguage Annals, 7, 1 (December,
1973), 81-90.

APPENDICES

169

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

170

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

1, , hereby agree to be interviewed
by Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to
be recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may

be considered as valid as the original.

 

 

 

 

Signature:
Date:
lst Preference: Alternate:
Date Date
Time Time

 

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE

 

THANK YOU
SJT

171

APPENDIX B

COMPLETED INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORMS

172

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

1, Louis E. Raths , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to

be recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be

considered as valid as the original.
“W

 

 

 

Signature:
Date: I
lst. Preference: Alternate:
Date Date
Time Time

 

 

ELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU

BEFORE
THANK YOU

 

SJT

173

174

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

I, Merrill Harmin , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis WW5 by the
Interviewer. A photocpoy of this Interview Agreement Form may be
considered as valid as the original.

 

 

Signature:
Date: _ ’7’ 7‘
lst. Preference: Alterna e:
‘F//0 Date f // Date

 

 

if”?! - Time gfl’flfime

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE April 9,,1976

THANK YOU
SJT

175

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

1, Howard Glaser-Kirschenbaum _, hereby agree to be :interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interview), and for such an interView to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting

tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property

of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may

be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be
considered as valid as the original.

Date. fl [7‘

lst. Preference: Alternate:

Date Date

 

Time Time

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE

THANK YOU

 

SJT

176

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

I, Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property

of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may

be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be
considered as valid as the original.

SignaturWfiMW
Date: [if - I g b

lst. Preference: Alternate:

Date Date

 

 

Time Time

 

IELEPHONEpNUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE

THANK YOU

 

SJT

177

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

I. Sidney B. Simon , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview ma

be reproduced in a Thesis. and-MW”

Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be

considered as valid as the original.
Signature: 1.4. ”a

 
 
 

 

 

 

Date:
lst. Preference: . Alternate:
Ame . 10.... 417/8 ’77 3%.?
/l:’0 'M Time #330 f”? Time

 

 

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE April 29,l1976

THANK YOU :Ff’

SJT

178

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

I, John S. Stewart ., hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may
be considered as valid as the original.

Date:

 

lst Preference: Alte nate:
駑/q'7éa Date /Date
a gag“: Tim; X Time

45 «Hour-L m ”:4“;
T LEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED 0R INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

 

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE April 9, 1976

THANK YOU

SJT‘

179

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

 

1, Joel Goodman , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be
considered as valid as the original.

Signature: M
Date: -

lst. Preference: Alternate:

 

Date Date

 

 

Time Time

 

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE

 

THANK YOU

SJT'

180

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

 

1, Milton Rokeach , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be
considered as valid as the original.

Signature: M W

Date: i2‘17é

lst Preference: Alternate:

 

Date Date

 

Time Time

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

 

It is understood that a transcript of the interview will be provided
to Dr. Rokeach for editing prior to its inclusion in any dissertation,
and that, should the Interviewer wish to include any quotation of

Dr. Rokeach's comments in any article or book that results from the
thesis, that he will first contact Dr. Rokeach and secure his

permission to do so. (7:;55M
Stephen JT’Taffee ’

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW /YOU%
BEFORE

 

 

THANK YOU

SJT

181

INTERVIEW AGREEMENT FORM

 

1, Alan Lockwood , hereby agree to be interviewed by
Stephen J. Taffee (Interviewer), and for such an interview to be
recorded upon audio tape, even if used in conjunction with a
telephone interview. I understand and agree that the resulting
tape recording and its transcript will become the sole property
of the Interviewer, and that the transcript of the interview may
be reproduced in a Thesis and possibly other writings by the
Interviewer. A photocopy of this Interview Agreement Form may be
considered as valid as the original.

 

 

 

Slgnature

Date°
lst. Preference: Alternate:
57/476 Date gigflb Date
/0~'3O 40!- Time /0-';_Q [WY-Time

 

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO BE USED FOR INTERVIEW: A.C.

 

 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM PROMPTLY--I WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW YOU
BEFORE April 21, 1976

if

THANK YOU

SJT

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW GUIDE

182

INTERVIEW GUIDE

 

QUESTION #1. In what ways has the theory andlpractice of values

1a.
lb.

1c.

1d.
1e.

1f.

lg.

1h.

1i.

1j.

1k.

11.

1m.

1n.

lo.

1p.
1q.

clarification Changed since 1966?
How did you become involved with values clarification?
In what ways has values clarification affected your life?

In what ways do you believe values clarification has affected
the lives of others?

What are the theoretical roots of values clarification?
How were the original seven criteria developed?
How was the theory received by scholars ten years ago? In 1976?

In what ways has the theory been modified since 1966? Before
1966? Why?

In what ways has the theory been affected by other developments
in values education, e.g. Kohlberg, Rokeach, etc.?

In what ways has the theory been affected by research that has
been done within values clarification?

In what ways has the practice of values clarification been
modified since 1966?

Are there any objections raised about values clarification
which are more persistent than others? How do you deal with

them?

How would you characterize the early values clarification
strategies?

How were early efforts at clarifying values received?

What differences are there between values clarification training
conducted in 1966 and that done in 1976?

Do you see any evidence to suggest that values clarification
is more "affective" in emphasis in 1976 than it was in 1966?

Why or why not?
How was the three stage curriculum developed and why?

How do you distinguish between the following terms: "values,"
"beliefs," "attitudes," "feelings," "morals," and "absolutes?"

183

184

QUESTION #2. In what directions is values clarification likely_to

2a.

2b.

2c.

2d.

2e.

2f.

29.

2h.

2i.

 

move during the next ten years?

 

What might the future hold in regard to the widespread
"popularity" enjoyed by values clarification in 1976?

How do you see yourself working with values clarification
during the next ten years?

Whom do you see as playing key or influential roles within
values clarification during the next ten years?

What sort of research in values clarification would you like
to see completed by 1986?

What Sort of training models do you foresee being employed
during the next ten years?

What issues within values clarification need to be dealt with
prior to 1986?

Ideally, what do you hope will happen to values clarification
and the values clarification movement during the next ten
years?

How do you see the interplay between values clarification and
other movements within education, e.g. Parent Effectiveness
Training, Re-Evaluation Counseling, Kohlberg's Moral Education,
Transactional Analysis, at al.?

What provisions have been made, if any, towards a plan or
design for values clarification during the next ten years or

so?

APPENDIX 0

FORM LETTER SENT WITH EACH TRANSCRIPT

185

6032 Winterset Drive
Lansing, Mi. 48910
(517) 882-4653

Dear .

Enclosed is a transcript of our interview of .
Please look it over carefully, and if you wish to egg_comments aimed
at clarifying any of your points, please add them to the transcript
itself, or to a separate page, making sure that you include specific
instructions as to where you want the new material inserted.

If you wish to delete any material in the transcript,
please note that as well. If you should decide to delete some-
thing, I would appreciate an explanation, or a new insertion
which would, in your opinion, better represent your views.

Attached to this letter is a list of questions which have
occurred to me since our interview, or that we did not have time
for originally, to which I would like your written response.

I am sure that you can appreciate my eagerness to enter
into the data analysis phase of my dissertation, and so I would
deeply appreciate your responses to my requests by no later than

. If I do not hear from you by then, I will
assume that I may use the original transcript as an accurate
representation of your views.

 

In closing, you will notice that the enclosed transcript
isia rough, working copy. Hence, there will be some misspellings
and punctuation errors. Do not feel compelled to correct these.
In the interest of getting a transcript back to you as rapidly as
possible, some sacrifices regarding technical accuracy had to be
made, but you may rest assured that the final draft will be
completed to the very best of my ability.

Thank you so much, for everything.

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Taffee

enc.

P.S. Please use the addressed, stamped envelope enclosed for your
reply. I would appreciate it if you would return your copy of the
transcript as well. As soon as I have a corrected copy available,

I will mail one to you.

186

APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW WITH LOUIS E. RATHS

187

INTERVIEW WITH LOUIS E. RATHS

TAFFEE: Dr. Raths, what changes have occurred within values clarifi-

cation since the publication of values and Teaching?

RATHS: I think the book came out, when was it, in 1965--1966. Well,
for about almost twenty years before that, I was around the country
speaking about values and valuing and clarifying. Now, in the
mimeographed materials that I used, and in the talks that I made,

I had related this to some earlier writings of John Dewey, who dealt
with character which he said was the interpenetration of habits.

And in my effort to examine what the habits seemed to be, which are
very important with respect to values, I'd put down the purposes,
aspirations, attitudes, beliefs, activities as such, feelings--and
there were eight such categories. Well as Sid1 and Merrill2 handled
the materials for the publishers, evidently they thought there was
something wrong with eight, so they reduced it to five, so far as
major headings were concerned.3 And so the book was criticized,
early on, as not giving enough attention to"feelings." And this

was true especially of Howie.4 And I had written, rather indignantly,

 

1Sidney B. Simon.
2Merrill Harmin.

3Dr. Raths is referring to a section of Values and Teaching_
entitled "Topics Ripe for Clarifying Responses," in which five of the
values indicators are mentioned ("attitudes," "aspirations," "purposes,"
"interests," and "activities"), and three are not (worries, feelings,
and beliefs).

4See Howard Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification,"
Readings in Values Clarification, ed. by Sidney B. Simon and Howard
Kirschenbaum (Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973), pp. 92-110.

188

189

"what are you talking about? After all, there is a major heading
dealing with feelings." And so, what these fellows did with those
eight major categories slipped.

So it can almost be said, in one sense, that there's been
much greater attention to feelings than was given to them in the
book.

As a matter of fact, in the book, that was a slip. Now in
the book itself, a page or two after that, after taking them out of
the major headings, they put them in as part of a sentence.5 In
the values indicators, they start out with attitudes, aspirations,
purposes, interests, activities . . . then they give some examples.
They have a sentence in which they bring in feelings, so it's not
altogether lost, but it has lost its position as a major heading
in the book. Now, what they did was to pay particular attention
to the first five. and then they had, more or less, omitted "feelings"
and "beliefs" as major headings. Now I may be wrong on this, but
I would suggest that this is one of the things that has happened
since the book was published--there's been more attention given to
feelings. But this is taking the book literally, again.

Now I'd say a second thing that's taken place since the
book was published was this: I had been very interested in Dewey's
point that in this process of valuing, it's impossible to make of
it a unique, single thing apart and different from everything else.

In other words, valuing includes this business of being sensitive

 

”sDr. Raths is referring to a sentence on page 80 of Values '
and Teaching,"- Also in this category are expressions of student
feelings. beliefs, convictions, worries, and opinions."

 

190

to alternatives, weighing them in terms of the grounds on which
they rest, and the further conclusions toward which they tend

and the consequences that will happen. And in some of the exercises
that I had worked out, and that Sid and Merrill were trying, I had,
very frequently, put an emphasis upon thinking, in the writing and
the talking of students. And I find that, over the years, that
this has been, more or less, not discontinued entirely, but the -
emphasis is left out. There's the notion that the whole value-
front is affective, and thinking is cognitive, and so what are you
doing with cognitive things if you're talking about values? And

I believe this is too bad, that these things have to be kept in
harness. 50 I do not think that reason is preeminent, or that the
emotions are. whatever they are. And that somehow or another, some
kind of a balance has to be kept there, between the two things.

And those kinds of unconscious biases which lie beneath the
surface in all of us, may be looked on, on the one hand, as things
which do not allow reason to function. And they may be looked at
in another sense as being those things which determine all of our
lives. But I would like to think that those of us who have had
some training in education, would be able to resist them, somewhat
consciously, and look for them: and more or less, continually as
we live, to see their place in our lives, and to see that they did

not occupy an undue proportion. Have I made myself somewhat clear

on that?

TAFFEE: Yes.

191

RATHS: So if I were to be in the presence of a "feeling" person,
who consulted those almost to the neglect of the thinking side, it
would seem to me that he would be an unbalanced person. Now
similarly, if one was appealing only to the logic or the reason
of something, and disdained those cries from the heart which are
all around us, coming from children, and young adults . . . and
old-timers, I would say that he, too, had been missing a good part
of what we would call an education. So, I see, in a sense that
this balance has not been kept.

Are you familiar at all with a book in the area of values

by Metcalf and others?6

TAFFEE: Yes.
RATHS: At the University of Illinois?
TAFFEE: Right.

RATHS: Now there, a great emphasis is placed upon the logic of it.

I was one of the advisors to Metcalf in his dissertation.
He's a heck of a nice guy. Just wonderful. With all the intergrity
that you could imagine.

His emphasis is very much on the facts, and the relationship
between the facts. And I think that there is a tremendously different

emphasis on emtiOns as contrasted with the book Values and Teaching,

 

6Dr. Raths is referring to Lawrence E. Metcalf, ed., Values
Education: Rationale, Strategies, and Procedures, 4lst Yearboo
(Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1971).

192

In other words, if you stop to think of those categories: aspirations,
purposes, attitudes, interests, and so on, nearly all of those reflect
a kind of subjective relationship; something in the person and perhaps
deeper than what he says at any one moment. Hell, I think, I hope I
don't do him an injustice, I think that the book by Metcalf and his
students puts a tremendous emphasis upon the facts of the case, and

a kind of splitting of a problem into its issues, and then an
examination of each issue into its facts, and then a kind of choosing
of that which is best.

Now three, beginning in 1968, and almost unheralded, was
the work of this fellow now at Harvard in moral education: Kohlberg.7
Now, Kohlberg seems to have wound up in a variety of ways, not all
of them consistent. In one of his talks to a Canadian group of
rather distinguished people interested in moral and religious and
philosophical education, he makes the statement that there are
absolute moral principles and he knows what they are. That's almost
a direct quote from it. I forget the title.

It's very difficult to sum up the Kohlberg business, but in
the two articles which I read, both of them dealing with Canadian
audiences, it seemed to be very clear that as he presented an open-
ended situation to students, asking them to take a position, and
then in the interviews to give their reasons, I felt that he made
it very clear that the conclusion to which they came had nothing

to do with what he was really concerned about, so that if they were

 

7Lawrence Kohlberg.

193

to recommend killing somebody, he would pay no attention to that.
It was the reasons that they gave that were important.

I think this split of either-or is unfortunate. It seems
to me that if they're going to kill somebody, that this must be a
terribly important issue in morals. But in those writings, no.

As a matter of fact, in one of those books, he makes the
statement that there were situations in which killing was allright.
But in the back of the book, where these gentlemen were given a
chance to raise questions with him, one or two of them were
strangely hurt by that statement in the presentation. And as he
reexamined his position, he said no, he would disavow it after
hearing the objections. But the principle remains however.

One of the open-ended incidents that he quotes very often
deals with the mother or the father that needs a certain kind of
medicine very badly.8 And the pharmacist or the druggist or the
storekeeper has it, but is charging a tremendous price, and the
young fellow doesn't have that money. And the question is: what
should you do? And Kohlberg makes it clear in the discussion of
that situation that, whatever one does isn't to be evaluated as
part of the moral argument. It's the reasons that are given that

are. Now, that seems strange to me.

 

8Dr. Rath is referring to the famous "Heinz Dilemma," wherein
the wife of a man named Heinz is dying, but could be saved if given
a certain drug. The local pharmacist has the drug, but is asking a
tremendously unfair price, which Heinz cannot afford. The question
is; should Heinz steal the drug?

194

He says, in one place or another, that very often people
have very different conclusions, but use the same reasons. Hell,
in the Eight Year Study,9 we had some value-type problems, that were
open-ended like Dr. Kohlberg's and, by the way, like the whole book
Values and Teaching is open-ended. And we used to state one of these
problems, something like the storekeeper thing, and down below it
we would state maybe three or four different conclusions. But we
would always have a last conclusion, which they, the students,
could write. In other words, if we had four, there would be a
place for a fifth one, and so on. If you have a conclusion different
from these, write it here. Then down below that, there was an essay
type of exam. It was: Give reasons for this. Now, we often found
that if a person chose conclusion number one, that he would give
reasons which supported conclusion number three! In other words,
the thinking was very fuzzy. But we thought that was very signifi-
cant, in terms of paying attention to both, But I gather from the
presentation by Dr. Kohlberg himself, that he isn't interested in
that.

Now finally I think, on this Kohlberg thing, without getting
into it at all deeply, although one should, I think, this: His

colleague, writing in the Phi Delta Kappan, John Stewart, seemed

 

to think that the values clarifying group were cultural relativists.10

 

9The Eight Year Study was conducted under the auspices of
the Commission on the Relation of School and College, Progressive
Education Association, during the l930's.

1oaohn 5. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critizue," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), pp. 684-688.

195

And the term was used in a sentence which would suggest that's bad,
you shouldn't be. Which would suggest as one alternative that you
should be cultural positivists. Now it's always difficult to
interpret, truly and accurately, what's meant by these kinds of
charges. Does it mean that we should all be absolutists? If it
does, it's almost ridiculous, because we could be absolutist about
values only in the sense that maybe five hundred years from now
there will be a universal agreement on values.

Certainly if one looks at the area of religion, and sees
the differences--even here the differences are extreme and violent.
If we were to look at the laws that are in the books of the world.

. Kohlberg says that there is an increasing tendency to respect
the law, and he seems to think that this tendency is one that, in
the long run, supports an absolute idea of justice. But he doesn't
get into the business that the laws can be very different. For
instance; if you were to examine a series of Russian arithmetic books,
you would find, and perhaps to your surprise, that there's not one
example in an elementary school arithmetic book--I haven't looked
at the high school book--where a man bought something for ten cents
and sold it for fifteen cents. There's no such thing. The reason
I cite it, is it's against the law to do that! In other words,
that's unjust.

Hell, it just seems to me that in our age of plusalism,
where we are trying to respect much more than we ever did minority
groups of all kinds, and even majority groups in terms of yellow

color and brown color, the idea of universals is a beckoning light

196

from a far distance, and nothing that is really right around the
corner in the sense that: "I know the universal values, and I'll
tell them to you," or "There are absolute moral principles, and I
know them." It seems to me that it's a claim that's not far short
of preposterous.. I wish he were here, I'd like to hear him talk
about it.

Now, there is another point about the Kohlberg thing which
I have never written about at great length, but have indicated my
own bias, I suppose, in the book and elsewhere. If you were to
write in many different papers, and if you were to speak before a
tape recorder, and if I were able to read carefully what you have
said, and maybe to value-analyze what you have said--I, personally
at that time, would not feel at all sure that I knew your values.
Now the major point of the book, Values and Teaching, is that I should
g§k_you. That you said this and this and this, does this mean that
this probably expresses your point of view? And then ygg_say it, I
don't. I may ask you.

Now secondly, if you were to say: "Yeah, that's it," I
myself might not feel too sure that that wg§_it. Because words
are very difficult things with which to describe so complicated a
thing as a mesh of thinking, feeling, purpose, attitude. . . . But
it does seem to me that the burden is on each of us to try to
become mg§g_clear about what it is we believe, and the meanings we
have of the world. And so for a teacher to have reached the point,
say such as you have, where you can listen and help the other person

on that path, it seems to me that that's a wonderful position to

197

have arrived at, especially if you could qualify it by saying:
"Regardless of my clarifying operations, the person who's really
going to know if he has clarified something, is the person to whom
I am talking. And I can't say positively whether he has or not.
Nor can I say with great precision just what his value is. I
could repeat some of the conversation, but if I were to try to

say that you value such and such, I would hem that sentence in
with qualifications that were far from an absolute." In other
words, I think this process is the very important thing that's
going on.

I find it very hard to categorize some things, and when I
do, it seems to me that I do with the idea that it takes us forward
some steps. If we will listen to a conversation for statements which
suggest purpose, aspirations, attitudes. . . . I think it helps us
to push forward the discussion. Now, my assumption has been also
that if we take it very seriously, we'll get to the point where
we'll listen to somebody. And after listening, we will interact
in some way, supporting, questioning or something. And it seems to
me this process again, that this process of listening, supporting,
directing--is tremendous.

And I would say that Sid's work, your work, and my work,
has all been in this direction, and yet it hasn't accomplished a
whole lot, in terms of what I hear and see for instance, at the
university level, the college level. The instructors aren't doing
much listening. I walk down the halls, and there's this fellow up

in front of the class--Is it true at Michigan State too?

198
TAFFEE: Sure.

RATHS: How does it happen do you suppose, that we haven't made more

of a dent?

TAFFEE: I wish I knew the answer. Do you have any ideas about that?
Do you have some ideas about why values clarification hasn't had

more of an impact?

RATHS: Oh, yes. For quite a few years I was very much concerned
with the question: "What do you do when you 'teach'? What is
teaching?"11 In other words, if we had here a table, and on it a
typewriter, and a young lady sitting there at it, and you saw her
hitting the keys, and if you looked over her shoulder and saw
meaningful material emerging on the paper--you could say she's
typing.

Hell, if you were to go to a classroom and open the door,
what do you think should be going on if you're going to say: “I
won't go in now. She's teaching." What would that be?

Nell, one of the points I had been working at at Ohio State
and elsewhere, was the business of values and valuing, and concluded
that one of the functions of teaching was to assist in clarifying.
And, on a two year stretch I spoke in forty states, and in many
places I spoke to college faculties. I can't tell you how many

people, both in the meeting and in luncheons and bull sessions

 

nDr. Raths has written an article on the subject. See:
Louis E. Raths, "What is Teaching?" Educational Leadership, 55, 3
(December, 1955), 146-147.

199

afterwards, would say to me: "You know, Raths, if I'm able to bring
before one or more students some piece of knowledge with which he
was unacquainted before my presentation of it, I see myself really
as teaching. IBut if I'm going to ask some kid a question, and he's
going to tell me what he jg§1§_about it, and I'm to listen to such
crap as that and respond to it--I don't think that's teaching."

Good, clear statement. In his own mind, that's out. And
as I would then reflect it back to him he'd say: "That's it!

That's what I'm trying to say!"

In other words, I think one of the reasons why we haven't
made any headway is that the concept of teaching excludes this in
general; in terms of the way we've been taught, the way the uni-
versities now operate, the way schools of education prepare teachers.
So here are some poor souls out there, and I have an idea that they
are pretty well set in other directions.

Now secondly, it seems to me that, across the country--and
here I would be saying the same thing to Sid--suppose that you
wanted to teach some people about this, and have them arrive at
the point at which you have arrived. You know, they can't go to

a workshop for one or two days and be there. Is that right?

TAFFEE: That's right.

RATHS: You have to have some kind of commitment, where there is
almost daily or at least several times weekly interactions on this
stuff, and over a period of time. So the "clinical" professor of
values would have some students, and he would be maybe visiting

pupils with them that they're teaching. . . . We don't do that.

200

And in many ways I think that we do not give students the
responsibility for making value judgments, as let us say, in a
dissertation. Suppose, for example that in a dissertation we had
a young man take the position I had just described: you know,
that teaching has really nothing to do with this whole notion of
values. I have an idea what we're trying to do is get the man to
change that, before it comes up for discussion on the part of those
who are going to read it. We don't say, or try to make it clear to
him: "Say now. Look, is this the position you're taking? Is that
right? And it's your right to take it. Now in your final oral this
is really going to be debated. You're going to be asked to defend
yourself. But let me say again, it's your dissertation, your
decision, you're to make it." I don't think we do that. I think
most chairmen tell them: "Take that out of there! No, I'll never
sign it if that's there. You've got to re-write that part, or.

As I see it anyway, we don't give the student, even at the
graduate level, the responsibility for doing his own thinking and
his own valuing, you know, and his own translation of his inner
world onto the paper which he is to present.

Finally, I'd say in this general response to a nice question,
there is an approach to clarifying that I've hinted at so far, which
would be something like what scholars say about the search for truth.

And that is--does the word "asymptotic" mean something to you?

TAFFEE: No.

201

RATHS: It's a mathematical term which describes a curve, and this
curve approaches a line but never reaches it. And they say it's
"asymptotic" to that line, an "asymptote." It seems to me, that as

I took over fifty or sixty years, in ever so many areas, I've been
groping for clarity; and that this years' clarity is more clear than
last years' clarity, in many places. But it seems to me that I don't
reach it, and I'm reaching out for it, so that it's something like
the search for truth.

When we say we're trying_to help a student clarify, I don't
think we are saying we are clarifying it for the student. I think
we say: "Here are some hints for how you go about the thing." And
who will be the judge of this? Obviously, I think it has to be the
person with whom we're working. And very often he'll say: "I see
it much more clearly now. I didn't know I was saying things like that.
Yes, that's what I meant, that's really what I believe."

And yet in all these ways, these are temporary, or tentative,
or contemporary positions. And if he's alive and human, you would
expect him to, as he has experiences and reads, and so on, that these
positions themselves will become modified.

So I think that clarification is not an absolute. It is
part of a process of living with people. Often it seems to pay-off.

Does this seem something different from the book to you?

TAFFEE: Yes. I think there are some definite points which you
have stated which would not be apparent by just reading the book

alone.

202

RATHS: Do you think they should be included in the book?

TAFFEE: Yes. Many times critics, like John Stewart and Alan
Lockwood12 for example, use Values and Teaching, a book which is
now ten years old, as a statement of the current state of the
art, and I think that many of the points to which you have
spoken are not clear in the book, and that they might have
reached different conclusions if they were included.

Sid, when I saw him last fall, indicated that you, he, and

Merrill were considering a revised edition of Values and Teaching.
RATHS: Yes. It's in the works now.

TAFFEE: Probably some of the points to which you have spoken will
be included, like the disdain for either-or reasoning, which I

think further reflects your interest in Dewey; feelings or thinking,
structure or content, for example. Now those might be two things
which could be included in a revision. Are there any other things

which might be included in a revision?

RATHS: Yes. Lockwood made the point, or was it one of the letter

'3 that the book did not recognize that it was taking value

writers,
positions. Nell--maybe. It's hard to tell what people interpret

the book to mean. And if they interpret it that way, well they

 

» 12See Stewart, 92, cit. and Alan L. Lockwood, "A Critical
View of Values Clarification:Tr Teachers College Record, 71, 7
(September, 1975), 35-50.

13Dr. Raths is referring to persons who wrote letters to
the Phi Delta Kagpan following its June, 1975 issue.

203

did. But stop and think for a minute. First of all, there is a
place in the book, and by the way they criticized the book for that,
which suggested to teachers that there were places where they might
run into trouble if they were to open-up clarifying procedures.
One of these dealt with so-called "hot issues" in the community.
And you and I probably could think of many examples of them.14
Let us say, for example, that if one is teaching in a
Catholic school, or where the parents are almost altogether
Catholic, to open up the abortion issue, and to open up various
kinds of religious issues, and so on, and especially if something
is being voted on just at the time, the entire institution of the
school might be placed in jeopardy.. My notion was that if a
person has a very large field open to him, on many occasions it
would be senseless to lose his job, and lose his opportunity to
clarify, let's say, a hundred things, just because he insists on
clarifying the hundred and first, which is taboo. Now I can see
that there would be times when the hundred and first is so critical
to a person's own life that he might say: "If I can't do this,
I'm not going to teach here." I can see that as a possibility.
But I think it would be rare. If we were to get one thousand
teachers, it might happen to ten. But nine hundred ninety, I think
would say: "Look at the freedom we do have here. And for us to
choose those freedoms, and to act upon them would be much better

than for us to precipitate a community battle here."

 

‘4See Values and Teaching, p. 35.

204

Now the other issue that I suggested they might very well
stop on, is the one of vulgarity in the classroom. I heard a story
the other day that I thought was funny. Of course you couldn't
tell it in a classroom:

The story was of a sixth grade teacher who was working with
her students in the area of history. And she said to them: "I am
going to say something that a famous man said at one time." And
she said: "I am going to ask you who said it, and when he said
it." So, after a pause she said, "Give me liberty, or give me
death." And there wasn't a hand up. Nobody raised a hand. But
finally a new kid, a kid who had just arrived from Mexico, raised
his hand. And she said: "Yes, Tomas." And he stated: "Patrick
Henry, 1775." And she said "That's very good." .She turned around
and started to ball out the kids because they didn't know, and here's
a bay from Mexico--who had been here just a little while, and he
had the right answer. It took a boy from Mexico to do it! And
while she was looking at the kids, someone from the back of the
room shouted: "Fuck Mexico!" She turned and said: "Who said that?“
And someone answered, "Sam Houston, 1844."

Well, it does seem to me that there is something called
decorum.

I remember once going to church with an Antioch student.

We were in a little town of six hundred population, and the minister
was one of those fellows who's an uneducated person, and was as
evangelistic as probably one could get. And all of a sudden, this

friend of mine from Antioch, burst-out laughing in the church!

205

Hell, I tell you, you know, I could have sunk right through the
floor. You don't gg_that!

Now, that's a far cry from vulgarity in one sense, but in
another sense, our institutions do have certain requirements. And
if one is in a courtroom, and there is a judge, he imposes a sort
of courtroom standard on the behavior of the people who are there.
It seems to me that one of the standards associated with classrooms
in our elementary schools in our country, and our secondary schools,
is one which eschews vulgarity.

Well, one of the writers in that magazine thought that
was awful, that I was acting as censor to value-type expressions.

You can certainly go on in here if that's your choice,
but it seems to us that this is something you should think about
before you do it.

Now I had a third one that I was much concerned with, and
that was that a teacher should positively not allow things to go
on which would endanger the health of the children.

In Columbus, Ohio, one time, in a place I believe that was
called North High School, there was a window open on the third
floor. And it was one of those windows with a low bottom to it.
And a girl, probably a tenth grade girl, went over there, and some
people started fooling around with her there. And it came out in
the hearings in the court that the teacher didn't interfere with
what was going on, and the girl fell out of the window and was
killed. Now, it would be my position today, as it was then, that

the teacher should have gone down there and pulled them right out

206

of there. If no other thing, she has a responsibility in this sense
to protect the life and health in that room. And under circumstances
where that's threatened, your professional duty is to carry on.

It doesn't seem to me that she could say to the girl's father:

"Well, she wanted to wrestle with the fellow." In other words,

to clarify that situation is not enough.

There's an obligation which goes beyond clarification, in
three of the places as I saw it. One of them dealt with vulgarity,
one dealt with life itself or threats to it, and one dealt with
the impact on the whole school system. It seems to me that a person
should be very wary about them. I was criticized for that in
somebody's letter.

But now to get back to another point. If you were to
listen to a large number of people talking about education, or
curriculum, values or whatnot, including Dr. Kohlberg, just think
of the freedom that is involved in asking people what they think,
and how they feel, and what their purposes are, and what they are
doing to further them, and how could I as the teacher help you with
that. This is a value position of the greatest moment. And we
just said a few minutes ago: "Why the heck doesn't it go farther?
And why aren't more people taking it?" And one reason is ever so
many people don't even announce that they would take that value
stance. But that is taken all the way through the book. And
yet, there are people who read it and say: "You don't announce

your values. You masquerade as if you had none." How could one

207

say that? Or does one have to stop every once-in-a-while and say:
"This is a value of ours?"

To give situation after situation where students may be
able to tell how they feel, what they think, what they want, where
they've been disappointed, where they've been glad, where they've
been happy, and so on and so forth--to give them an opportunity
to talk about their_lives, and to listen to a thoughtful teacher
ask meaningful questions about that life--this is a value position
of great significance. And for these people to overlook it, seems
to me to be very poor reading, or am I putting too high a standard
for them in terms of reading? Isn't that apparent as you read

the book?

TAFFEE: It was apparent to me. Maybe some of the statements like
the ones contained in the short paper by Sid, Howie, Merrill and

"15 where they say,

Lee Howe, "In Defense of Values Clarification,
for example, that they feel that choosing from among alternatives

is better than not having any alternatives from which to choose.

 

RATHS: Yeah, and even looking for alternatives is, to be free to

look. . . .

TAFFEE: Maybe a statement like that in the revision would once and

for all clear up any ambiguity.

 

15Howard Kirschenbaum, Merrill Harmin, Leland Howe, and Sidney
8. Simon, "In Defense of Values Clarification: A Position Paper,"
Humanistic Educators Network, 1, 7 (Saratoga Springs, N.Y.: National
Humanistic Education Center, November, 1975).(Mimeographed).

208

RATHS: Huh. I doubt it.
By the way, the book has had a phenomenal sale, did you
know that?

TAFFEE: No, I didn't.

RATHS: It has sold over 200,000 copies.

TAFFEE:’ That j§_remarkable, especially for a book in education.
RATHS: Several publishers refused it.

TAFFEE: Will the revision be coming out through Charles Merrill

again?

RATHS: Yes. And Merrill Harmin is taking the major responsibility

for putting the comments together this time.

TAFFEE: I'd like to return for a moment to a point in which you
were talking about three different areas of concern in relation
to clarifying: hot issues, vulgarity, and the physical health of
children. Is there a mental health aspect, whereby, just as that
child fell out of a third story window to her death,-—is there a

mental health area into which the teacher should intervene?

RATHS: This is interesting, because of this author, Lockwood,
who suggests that we are engaged in therapy. and that we know it.16
Now this is interesting because I've disavowed that point of view

in those talks I was telling you about across the country.

 

16Lockwood, 92, gig,

209

Suppose, for example, we were to say of a person, "Here is
a history lesson, and it was assigned to you yesterday, and you
came in and you didn't have it today. Are you sick? Could we make
the inference you were sick?"

Well, let's see. Maybe we could. You're going to help
him with this. And you are going to see that he gets to know it.
Now you wouldn't do that unless he was sick, would you? Heck,
it's just that he hasn't arrived at some objective of some kind.
And to think that that person's sick!

Nell, suppose we were to say some person who, let's say,
flies from one thing to another--you know, it's hard for me to think
of that person as ill. I'd say: "He has probably missed a number
of things in his growing-up and that we could supply, which might
help him." But you know, I would think of it almost as, a person
who is professionally trained as a teacher, recognizes this as some
sort of learning, growing problem. And I don't think the person
will have to have a medical degree. And it seems to me that he
wouldn't have to make the judgment that he's making a diagnosis
of illness.

If the fellow was a very poor speller, and one noted a
pattern in his spelling, would the diagnosis be a medical one and
would it be therapy--Gee, not as I see it.

Let's take another, more extreme case. You come to me,
wan and pale. And you begin to tell me of the experiences you've
had during these last three days, in which each of the twenty-four

hours has been filled. And there has been no mention of food, you

210

haven't had a chance to eat. And I say: "Would you like something
to eat?" Is this a medical diagnosis I am making now? For goodness
sake! Suppose I were to offer you food, and you were hungry. Am

I practicing "therapy" now?

There is something in this matter of human relations, in
which the central quality is hgmag, It isn't professional-medical,
professional-legal, professional this or that. It's a sensitivity
to see something missing, and to help out. So that, was that
Lockwood who said this?--I would have to say that I do not agree
with his point.

And yet there might be many who are teachers, and who have
come into the field of values clarification, and who say to them-
selves: "well, didn't Raths point out certain kinds of cases,
like those who are apathetic, and listless, and those who are
' flighty? And didn't he say that if you were to do these kinds of
things with them, there was a strong possibility that they them-
selves would change their own behavior?" I'd say, "Yeah. That's
right." And it would be true that if Raths had noticed something
about spelling, and had said here are some things you could do and
the student would become a better speller, if he makes that decision
to learn something. In other words, I see the role here of probable
diagnosis, but I don't see this "medical," I don't see this
"therapeutic."

Well now, that takes care of two of those things: one,
that we don't have values, and the other is that we have become

therapists, in a psychomedical sense.

211

In fact, in a book I have written which deals with the

'7 I have indicated that if a teacher

emotional needs of children,
should come to the conclusion that a child is really emotionally
a problem, that she should do everything she can to get this kid
and the kid's parents to a physician.

I don't know whether Lockwood knows this, but in the
state of Ohio, as a teacher, you can't even say to a child: "You
have a bad cold. You should go home." You ggg_say to him: "You've
told me that you're ill, and I think you ought to go home." But
if you diagnosis it, and say it's a cold, you have gone beyond the
law, and the parents can raise cane with you. Now that's what it
was thirty years ago. You couldn't do it!

Anyway, as an aside, Plato said lawyers and doctors were

not good for a society.
(Pause)

All over the country there are people stirring like us. Thus far,
not much has happened. But you know, it could. And here in you

they've got another one, huh? I have an idea you're going to make

it.
(Pause)

The breakdown in morals that is occurring in almost every

profession, and in the government, is running its course--tends to

 

17Louis E. Raths and Anna Porter Burrell, Understanding the
Problem Child (Fairfield, N.J.: Economics Press, Inc., 1963).

 

212

be getting worse as I see it. So you have, as it was announced
here on T.V. last night, carpenters in San Francisco getting $21,000
a year, and going to strike for more money, and tying-up the con-
struction industry; and truckers, and as I understand it, an
average salary of $18,000, going out on strike and tying it up.
Now my point now is not about the money. My point is about the
wishes of individuals as against the wishes of a society, and
whether or not that these kinds of things can be settled in some
other way than by bottling up the highways, and shutting down

the construction industry, and so forth. All around the ring,
there seems to be too many--I don't know what that phrase means--
instances of corruption in the administration of unions, in the
government, in business, in doctors and so forth.

About ten years ago I was in the hospital on two occasions,
right close to each other, and in each case a doctor came to visit
me, after the operations, and he would sit and would be writing
something about that case that he had seen an hour ago. And he
would say: "How are ya, Mr. Raths?" And I'd say "Fine." And he
would, in a couple of minutes, get up and go. Now, on Medicare,
he charged thirty-five dollars for that as a medical visit. Now
he must know in his heart that that's just cheating. Now as he
goes through, he could, say, visit ten such patients there . . .
get three hundred fifty dollars for the afternoon, and do it every
day that persons are in the hospital.

You may have heard recently that there's a committee on

ethics in the Congress, and various small groups have found out

213

that certain members of Congress, Congressmen and Senators, have
been most unethical. And they've got the data! And they have gone
to the ethics committee, and the ethics committee has done nothing.
Now it does seem to me that, as these things become more clear to
people, and as these things get clarified in terms of outside, a
democratic society I think cannot allow this. It will lose its
democracy involved. It will lose its freedom involved.

I think what I am trying to say is that one of the great
values is trgth, And if you lie, and are covered-up by others in
your lying, speech then no longer becomes a communications medium.
I wouldn't want to be misunderstood. There are people who have
lied, you know, before biblical times. But through the medium of
communication, and the enhancement of money as the_value in life,
it seems to me that there is a higher and higher percentage of
people given over to this thing.

Hill clarifying help the situation? I don't know.

(pause)

Now, where will it go? Where the whole thing will go in
terms of clarification depends, it seems to me, on several focal
points.
1 As I watch what Sid and Merrill and that group is doing,
they seem to have an idea that you should have hundreds of different
examples of clarification possibilities. On several occasions, I
have written to Sid and to Merrill, and suggested. I thought that

this was not the way to go. That if one were to look down from a

214

vantage point up in the air somewhere, at their publications and
their work, and say: "What assumptions seem to be operating here,

in multiplying the number and the variety of situations in which
students will be asked how they feel, what they like, and what

they hate and so on?" One answer could be: it makes for a diversion,
and it's a very diverting curriculum. And after a while, if you're
teaching a forty-five minute class, you could find that by having
five different ones of these examples in one forty-five minute
period, everyone would be paying attention, perhaps, and could go
away "liking" it, perhaps--saying: "Wasn't that fun!"

Now as a contrast, I suggested to Sid and to Merrill several
times, that it seemed to me that it would be better if they were to
spend their time making, let us say, twenty-five situations, for
example, in the area of race, and having those situations bear upon
eight important issues in which race is involved. Let us say
"employment" might be one; "transportation" might be one; and
"religion," my "church attendance" might be one; and so on. And
that each of them would have repeats, so that at the end of some
time, there would have occurred perhaps, an opportunity for students
to see this whole thing of race in a great variety of situations,
and in a great variety of functional relations: The Blacks have
to ride, and they have to walk, so transportation is here; the
Blacks want to go to church, and they want this, and they want that;
the Blacks want to work, Blacks want to live in a house. But as
I have watched what they have done, neither of them has been
attracted to the position. .I wonder if I've made myself clear

on that point. Have I?

215

TAFFEE: Let me try to tell you what I heard you say: That instead
of creating hundreds of divergent strategies, volumes one through
eight, perhaps, of the values clarification handbook, perhaps it
might be more appropriate to focus on particular broad issues, like
race, perhaps sexual stereotyping, maybe even religion, despite the
fact that it might be a hotbed in some areas--identify sub-points
or sub-issues within a large, umbrella issue, and invent or evolve

twenty-five or thirty strategies to focus on that.

RATHS: Right. Now a second alternative, is one which I've believed
most of my life, but I have been in a minority position most of my
life on it.

Have you ever heard of the name Alberty? He wrote a book
in the thirties, which had a title something like "Reorganizing

"18 Now he was the man, I think,

the Secondary School Curriculum.
who introduced the term "resource units." Have you heard of a
resource unit? Now a resource unit--what did you teach, by the

way, in high school?
TAFFEE: English.

RATHS: Now a resource unit in English might deal, let us say, with
the "Frontier." Alberty would say: there might be some big
generalizations that you were interested in getting across: that
emigration in general went from east to west, and has been from
Europe to here, and here to the Mississippi, and the Mississippi

. , and so on. Now he thought that if you wanted to get into

 

18Harold Bernard Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Curri-
culum (New York: MacMillan Co., 1974).

216

any kinds of things that dealt with life, he didn't use the term
values very much--but he used it, you had to get a whole group

of teachers together. Let's say the art teacher, the science
teacher, and others--and they would suggest all kinds of things
that would make a good curriculum for a big unit like this.
Magazines would be consulted about slides, movies, field trips . . .
the art teacher would come in with what would be appropriate here

in terms of the art of the westward movement . . . music would

come in.

Now all of this would be brought together as a great string
of possible resources to be used during the teaching of this
material in English. Now the teacher would have this, let us
say, in his right hand as a resource. And he would say to the
students: "We're going to be studying the frontier movement in
American life." fle_decided that, and, you know, it was approved
by the curriculum committee, and the board, and so forth. And he
would then begin to ask the students what they were interested in
about this whole thing. Now he, in the meantime, was familiar
with this whole resource unit, and as they began to ask questions
about it, say what they were interested in, maybe the blackboard
would be covered with their suggestions. Then they'd classify a
whole lot of these into areas. Students would be asked then, in
terms of committees, to take over segments of this. Out of

materials of the resource unit, the students and teachers had

made a learning unit.

217

Now back of this, is the idea that an English teacher,
or a math teacher, or a science teacher, or a foreign language
teacher-adoesn't have the educational background to recognize the
value opportunities in the field in which he's teaching. And
there has to be some movement put on, and those materials put in
his hands.

Now, I thought that this general position was not sound.

I thought: "Suppose you have a high school teacher. He's a
graduate of a liberal arts college. He ought to recognize the
places where values have a place." Many kinds of engineering
problems involve ecology, terrain and the use of it. . . . Many
kinds of commercial problems involve profits and motives and how
they're arrived at and so forth.

Now it seems to me that Merrill and Sid, and their colleagues,
are saying: "You can't do it that way. You can't expect that a
teacher will be an educated person, a sensitive person. You can't
do that. You have to write this out for them." So that you'd
have to have, maybe ultimately they're heading towards, books
about "Values Situations in Mathematics," or in "Algebra.“ They
aren't mathematicians. But it seems to me that this is where
that thing is going.

And it seems to me that there must be some way of appealing
to the nature of a human being, to help him become sensitive to
what we call values, issues, morals, ethics, aesthetics. . . . I
bet, as I see it, the better way of doing this would be to try to

get back into those colleges, and have experiences there that would

218

really be educative, in the sense that the total life--the arts,
the dance, the music, the religion, the issues-—that a person
would see mgrg_clearly what life is, and death, and illness.

I know that from the beginning of time that people in their
old-age have looked back and have told about: how useless their
so-called "formal" education has been. Montaigne wrote a lot
about it. Scores of more people have written about it in terms
of the British public schools. So many people are saying that
that a fixed curriculum of credit points, does not really result
in the education of a person. You wonder why it's so fixed, and
cannot be changed.

So that if you look at the two alternatives or three, will
the production of eight volumes of the situations bring about a
great change in the teaching of mathematics, physics, biology
and foreign language? Hill a kind of drastic reorganization of the
college, in terms of what we call an education, help?

Nell, nearly all of the people concerned deeply with the
curricula of a secondary school tend to feel that the resource
unit, and the Sid and Merrill way, is most convenient--that you
just can't get another kind of education into these colleges. And
I would agree that it's the most convenient, but what I would say
now is: "I don't see any great things coming."

In other words, I see a great need in the college to under-
stand something about the emotional needs of people in their work,
in their play, in their government, in their relations. I see a

great need for an emphasis in the colleges on the role that health

219

plays in the life of a person. It's terrific. It seems to me that
there is a great need for people to learn what social class means
in their lives.

I would like to see a confederation of colleges develop a
series of movies, for example. One series would deal with poverty
all over the world. How does poverty look in Moscow? How does
it look in London and New York? Nhat's rural poverty in India and
in China and in Japan, and in the United States, and develop people
with sensitivities to these great big things.

Now besides sensitivity, of course, they all need a "hearing-
aid," you know. Some of them need new "glasses" or "seeing-eye dogs"
to help them see what's going on around them, and help them to hear.
And then maybe some kinds of "radar" equipment, associated with
their nerves and muscles, that might suggest that they get into
action on some of the things they'd seen and heard.

I see that as a more promising future in the long, long
run. It wouldn't surprise me if, in let's say ten years, this
whole thing might have been regarded as a fad, and the whole edu-
cational field will be turned to something else. But it seems to
me that if we can get a foot into the high school and the college,
that would deal with as I've said, poverty, and war, and the emotional
needs of people, and with values, and with beauty, and with truth--
and we would get movies, and we would get statements from rather
great people--and it would be on a seminar basis--and we would have
these many, many issues relating to it brought up--I think thgt_is a

better way to go. Now, it takes young people like yourself. . . .

220

Young people talked to the Rockefeller General Educational
Board in 1930, 31 and 32. And they secured enough money to carry

19

on what was called the "Eight Year Study." You've probably not

read about that. .
TAFFEE: Oh! I certainly have!

RATHS: You have? Now, I can't tell you how many people asked me,
when I was in my late sixties, to start another one. But this
thing can't be started, you know, by people my age, because as the

20 you know people like me might

next hour or two will determine,
die next week. It's got to be manned by young people. Now when
I was in it, I was thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five. These
are the people with the bounce, and the rigor, the stick-to-itiveness,
to keep pumping away at it.

So I believe that what we have to do is to have a different
kind of education. And I don't think that these books to be used
in a social studies class, or in a literature class--I don't think
they do it well. They make some contribution, but it isn't enough.
(At this point we got onto the subject of the Eight Year Study for
a while. I asked Dr. Raths why he felt the Eight Year Study had

not had a greater impact. He replied that there were several

 

19The Eight Year Study was conducted under the auspices of
the Commission on the Relation of School and College, Progressive
Education Association, during the 1930's.

20Dr. Raths is referring to a funeral which he was to attend
shortly after our interview was concluded.

221

reasons: (1) teachers and administrators in the high schools
involved, because of the notoriety brought to them by the study,
were often offered lucrative positions in other school systems.
In these new situations, these people had to start from scratch
without colleagues with similar experiences. (2) A conservative
climate in the late forties, much like the trend in operation
today, but stronger, made people wary of anything with the label
"progressive" or "innovative." (3) An illogical and irrational
change by the five hundred or so colleges and universities
involved in the study, reverting back to pre-study requirements,
study programs, etc. Dr. Raths noted that no concerted effort
was made to work with the colleges and universities to help them
look at their own data, which showed rather dramatic results for
those students who were part of the experimental group. (4) A
great short coming of the Eight Year Study was its neglect of
the parents of the students, and its neglect of the community in
which the schools were located. This, coupled with the general
conservative climate of the country, led many colleges to reinstate
certain procedures.

Dr. Raths went on to criticize admissions tests as "exclusions"
tests, citing correlations of .25 and less at the graduate level.
He wondered aloud as to the possibility that such tests were given
because they tend to select white, upper or middle-class students.

He then returned to the subject at hand, the future of

values clarification.)

222

RATHS: You know, I wanted to say one other thing about the future
of this thing if I may.

Suppose we look at Kohlberg's package. We see the possibility
that Kohlberg, a group of assistants and his trained colleagues,
will come to a school, and take a systematic, and fairly representa-
tive sample of the student body, give them various kinds of open
situations, read the results and score them. This would be step
one in which, saying for example: "In terms of moral character,
this school's at Stage Three."

Now he isn't going to be able to tell them much more than
that. But as this begins to go around, the question will be:

"What stage are ygg_at?" So what we will be doing is developing
something like the 1.0. And you will be hearing an English teacher
say to you: "Boy, you know out of thirty students, I have twenty-
eight who are Three or Two or One. I don't have one in this group
who has reached the stage of so-called Social Contract!"

Now my reason for saying that is I do not see any emphasis
upon teaching in the Kohlberg thing. I do not see any indication
of continuous interaction with the students, or the moral issues
around them. I do not see anything in the Kohlberg business which
deals with whether or not, oh to take a simple thing: Suppose I
were to do something according to my sense of duty, which is the
Social Contract stage in, let us say, one issue. Now suppose we
have over here, a group of people who are decent to other people
because they saw it as their ggty, And over here, we had a group

of people who were decent to other people because they liked living

223

that way. Nhich group would we want to be with, for goodness' sake?
We'd like to be with these people, I think. [Indicating the latter
group.] I would anyway.

Now, nowhere in the Kohlberg's set up, is there something
about: do you prize the moral value that you have chosen? Does
it give you a feeling of achievement or satisfaction, and so on?

So that the prizing in the values clarification thing, seems to
me, to be a great thing which separates the two.

In Kohlberg, you might do any number of things, oh, because
of conscience, and hate to do them. It's a rather big issue:
there's total neglect, almost, of this emotional component in
valuing and thinking. And I have an idea myself that that stage
thing is going to get mixed-up there, so that it becomes very
prominent in the so-called moral position.

Now one of his closest collaborators, who will remain
anonymous in this situation, has said that Kohlberg is lousy at
analyzing papers of the students, or in the tapes that are tran-
scribed. My gosh, if that's true, and if the man with whom he
has worked most closely would say this, what does it mean? Does
it mean that there are absolute moral principles and hg_knows
them? Hell--that's a possibility, isn't it? That we'll get into
this counting game with it. You'll be less concerned with what
you say than is it above a hundred? Are you at one hundred fifty?
Or stage 4, or stage 5?

Now he has also said that they rarely get any group that

is at Five or Six. This means that he has a four point scale for

224

distributing results. Now if you look at how he talks about the
first stages as dealing with fear, and with power of adults--my
gosh! As I look at it from a distance of many years, those first
three stages are just so obvious. And, of course, as they progress
there, they get to the place of deference to peers. . . .

(Mrs. Raths interrupts gently with some messages for Dr.
Raths, and with some coffee and a delicious coffee-cake.

He talked, sometimes with our mouths full, about Kohlberg
a little more. I commented on my concern that moral reasoning may
not necessarily correlate with moral behavior.r At this point, Dr.

Raths and I continued the interview.)

RATHS: Moreover, as you stay at that level of the game, you're

not interacting with the life of a person. Now if you and I were
talking in class, and you say something about this novel we're
reading, it's coming from ygg, and I respond to your utterance. I
recognize it as a feeling, or a purpose, or an attitudinal statement--
and we can get at it. But the other way, it's over with, isn't it?

They're trying to find-out what stage it is.

TAFFEE: Do you foresee any possibility of a marriage between

Kohlberg's ideas and values clarification?

RATHS: I can see where people like you or some others will pick-up
a relationship. But I don't see Kohlberg, let us say, wanting to
share this field with any wave of values clarification. And yet,

I'm bound to say that if he's going to get anywhere with it at all,

225

he's got to get to the stage of having people interact with the
students. He's got to get there or there's nothing. In other
words, if he stays with that stage thing, as Stewart probably
sensed, it's something like waving a thermometer over this room,
and finding out it's a little higher over here than it is over
there. I don't know what you do when you've found that out.

In this whole field, there is a great danger that was

present in the Phi Delta Kappan articles, and that deals with the

 

attributions which one group of people will make about another

21 I've hedged here, by saying such

group of people in the field.
words as "probably," and "maybe" and so forth. And I would say I
don't see that there will be much of a coming together of these.
But to attribute to, ah, let's say to the values clarification
people: who "know" values, and our "cultural relativism" in the
sense that we tolerate everything. . . .

Now let me speak about that for a minute. It might be
worthwhile. If you were to tell me that Christ will be at stage
Seven, you know, I might say something like: "Well, what is stage
'Seven?'" And you would say: "Gee, I don't know exactly, but it's
higher than Six.“ And I would say, "Let's imagine together what
could be higher than Six." He'd stumble around that for a while,
and say: "Well, you know, if you believe that it's going to be
higher than Six, and yet we don't know what Seven would be about,

why would you seek-out this honor for him in this particular view?"

And then you would tell me that he is "perfect" and so on, and so

 

‘2‘See the June, 1975 issue of the Phi Delta Kagpan.

226

on. Well, I don't think that my willingness to talk with you
about this, and not to reject you, is evidence that I have accepted
your values. There is a difference between accepting you as a
human being and respecting you and agreeing with your value-type
statements. And because I'm listening to you, somebody else says:
"He doesn't have any values of his own! He tolerates everything!"
Now that's cultural relativism again. How do they get a basis for
making that attribution? Here I am, trying to respect twenty-five
kids in the room. Twenty-five kids with maybe twenty-five different
backgrounds. Maybe some of them with traumatic experiences in one
or another of those areas. And when a person says he hates so and
so, and I find out that he's had some very unhappy experiences with
a particular group, I think "Gee, if they had done that to me, I
might hate them too." And somebody listening on the side says:
"My God, listen to him! He doesn't have any values!" And what I
am doing is to try to see why this person holds them, and as I get
the evidence for it, I try to make some kind of supporting statement
to him. I don't think that it means I am value-less in this area.
But the attributions keep being made, and the people in so-called
v.c. or the value clarifying area are like this, or are like that,
or something. . . . And I don't see where they get the evidence to
say this.

Now you have been very kind today in listening to me. Now
I don't make the assumption that you've agreed with everything I
said. or that you have no values in this whole field. I couldn't

do that; could I, without just rank attributing? Attributions are

227

all right if accompanying them are such words as: "It seemed to
me when I was talking with him he appeared to me . . ." or "There
is a likelihood that this is . . ." but, for goodness' sake, to

make rather positive statements and generalizations about this. . . .

TAFFEE: In the few minutes that we have left, Dr. Raths, tell me
please, in what ways has values clarification touched or changed

your life?

RATHS: I think there's been one very dramatic thing which has
operated in my life: I would say as many as perhaps twenty times
in my lifetime, people have come up to me and spoken to me about
something. I'm going to give you maybe one or two examples.

One of the examples that I used throughout the forties and
fifties was the business of saying to a small group of people:
"Would you write down on a piece of paper some of the things that
you're going to be doing this weekend?” I'd give them three or
four minutes. And then I would say to them: "Now I'm going to
ask you to do something about your own paper. Put an "X" in front
of every statement in which you can't wait for Saturday and Sunday
to come." Nell, over and over again, there were no X's. And I
would take the ball and say: "Whose life are you leading? Is it
possible for you to make decisions, or would you say you can't?"
Pretty soon it would be "Aren't there some things you really want
to do, or have wanted to do, or something?"

1 Hell, I remember rather distinctly for instance, one

fellow. And about a month after that little meeting he said:

228

"You know. I have I really changed my life." And I said, "tell
me about it." And he said, "Well, you know, ever since I really
have been going to college and have worked, and I am now a teacher,
I've wanted to play some musical instrument. And see now, I would
always have some reasons for putting it off. You know, 'my wife
needs this, the kids need that, the car needs this.‘ You know,
after that session I went home and talked with my wife for a long
time, and I began to tell her how much I really wanted to play a
musical instrument. And as soon as she heard it, she marched me
downtown and, by golly, I bought one! And I've been playing it,
and it's been wonderful!" Nell. . . .

I remember being in a very upward middle class neighborhood
in Westchester county, and I had agreed to go there, something like
ten times, to talk about values. And it got near the end of those
lessons and I said: "You know, this week and next week, I'm going
to ask each of you to tell me about some student that you have been
working with a little more than with some other student, and what
has happened with respect to clarifying as you see it." So I just
happened to say, "Joe, will you start us off?"

And Joe got up, and began to talk about himself, and I
interrupted him and said: "You know, Joe, this is very interesting
and I know talking about yourself is good, and yet my immediate
concern is your contacts with the students, and not what's happened
to you." And he said: "You just let me go ahead." And you know,
this fellow told some really heart-throbbing things about things

that were happening to him, his wife, and his older daughter. It

229

came out so nicely. And he went on to say that at first he thought
this whole thing was crap, that we were doing, but he began to relate
it to his family situation. And he began to ask his wife and his
older daughter the questions that we thought he was asking of his
students in his class. And he described this whole thing, and the
resolutions that had happened. . . .

I remember a boy, who was about 6'2". You could tell by
his whole disposition that he was probably from a working class
family. And I had agreed to take a group of seniors and talk have
a dozen times. No credit for them. No credit for me. Well, this
fellow was in this group, and I noticed his face light up a number
of times. Well, it was over with, and a year went by, and I looked
up in my office one day, and there he stood, with a naval uniform
on. And I got up and held out my hand, and said: "Hi.“ And he
said: "You remember?" And I said "yeah." He said "I just want
to tell you that, you know those meetings? That was the most
important thing that happened to me in my college education." So
I said, of’course: "Sit down and tell me about it." Well he said,
"You know, I was over there in Brooklyn. I didn't know a heck of
a lot about life. I got on a ship, and as somebody began telling
me about a grip that he had, I would start asking some of these
questions. In three or four months I had a dozen people coming
to we, and after they left they would say 'thanks.‘ Honestly,

that's all I did was to ask them." After a while he said, "See,

230

I want to thank you." I replied: "You didn't see the connection
here at that time, did you? That's all I did, was to ask ygg,"

Well, one night Anna Burrell and I were going home from the
Navy district in Brooklyn. He just got out of a school in which
we had been working with a small group of teachers, and a man
accosted us, a very good-looking, nicely dressed fellow. It turned
out that he was the husband of one of the teachers in this little
group we were working with. And he said: "Man I'm lucky. I
came here to meet with you people," and he said, "I evidently just
made it. Would you go over and have a drink with me some place
before you go home?" So we said yes. He said: "I'm going to tell
you some things, and I just hope they're confidential." And he
went on to say how he and his wife were just about to break-up,
and how this woman had changed during that semester. He said: "I
don't know what the heck you people do, but honestly, she's a
different woman. Both of us are much happier, and we're just
getting along. She seems to be able to listen to me, and I think
she's taught me to listen to her."

Well now, what am I saying to you in answer to your question?
Is it the audience approval? No. It isn't a questionnaire type of
response that I'm talking about, or having a student tell you before
the grades are given how much she enjoyed the course. There have
been a number of cases where people have just said: "By golly, ya
know, it really shook me." I think this is what has had the most

meaning for me: that the process could have such an impact.

231

Now, on my own life? I'll give you an example from two
weeks ago or three. . . .
(At this point, Dr. Raths asked that the recorder be turned off,
so he could relate a confidential incident, which dealt with a
professional situation in which he took a particular value stance.
Due to its sensitive nature, he thought it best that, at this
time, it not become a public issue, not because of any unwillingness
to "publicly affirm" hi§_stance, but to protect the privacy of others

involved. We resumed taping at a later point.)

RATHS: I think that when many people remain quiet in a choice
situation, it isn't so much because they are afraid to speak, as
it is they don't know what they believe, not having seen clearly,
through life or living and experiences and reading, where they
stand. They remain mute. Now all too commonly, it is said about
them that they're afraid to talk. Now the fear, as I see it, may
be there, but the fear, I think, is more related to that if they
talk, they wouldn't know what they were talking about.< It was
that they weren't clear.

(For some unexplainable reason, the last two minutes or so of our
conversation was inaudible on the recording. What Dr. Raths said
may be summarized as follows: In a number of situations during
his lifetime, he has been able to speak-out on certain issues, many
of them controversial, not because he was particularly brave, but
because he had become clearer about what it was that he believed

and was willing to take action on it.

232

Our interview was terminated at that point, so that Dr.

Raths could keep a pressing engagement.)

APPENDIX F

INTERVIEW WITH MERRILL HARMIN

233

INTERVIEW WITH MERRILL HARMIN

TAFFEE: How was it that you became involved with values clarifi-

cation?

HARMIN: Simple. Raths had been a teacher of mine and Sid's, and

he wanted to write a book about values but wanted some help with it.1
And he spoke to Sid, Sid spoke to me, and then we--Sid and I--agreed
to help him, and the three of us did it. And although I had been
using it--let's see, this was written. . . . Sid and I had both

been conducting values workshops, as a matter of fact, bgfgrg_that.

Now, where am I? What was your question? You want a chronology of

it?
TAFFEE: Sure, if you'd like.

HARMIN: Sid and I both were graduate students of his in the late
fifties, and then he went to work in some small college in New
Jersey and I went to work at Rutgers. And Rutgers had some human
relations workshops which at that time were concerned mostly with
inter-group relations, inter-religious problems, inter-racial
problems and such. And I took over those human relations work-
shops and tried to make them practical as opposed to just "talking
about." And one of the things we included was a whole series of
Raths' theories on values, on emotions, and on thinking--somewhat,

plus some group dynamics type of things. So Sid and I started

 

1The book that resulted was Values and Teaching by Louis E.
Raths, Merrill Harmin & Sidney B. Simon. -

234

235

teaching these human relations workshops in 1962-63. And then

Raths asked us to help with the book. So that's how it started.

TAFFEE: I see. Since those late fifties and early sixties, in what
ways have you noticed values clarification enter and affect your own

life?

HARMIN: Not much at all. Except that professionally giving me a
huge exposure and advantage. But practically speaking, in terms
of my own life, it hasn't. That is, if I had gotten well known

through group dynamics, it would have had the same impact.

TAFFEE: I see. In many cases, I guess I have seen people who
attribute to values clarification, sort of a "shaft of light" that
came upon them and has pointed them in all sorts of different

directions. . . .
HARIM: Not me. Mine was purely professional.

TAFFEE: Well then, as a leader in different workshops about the
country, I'm sure that you get some inkling as to whether it is

affecting the lives of those people in the workshops.

HARMIN: Yes, it is. As you said, that "shaft of light" impact

on some, but that's not only rare, I mean that's like, maybe, oh,

I would say less than ten per cent. For the larger proportion it's
a reaffirmation of some things that they have sensed, but not been

able to express. Reaffirmation of the connection between thought,

and feeling and actions essentially. It's an occasion to look at

236

themselves in a safe, comfortable way, and the ability to look at
issues in a moderately relaxed, open-minded fashion. So it's a
freeing and a supporting and an encouraging thing for the majority

I suspect.
TAFFEE: Is that how it is for you?

HARMIN: No. Why it hasn't had much of an impact on me is because
I was that way before that. I was comfortable with the theory
because it fit me, personally. It didn't help me too much, but

it suited the way I happened to be at the outset, I think, would
be more accurate. Maybe reaffirm and strengthen, but I would say

that was a minor role.

TAFFEE: Back in those early sixties days, and sixty-six when the
book came out, how were you, and Sid, and Raths being received by

various scholars in the community, and critics?

HARMIN: Scholars by and large ignored us. It didn't seem like a
scholarly work. Critics essentially ignored us, because in the
early days it wasn't significant. So it wasn't worth attending to.

We were first noticed by teachers, for when we offered help:

practical, classroom-type help.
TAFFEE: How is that different than 1976?

HARMIN: Well now we're very well known, so that we attract anybody
who teaches the area, and feels then they have to react to us.

That's reasonable enough. So we get a lot of criticism, a lot of

237

attention. Some of it positive, some of it negative. I'm not sure

what you want.

TAFFEE: Could you maybe list some of the positive criticisms that

you hear?

HARMIN: Positive reactions we get have to do with our practicality:
that we offer workable methods for teachers in the moral domain,

practical benefits.

TAFFEE: How about the other side of the coin? How about the negative
stuff?

HARMIN: The negative stuff is that people say it's "mushy," it's
philosophically not crisp, sometimes inconsistent, and sometimes
dumb. But generally, philosophically they say it doesn't hold
together.

It also is criticized a fair amount for giving to emotional
things. See, we tend to . . . values clarification as you know,
is three areas: thought, feeling and actions. We tend to get
criticized by persons who are in one or another of those camps.
Very few people are in all three. People who are in all three tend
to be supportive, by and large.

If you get a guy who's a philosopher, who's intellectual,
he has a hard time relating to the other two components. So that's
where a lot of that "mushiness" comes from, because we get into gray.

feelings type things that are hard to deal with in clear, crisp

terms .

238

TAFFEE: How do you respond to those who say that values clarification

is "mushy," or deals too much with emotionality?

HARMIN: Oh, I would use the theories. Matter of fact, I would
probably talk to them about: "What are the alternatives? How else
can we approach this in a helpful way?" And I would hope to not

take a position of convincing them. As a matter of fact I would

take a position of dialogue: "Let's see, and maybe you can help

me sharpen the theory, and maybe I can help you understand it better."
So I would want to dialogue about it, ruminate about it. I wouldn't

take the position of convincing.

TAFFEE: What about the oft heard criticisms that values clarifi-

cation is a "relativistic" animal? Is that fair? Unfair?

HARMIN: Well, I suppose. If someone said that to me I would say:

"What do you mean by it?"

TAFFEE: OK, well the common descriptor I hear attached with that
is that values clarification people don't have any values of their

own, and are willing to accept anything, and so forth.

HARMIN: Well that isn't true, I would say. I would ask them to
show me somebody in the movement who has no values. I would
acknowledge that some people may have picked-up the theory and
run with it in a value-less frame, but none of the people I know are
that way.

Incidently, on that question, Steve, I'd like to tell people

that it's not inconsistent to take a values clarifying position and

239

have clear values. I would want to make that clear. In one sense
you could posit values, in another you could help someone else

clarify his own values. That's sometimes helpful.

TAFFEE: Do you see any possibility of something happening between
values clarification theory and practice, and the theory and

practice of Kohlberg and others?

HARMIN: Yes, in fact, I do. I've lately been incorporating in
my writing Kohlberg's findings, and I think they overlap. And to
the extent that Kohlberg and values clarification approach the
same question and find truths, they'll just be talking about the
same thing, perhaps in a different language. I think they do

overlap.

TAFFEE: Getting back to the sixties again, how were the workshops

that you and Sid were doing generally received by teachers?

HARMIN: Very positively. We almost never had an unhappy workshop,

from the very first.
TAFFEE: Is that still true today?
HARMIN: Yeh, I'd say so. I'd say so, yes.

TAFFEE: If you had to take a look back at that 1960's style of
workshop, and then take a look at the type of workshop you're
conducting now, are there some essential differences? Are they

essentially the same?

240

HARMIN: No, the workshops in the beginning were not focused on
values clarification. So the very first ones were three weeks
long, and had a much different climate. Later ones came to be
much shorter.

But the first values workshop, pure values workshop . . .
that was in Rochester, New York. I suppose 1965, 66--something like
that. Sixty-four? Sixty-three? Not an awful lot different. Not

an awful lot different.

TAFFEE: Do you ever find yourself longing for those days of the

week long workshops as opposed to the weekend workshops now?

HARMIN: No. We still have the week long workshop. It's just

so much more time consuming, that we don't have as many.

TAFFEE: Do you ever wonder if those being trained at the workshop
can grasp enough of the theory, and some of the underlying philosophy,
and I guess some of the subtleties that go into utilizing and

putting Values clarification into.practiCe?

HARMIN: Not much. I focus mostly on doing a good job myself, and
doing the best I can with it. And I trust people will do the best

they can with it too. And I don't worry too much about the misuse.

TAFFEE: Do you have any evidence that crops up from time to time,

that perhaps it is being misused?

HARMIN: Not so much. The larger evidence is that people don't use

it. That is, it doesn't work for them the way it works for us

241

certainly, as they anticipated. So they just don't continue its use.
That's the larger negative impact. Very few people misuse it, I

think.

TAFFEE: What do you think is behind statements from those types

of people that say it doesn't work?
HARMIN: Oh, the fact that it doesn't work.

TAFFEE: I mean, are they looking for different products? Is it

supposed to work differently in their classroom?

HARMIN: Yeah, I think they see some of us doing it with splash and
drama, and they see that they can't replicate that exactly, so it
doesn't seem to work.

But there's a lot of difference between what we're doing and
what they do. We're different people. We have different audiences.
We have different responsibilities.

I think also that in a sense that the claims here tend to
get inflated, plus it's excitement. It has an inherent excitability.
People don't look critically at what it's supposed to accomplish,
but rather assume that what it did for them it will do for others,
and that's what they measure it against, whereas that never was its
real intent. Its real intent is, as Values and Teaching makes clear,

a slow, increasing ability to govern one's self in a self-directing

way.2

 

2Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney B. Simon, Values
and Teachingir Working_with Values in the Classroom (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966).

242

TAFFEE: Do you see any evidence to suggest that values clarification
is more "affective" in emphasis in 1976 than it was in 1966 or the

early sixties?

HARMIN: Probably. A little bit. But that's mostly attributable
to the fact that those of us who are doing it, personally are
slipping into some more affective interests. Sid, especially,
perhaps.

And also, I think, the nation, I mean the population in
general is getting more concerned with their feelings. I don't
think values clarification defined strictly has become more affective.

In large part, it's represented best by Values and Teaching,

 

everything else is kind of a partial offshoot, in the sense they

3 We don't present it, you

reflect our current interests and such.
couldn't in a pure form, present it in a week. The workshop is
more to excite people so that they get into the literature. Of
course, a lot of people get into the literature on the "techniquy"

level.

TAFFEE: Any feelings about the recommendations or suggestions that

Howie made in his essay, "Beyond Values Clarification," as to how

the theory might be better represented schematically?4

 

3Raths, Harmin and Simon, Values and Teaching: Working_with
Values in the Classroom.

4Howard Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification," Readings
in Values Clarification, ed. by Sidney B. Simon and Howard Kirschenbaum
(Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973).

tl

243

HARMIN: Not particularly. I think that's useful. Myself, I'm not

moving in that direction.

TAFFEE: How do you present the theory in the workshops you're

doing now?

HARMIN: More as it was traditionally presented. I think that when
we extend it far beyond its boundaries, it becomes something other

than values clarification--more like life skill development. So I

don't so much spread values clarification, as incorporate other

theories of something larger.
TAFFEE: Do you still tend to talk about "criteria?"

HARMIN: Oh, no. And that's a good point. I talk only about
"processes." I shouldn't say "only," but mainly about processes,
and use criteria only when I get with philosophers who want
definitions for words. I find practicioners don't need definitions,

so it's not useful, talking about criteria.

TAFFEE: Practicioners aside for the moment, how would you define

a value?

HARMIN: I would say, "by the Seven Criteria." But I would probably
add that it's probably not too important, how we define it. Life
is a process, and what's important is what we g9, how we feel,

what we think. Not how we define things.

TAFFEE: How is it that the "three level curriculum" came to be

developed?

244

HARMIN: That's an invention of Sid's. He taught it to me. Turned
out that Howie said that he, independently, thought of it. But I'm

not sure about that. I learned it from Sid.
TAFFEE: Does that remain to be a useful tool, in your mind?

HARMIN: Yeah. Not all-fired useful, not one of the most useful
things, but it's useful. For some people it seems to be helpful.

I don't know how helpful, though.

TAFFEE: As I kind of look back to 1966, and certainly I wasn't
involved in values clarification then, so a lot of my looking

has been back through the literature and through other people's
eyes, it seems to me that two major methodologies that have been
used to sort of get the word out to the teachers around the United
States, have been to great amount of publications--a number of
different books on how it can be put into practice--and also the
use of the weekend, week-long workshop in various locations around
the country. Now maybe with the exception of what you're doing at
Edwardsville, there hasn't been, at least from what I've seen, there
hasn't been a whole lot of infusion of values clarification into
pre-service teacher training programs. Is that the result of a

conscious decision that the other way was a better way to go?
HARMIN: .No, but I don't think your hypothesis is accurate. I see
5a lot of preeservice'people using our publications, and becoming

familiar with it in methods courses and what-not.

245

In any case, it was not a conscious decision on our part to
choose one over the other. We thought rather, through writing and
workshops we were spreading the word. We just stopped there. We
didn't exclude anything, so much as decide as that was a good

thing to do.

TAFFEE: What do you think the future might hold in regard to the
widespread popularity that values clarification has enjoyed in

the last ten years?

HARMIN: I'm not sure, Steve. I really am not. It would seem that
we couldn't get much more popular, we must be peaking, reaching

the maximum in that. And that suggests, just historically, that it
will slough off a little bit. Just become another thing in the
literature, something like the "project method“--at one time was
popular and now is just another theory.

But, eh, in a funny way values clarification gets at the
heart of many things that have never been crisp, such as democracy,
and self-direction, and mental health. Now it's not the complete
of any of those things, but since it connects to so many central
and critical things, it might hang around a while in one form or
another. It's hard to say. I'm not sure. I see other things
developing, so I'm not sure what will happen with values clarifi-

cation.

TAFFEE: Would you like to give a "for example" of the other things

you see developing?

246

HARMIN: Yeah, one of the newer things is the increased interest
in "non-rational phenomena." I think that will play a larger role.
Meditation, ESP, and things like that. And that's exactly where

I'm doing a lot of my work in recent weeks too, by the way.

TAFFEE: How would something like that, and I guess I am keying off
the word "non-rational," fit in with what many people see as a very
rational theory of weighing, picking and choosing orientation of

values clarification?

HARMIN: Well, it's a complex issue. But essentially, we have a
lot of ways of knowing, and the non-rational approaches, intuition
and so forth, merely have a way of infusing awareness of alternatives

and consequences, so our decisions actually become that much wiser.

TAFFEE: How do you see yourself working with values clarification

during the next ten years?

HARMIN: Oh, I don't know. I don't plan that far ahead. I kind of
live project by project. I'm a pretty current oriented guy. So

I don't really think much ahead that way. I couldn't answer that.

TAFFEE: One of the projects that I guess you are probably involved
with, at least Raths says you are, is a revised edition of Values

and Teaching.5 What are some of the things you're going to see

 

changed in that?

 

5Raths, Harmin and Simon, Values and Teaching: Workinggwith
Values in the Classroom.

247

HARMIN: As a matter of fact I see very little change. I can see
it as being essentially the same, but just more clear, more pointed,
better written-~something like that. I don't think it will change
much. I may be wrong, by the way. I haven't started writing on it,
just kind of been corresponding and thinking about it. But I don't

think it will change much.
TAFFEE: Will others be involved, besides Sid and Raths?

HARMIN: No, the three of us will be handling it. Howie is going
to help to the extent that he's been keeping up to date on the
current research, and that will be fed into the new book, but

that's all.

TAFFEE: Whom do you see as playing or continuing to play some

influential roles within values clarification?

HARMIN: It seems to me that Sid and Howie, I, are still, somehow,
playing the major roles.

Raths acts as a kind of a keel for us, to keep us in
balance. We have a tendency to go a little off, and he kind of

reminds us. I'd say Howie, Sid and I.

TAFFEE: Can you give some examples of when Raths has acted as a

keel?

HARMIN: Yes. We, for a while, had focused an awful lot on personal

problems: clarifying what you want to do with your life, how you

248

want to relate with others, and things like that. And Raths was
very firm in reminding us that we should also clarify such things
as: what racial prejudice should or should not be, what we should
do about poverty and war, and the larger social issues. That's one
example.

Raths still feels keenly about the use of the seven elements

' as criteria, not as processes.
TAFFEE: How is that going to be handled in the revision?

HARMIN: It will be handled in his style. It's essentially hj§_
representation of his theory, so it will be written from his point

of view.

TAFFEE: Do you see any possibility of perhaps referring to it as

the "Raths Theory of Values Clarification?"

HARMIN: Yes. I think it might even be nice to do that. He has
been kind of pushed, somewhat, into the background because of all
the workshops and writings that we've done without him. So it
might be nice to do that. He would like that, I'm sure. And it
.1; his theory, so it's very accurate. .Sid and I have really only

augmented it and colored it, but hardly changed it at all.

TAFFEE: Is there any research that you think needs to be done or

should be done in values clarification?

HARMIN: Oh, I don't think so. But I don't think much about it.

I don't have much faith in the effects of research. It doesn't

249

seem to have made a hell of a lot of difference in the field that
I've done a lot of research in. And I don't know of any questions
that I have that need research to answer them, so I don't think
about it.

But I don't think about it so if somebody raised an issue,

I might agree that it would be well to research.

TAFFEE: What sort of training models do you foresee being used?
Will the weekend workshop continue to be a mainstay of values

clarification training?

HARMIN: I would predict so. It's really nice and efficient.

I'm reducing it to one day workshops more, just in terms
of efficiency. Not much is lost, because there's so much literature
that people can use to expand on it. So that the function of the
workshop being mainly to give a taste and a spirit, is accomplished

almost as well in one day as in two.

TAFFEE: If you could paint an ideal picture of what values clarifi-
cation might have happen to it during the next few years, do you

have an idea as to how that might look?
HARMIN: What will happen?

TAFFEE: Ideally, what you'd like to happen.

HARMIN: What I'd like to happen. I'd like to see more dialogue

with Kohlberg's people. I feel awkward about it because I've not

250

initiated anything that would lead to it myself, so that I'm not
one to feel too strongly about that.

But I would like to see that. I would like to dissolve the
notion that we're in contradiction to each other, or in competition.
I would like to see built a cooperative base so that we can help
each other. And I suspect that we can help each other.

Other than that, I think that things will take care of

themselves, somehow.

TAFFEE: Do you think, given statements like those of Stewart in
the Phi Delta Kappan, that it's likely that Kohlberg and Stewart,
and people of the moral development area are going to seek out,

or even be amenable to, dialogue with values clarification people?6

HARMIN: Do I think they will?

TAFFEE: Yes.

HARMIN: Gee, I'm not sure. I don't know any of those Kohlberg
people. I once got one note from one researcher, just briefly,

so I don't know. I haven't data to judge.

TAFFEE: Have there been any provisions made, have you, Raths, Sid,
Howie and interested others, sat down and perhaps talked about the

next few years of values clarification?

 

6John S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critique," Phi Delta Kappan, LVI,-No. 10 (June, 1975), pp. 684-
688.

251

HARMIN: No. Sometimes Sid, Howie and I talk about our personal
roles, only because we're friends and cooperate that way. But we
don't seriously talk about where we would like it to go, that kind

of thing.

TAFFEE: Is that something you think should be done, or is it not

necessary?

HARMIN: Naw, remember I said I think things will take care of them-
selves. I don't think individuals making decisions have a large

impact at all.

TAFFEE: How would you assess, in these ten years, the impact that

values clarification has had on the larger field of education?

HARMIN: I think it's been very positive. I think it's supported,
some unintentionally-~it hasn't supported the clarification of
values as it has supported an openness and a freedom, and a respect
for students from themselves and from teachers. It's fed the
largest stream of humanism, I think.

I think incidently, and I'm not sure if I alluded to this
before, that values clarification by itself, is not so significant.
It's as it blends and augments and rides into the other on-going

streams of the universe that it makes sense.

TAFFEE: Are there any particular words of wisdom you think would

look really neat ending up an interview with Merrill Harmin?

252

HARMIN: (laughs) No. Naw--I'm a little modest about the movement.
I tend to be modest about my own contributions to it. I guess maybe
that tone has come through, too.

My last comment about the interdependence of it with the
time of the culture is the thing I would underline for a guy like
you who is looking at it and its role. It is not as special as some

people think it is.

APPENDIX 6

INTERVIEW WITH SIDNEY B. SIMON

253

 

INTERVIEW WITH SIDNEY B. SIMON

TAFFEE: What are the four or five hard questions that you think
the leaders in values clarification should be asking themselves

right about now?

SIMON: How to control the people who read the stuff rather than
experience it. How to control them so they use it more wisely
(pause). What's interesting is I'm wrestling with the "should"
questions rather than the ones I really believe in.

The should questions are: Is there adequate research to
support what you're now doing? Another should question is: How
do you know it really works? That's another research question.
Another should question is: Do you think the theory needs to be
changed? Were those seven original values indicators and criteria
or processes adequate?

But the real questions.for me are how to disseminate it
with greater care and control. How to beat off the critics who
love to call it superficial? How to get more strategies developed
by people who write and ask: "I've used the seventy-nine strategies,
. what else do you have?" How to, this is a real question, how to
determine which strategies are inapplicable to younger children,
and which even though they look like they are only for older
children, should definitely be used for younger children? Some
kind of developmental framework maybe. How to see that the people

who learn it don't contaminate it out of their own rebellion from

254

255

not wanting to have to acknowledge that they learned it somewhere?
How to deal with the fundamentalist parents who feel that values
clarification should be the realm of the home?

Those are the questions that interest me.

TAFFEE: What was it like being in values clarification ten years

ago?

SIMON: Well, it was as exciting as it is now. I truly don't

think the excitement has diminished. You saw me working last night,1
and that excitement that I felt and that intensity and interest
that I had last night is no less than the interest I had ten years
ago.

But yet, ten years ago was a slight feeling of a uniqueness
of being there without many other people around. I really do feel
sometimes that the woods are enormously crowded with values clarifiers
of one stripe or another, who set themselves up in shop or business.

Ten years ago it felt intuitively right. I remember the
reception I received in classes and in workshops and in inservice
programs. It was very intense and very high. I would say there's
more resistance now, but some of it's the culture, the culture's
more resistant now. I guess we're clearly a people frightened by
a lot of economics, and the collapse of our leadership nationwide.

I remember in the very beginning, Merrill and I would go

off together to demonstrate for a high school group, and he would

 

-' 1Dr. Simon makes several references to a'presentation made
"last,night.9 He is referring to.a workshop he presented on the
evening of October 22, 1975 at the'Midwést Symposium on HumaniStic
Education, sponsored by the National Center for Grading and Learning
Alternatives.

256

present the theory and I would do the demonstration all the time.
And it was often an experience which got people enormously angry
at us, or in love with us. It's as if the spread was much wider.
Now there's a spread, but it's not as wide. For example, last
night there were some people for whom it was the highlight of
the conference, and for some it was too unnerving, they'd just as
soon have gone to the bar and got drunk.

Why don't you piggy-back on anything you think about when

you hear the ten year question because that's a nice question?

TAFFEE: Ten years ago, Values and Teaching was published, and two
of the important sections of the book were devoted to the values

sheet and the clarifying response. What has happened to them?

SIMON: Hm. Well the values sheet is very much alive and well.

I still make maybe one a month or something like that. Merrill
makes them more often. I used a couple hours of my class a few
weeks ago working with values sheets and I argued this is one of
the most useful, most applicable, repeatable strategies that they'll
ever find.

I do almost nothing with the clarifying response. Howie
revived it inia couple of workshops. Like last year at Boston we
did it together, and it was kind of fun to see what he did with it.
My own experience is that's it either something that people
intuitively have. . . .(interruption) Howie did this nice thing
with it. My own experience was that it's either something that

intuitively you have, just once you read it you say "Ah-yes!"

257

But if you try to teach it to people who can't use it, it is the
most laborious, the most botched--it's the most head-trippy thing
you can imagine. People just simply using it in the inappropriate
places. 50 it's difficult, pedagogically, to get across. Whereas
when Raths first taught it to us, I knew it was right-on. I used
it intuitively without even being conscious of "A-ha! I've used

a clarifying response." You teach it to some people and they

are always going "A-ha! I better use a clarifying response."
. TAFFEE: What are some of the significant contributions Raths made?

SIMON: Ah. How! Well, the theoretical framework. The seven
processes stand up so well for me. They just seem very appropriate.
There's no way I see to improve them, although there is inevitably
someone who says: "Well, I think we need an eighth one which

would go like this," or "We need an eighth and ninth one." I

find that not so. There's a clarity to them, that's almost like
the power of the first person who found out a way to prune a tree,
and the tree grew more powerful and gave up more apples. It's
intuitively right, and I thank Raths for that.

Other changes? I think the values indicators are as solid
as they ever were. That marvelous notion that there are two cate-
gories to things and you can look at your life in terms of them,
seems right-on to me, as right as it ever was.

Raths came up with the early idea of strategies besides
the theory. He's a brilliant teacher and he was enormous fun to

work with. And I can remember him teaching us the "Spread of

258

Opinion" strategy, and just turning-on a whole class with great
aliveness. A big class.

It’s amazing. He almost never had any rebellions. I just
marvel at how his classes just followed his magic. He was THE
person to have a class with at NYU. You just couldn't get through
your doctoral program without him.

So it was the theory, and the values indicators breakthrough,

and the early strategies.

TAFFEE: Howie Kirschenbaum mentioned to me that last summer you
and Merrill and Raths were thinking of a revision of Values and
Teaching. What are some of the things that you might think need

to be changed, revised, updated, added to, etc?

SIMON: Well, the values sheets brought up-to-date would be an
obvious one. A new research section, better research section.
Then I anticipate some arguments and fights about the theory
section. 4

I think we've learned a little bit in ten years about the
moralizing issue, the not stating your own views issue, the
neutral-free issue. I think Merrill, who did a lot of that
section, bent over backwards in the early book because we were
fighting, really you forget, that the only approach to values
at that time was to basically tell people what they should believe.
And we were fighting desperately to counterbalance that. So we
took a position farther to the right than I think I believe and

would hold to now. And I'd want to explain that: where we were

259

and how we had to fight in 1966 to have people stop telling each
other what to think.

Another thing that would need to be done is some kind of
section telling how to present this to parents, and how to introduce
it to a community. We have a section in the book on how to get
started, but that's for a classroom teacher, and that could be done
better, I know. We know a lot more about how to get started. But,

that's where we were in 1966.

TAFFEE: What about the section on values-related behaviors? You
know, the notion that those with unclear values may act flighty,

apathetic, uncertain, etc.?

SIMON: I find they don't interest me a whole lot at this point.

I would be more apt to say that the values confusion is so universal,
that you don't have to work with just those special behavior problem
types. That was in some ways a research tool. There wasn't a

person in that room last night who wouldn't benefit from the
exercises you gave us in the afternoon and wouldn't benefit from

the thing I did about shoveling sand last night.2 I just know

no shortage of values laden problems.

TAFFEE: Based on what you just told me, would you like to see that

section in Values and Teaching come out?

 

2Dr. Simon is referring to a presentation by the writer
entitled "Clarifying the Teaching Self,“ at the same meeting
mentioned above in footnote #1.

260

SIMON: Oh, I don't know if I'd pull it out, but I'd talk about it
as a potential research tool. And then I'd talk about the uni-
versality that we've since learned, how everyone needs to clarify,

and try to build that argument.

TAFFEE: Sid, if you could wave a magic wand in an attempt to
influence what happens to values clarification when people not
like yourself use it, what sort of things would you hope might

be changed?

SIMON: Well, more relentless use of it. To experience it, to go
through the strategies in their own lives, and see their power
before they use them with other people.

Oh, I'm sure their are some other things I'd wish if I had
a magic wand. That they'd listen better. That they'd get out of
being a guru, and that they always put their own life on the line:

admit their own fraility and fragility.

TAFFEE: (from another person in the room who had been listening
to our conversation) I don't know if this is appropriate or not,
but I thought of a question that I think is very appropriate to
Sid's work. How would the validation work that you are doing now
and the negative criticism theory fit in with what you started ten
years ago? Would that be something that would be in the revisions

or not?3

 

3Question from Pamela Goodrich, who was attending the
Symposium.f‘ ‘ .

261

SIMON: Well, I'd have to give footnote credit. It's Re-Evaluation
Counseling work, mostly. I'd have to talk about that. But the
validations are a part of public affirmation, a part of prizing,
cherishing, and a part of acting on what it is you get clear on.
It seems perfectly well-suited.

I also wish that Re-Evaluation Counseling spent more time
doing the values clarifying exercises, and I think they could get
to some important material faster and in somewhat more efficient

ways than the random "what's on top."

TAFFEE: The term "values clarification" is really a part of the
public domain now, and while you, Merrill, Howie and Lee Howe may
have your "corner of the market“ so to speak, there are a lot of
other materials being produced in the name of values clarification,
some of which make no reference to your work whatsoever. Personal
feelings first, but also any professional problems that you think

might occur with v.c. such a public entity.

SIMON: Well, my first response is, we decided several years ago,
Merrill, Howie and I, never to get involved in the franchising
business. We watched what the Parent Effectiveness thing was doing,
and we chose not to go that way. I have a feeling that had any of
us been freer, we might have gone that way, 'cause it might have
been one way to have some quality control on what's being done.

We have a little four page thing we send out when we hear of anybody

262

doing it, particularly when we hear somebody is not doing it wisely,
that asks for some quality control.4

I think I among the other two would have liked to have a
trademark of some sort, which would have been just a chance to
keep peOple out of it who should be kept out of it, with some kind
of legal thing.

I feel enormously generous with all the people I have
trained, encouraged and help set up workshops and so forth. I
feel really good about that. I

And I have sometimes the anxiety that there may not indeed
be a place for me, but that's an irrational anxiety that comes
out of being a depression kid. The uniqueness of my own contribution
will always probably have an outlet. I wish I could say will always

have an outlet, but it will probably always have one.

TAFFEE: What are some of the unique things you have brought to

values clarification?

SIMON: I see myself as, well, two things: One of the most creative
strategy inventors, and the other is I brought my quality of chairisma
to it. There's probably no one who goes around the country more
effectively showing people what it looks like. And I'm always
inventing new strategies, and always coming up with ways for building

on things we've done earlier. Merrill has been among the most

 

4Reference to Howard Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Merrill Harmin and
Sidney 8. Simon, "Recommended Qualifications for Values Clarification
Trainers," National Humanistic Education Center, Upper Jay, New York
(Mimeographed letter).

263

creative. A lot of the early strategies were Merrill's little
things. And they were just intuitively right.

So those were my two contributions, the major ones. Oh,
going around the country has also been popularizing--the spreading,

the disseminating.

TAFFEE: When some critics, like John Stewart, refer to values
clarification as being superficial, a bag of tricks, games, some-
thing which deals only with content, not structure, etc., what

would you like to say to them?5

SIMON: Oh, I would say, as gently as I could, although there
would be some anger underneath it: I hope you'll come to a work-
shop sometime and watch how it enters your life. I don't know
what else to say to them.

Ideas are one thing that teachers desperately need more of.
Call them tricks. Call them recipes. I like to think of them as
alternatives. That thing I said last night: If you want people to
change, nourishment is one of them, alternatives is the other.

There is a structure. If any graduate-student, which would
be a fun dissertation, were to take the seventy-nine strategies in
the handbook and see which of the seven criteria or processes they
touched, I think Stewart would probably be impressed to see how
many of them were designed to fulfill those. Or to look at the

areas of confusion and conflict. Maybe we need to have made the

 

5See John S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critique," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), 684-688.

264

structure more implicit, but I just feel that teachers don't need
that kind of head-tripping: the great chart with the diagram of
interlapping circles, and the kind of thing that assistant pro-
fessors get their kicks out of. It's just not what teachers need.
They need more specific things to do with kids, that have intergrity
in their original design.

I have another idea. I think it would be a nice challenge
to Stewart types, to say maybe they should be asked to invent ten
strategies, that fit a framework which they approve of. And maybe
in the process of trying to invent ten strategies they would see

somewhat similar things.

TAFFEE: What might values clarification look like ten years from

now?

SIMON: I think it will still be around. There will still be places
which haven't heard of it and will be as hungry for it as the people
who have found it in the last ten years. You really do know that
it's changed peoples lives. I'm sure T.A. has, and Gestalt has.

But there is something, and probably always will be something, about
values clarification, as one of the shrewdest, best places to get
people drawn into humanistic education. Although last night was a
very heavy demonstration, it generally is safer and lighter to get
people to see how to begin working on their lives, in a more
systematic way. So it will clearly be around. 'Bozeman, Montana

hasn't yet found values clarification, but it will.

265

public affirmation, what have you done about it, what do you need
to do about it, action.

I would hope that it wouldn't get overladen with what, in
the hands of bad people, T.A. does. You know, "That's your child
talking," or "You need to exemplify your parent more." I hope
that it wouldn't get contaminated by endless amounts of entropy.
You can see that to me is one of the major enemies. As I looked
at the panel last night, at the eight people, I could rank order
the ones who, to me, would be dangerous with values clarification,
one through eight. And the enemy would always be the excess of

words, the elaborate spider webs of nit-picking.
TAFFEE: What can be done towards quality control?

SIMON: Well, it's interesting. I think to make the exercises in
some ways so scary, a certain percentage in the training process,
that it scares people away who should be scared away. I've never
said that as clearly, but I think it would be very effective.
Simply to make it menacing in their own lives, so they say that:
"Well, I think values clarification doesn't work," and they'll stay
away from it.

What else? I don't think they should have to write a
dissertation on it for quality control. I don't think they should
be able to invent fifteen values sheets to show quality control.

I don't think they should ggt_read Kohlberg because if they read
Kohlberg they'll be viewed as unloyal.

266

It will be joined and wedded together, just as I think T.A.
is a marvelously eclectic kind of therapy--Re-Evaluation Counseling
the most eclectic of them all--values clarification will be absorbed
into lots of other things and it will absorb lots of other things,
as I've absorbed into the Re-Evaluation Counseling work. It has,
to me, enough unique theory to be able to keep its identity as its
read along.

My own work, I sense, will become deeper, and more intense,
more personal, get into scarier areas. The major anxiety I have
about 1986 is that out of people's fear of their general lives
they'll strike-out at anything which might be unconventional, and
that there will be some parent uprisings, focused sometimes around
a teacher using it badly, and sometimes just out of parents' utter
frustration with their own lives, and having to slap at something
that's visible.

I wouldn't be against someone who comes up with a new

theory or design.

TAFFEE: If I were to go on a long trip for ten years, come back,
sit in a classroom, and a teacher came in and started doing values
clarification, is it likely that there would be enough similar
things in it ten years from now that it would really be easy for

me to say: "Hey! That's values clarification!"?

SIMON: Yeah, I think so. There would probably continue to be the

consideration of alternatives, asking people to prize and cherish,

267

TAFFEE: Are there any questions or objections to values clarification
which are consistently for you the most troublesome, hardest to

deal with?

SIMON: Well, there are two different questions there. The trouble-
some one is the one that irritates me: that one about simplistic-
ness. I just see that as about 20 per cent envy, 15 per cent
protection of something they enjoy more, and therefore if someone
else is enjoying something else, it must be dangerous.

The other one is that relativistic thing. It's hard because
people don't understand where we came from to establish the rela-
tivism. They tend to be critical.without understanding or seeing
the whole picture. So I'd like to be more patient and explain to
them, I think we need to do that in the revised edition. It might
be useful to have a section: these are the major accusations,
let's answer them. I don't particularly look forward to doing that,
but it probably needs to be done. My doing that would take me away
from things that I do better.

The more menacing one is the parents who feel that values
clarification belongs in the home, and it shouldn't be the province
of the schools. That's so hard to deal with, because it has about
seven emotional layers that are away from the actual words they're
saying. Guilt, for example, that they're not applying their religion
as adequately as their parents applied it. It's hard to know just

where they're coming from. But they come on strong, and they come

on passionately.

 

268

The inadequate research, is a justifiable account. I think
sometimes that Merrill should have picked up on that.. It never
was my cup of tea. Research just doesn't grab me, it doesn't use
me well. Every time I sit on a dissertation committee, that's one
of my sand shovelings. I think of how more useful I could be
doing what I did last night.

Other criticisms? That it's dangerous. I have to own that
it is. In the hands of bad teachers its dangerous.

"There's an inadequate theory." I would resist that one.
I think the theory is more than adequate, although it may not look
like other theories, like Erickson or Piaget. It's been a very
adequate theory for me. I have a couple of colleagues at U. Mass
who are devoting their next couple years to coming up with a
developmental scheme for humanistic education. I frankly feel,
yes it will be attractive and academically respectable, but it's

not what the world needs.
TAFFEE: Why did you respond to John Stewart as you did?

SIMON: Because I sensed, and I probably sensed accurately, that
with him it wasn't a deep concern as it was to dazzle his colleagues
and to impress his mentors at how you could take a giant on and

knock him down. And I just felt that that was inappropriate.
TAFFEE: Were there any criticisms within that. . . .

SIMON: Oh, come on. There probably were some; the ones we talked
about that have to be answered some day: the research, the relativism,

the simplisticness.

269

TAFFEE: Are those things that you want to answer yourself, or do

you hope that others would?

SIMON: No, I would hope others would. And if I did answer it I'd
like to answer it as I did last night. I'd like to answer it with
the work. Then I wish Stewart had been in the room. I think it

would have confused him.

TAFFEE: Is there anything I didn't ask that you expected to be
asked?

SIMON: I think a nice question to ask would be: What have you
felt have been peoples' benefits from the work you've done, the
values clarification work? And if you'd ask that I would say I
just have a file full of people who have simply said it's changed
their lives. That it had given them something that they'd vaguely
felt could be possible, but they never heard about it before, and
their enormous gratitude for how it had changed their teaching,
their personal lives. That's been consistently its impact. And
something that has that impact consistently, clearly must be right.
I just don't imagine I can put my finger on ten or twelve other
things that have made lives change that much, and been that
intuitively right.

The other thing is I think we have almost no evidence of
any kind of people flipping-out over their work, or being in
serious emotional trouble from the work. That's another beautiful
part.

What else. What do I see myself doing? I see myself flying

the country more and more, training more people, doing what I do so

 

270

well. .I don't see myself setting up an elaborate network of "trainers
of trainers," monitoring people who choose to do that. I've often taken
enormous comfort from an idea I had many years ago, which was nobody
expects Arthur Miller to write a symphony, and I truly don't expect me
to have to do the research and all the other things. I write beautiful
plays, as I demonstrated last night, and they deserve to be played
wisely. There will be people who come to see the plays, and take part
in them, take them for what they're able to take out of them.

I like the idea that I don't seem to have a lot of guru
material. I like to be respected and loved and admired, but I don't
seem to demand obedience, or set myself up to give out all kinds of
wisdom and all kinds of proverbs. I like how cleanly I share what I

do know, when I know it.
TAFFEE: How has values clarification changed YOUR life?

SIMON: Hm. What I had been doing up to that time was I had been a
really creative high school teacher, but I didn't know fully what I
was doing. I mean I was just flipping and balancing all over the
place. The values clarification theory gave me a framework, which I
just think has illuminated everything I've done since. I just became
a more powerful and influential teacher. The stuff, you know it for
yourself, it shows up in your life. You truly begin to evaluate more
and more of your behaviors and actions. And I think if anybody could
track down the way I've lived my life for the last ten years, they
would see the values work operating more and more. Asking for what

I want, cutting out coffee, liquor, sweets more and more, keeping my

weight, holding my health, cherishing my future. Dozens of things.

271

It included leaving a marriage which was O.K., but for which I would
not settle for once I got clear about what I could have, what I needed.

The grading battle at Temple was right out of the values work.
Leaving Temple to go to U. Mass is right out of the values work.
Shaping my life at U. Mass is right out of the values work. Planning
my summers, how I deal with my children, and the processes about which
I've chosen to write and publish, is right out of the values work.

I just can't imagine anybody studying with Fritz Perls, who
had more impact on their life than Louis Raths had on mine. I can't
imagine anybody studying with Carl Rogers, his work having had an
impact on their life, equal to Rath's impact on mine.

(Part 2)
TAFFEE: How was it that you became involved with values clarifi-

cation?

SIMON: Well, I learned it from Louis Raths, and I was a student in

one of his classes. I think I had just clumsily been doing things

that seemed appropriate, because I responded a lot as a teacher. I

had been teaching, oh about six years by then. I responded a lot by
making sure that I didn't do things that were done to me in the high
school. And the path was leading more to self-growth, personal growth
work. Then Raths gave the whole system to it. He brought the criteria,
and the processes, and the framework that I never had before, and I

just soared from there.

TAFFEE: Back in the early sixties when you were becoming involved
with it, how was the theory and the practice received by scholars

and critics in the community?

272

SIMON: I think it was mostly ignored. I don't remember much
attention being paid to it anywhere. The people who were responding
weren't the scholars. The people who were reaponding to it were

the classroom teachers who saw in it such excitement and possibili-

ties.
TAFFEE: How is that different from 1976?

SIMON: Oh, well the academicians have found it. Like our friend,
John Stewart. And I think some of them see that this is an
attractive thing to play academic "ping-pong" with. So there's

been much more written, much more response.

TAFFEE: Are there some positive things you hear from those types

of people as well?

SIMON: Well, maybe the best way to say this is there's just been
a lot of imitation and adaptation. And that to me, is one of the
highest kinds of praise. It now is clear that values clarification
is a legitimate thread in the human potential movement. And I
think the most effective practicioners use it. They use Transactional
Analysis, they use Gestalt, they use Reality Therapy, they use
Re-Evaluation Counseling . . . values clarification is one of its
threads.

So there's just been a lot of imitation, a lot of adapta-
tion.

We get requests for reprints of our articles to appear in

books of readings almost weekly. So that's another measure of it.

273

I think a very sweet one, was that one of the articles I
wrote on values clarification for the Personnel and Guidance Journal,
an issue on humanistic approaches and psychological education,

received one of their "article of the year" awards.6

TAFFEE: What reactions do you have to the suggested modifications
. of the theory that Howie made in his article, "Beyond Values

Clarification?"

SIMON: Well, I guess in operation, I haven't adopted them. I

find the theory satisfactory, clear, and suitable as it is.

TAFFEE: Would you have any violent disagreement with what Howie's

done?
SIMON: No. I don't think so.

TAFFEE: As you look back at the way you and Merrill were conducting
those early workshops in the early 1960's in values clarification,
and the way that they're being conducted now, what sort of changes

come to mind?

SIMON: Well, that's interesting. I just did one with Howie and
Barb, and I teased them a little bit about it.7 Howie's doing the
same things you know, we did six years ago. He does them well.

He does them so competently, and he feels that they're important.

 

6Sidney 8. Simon, "Values Clarification: A Tool for Counselors,"
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 51, 9 (May, 1973), 614-618.

7Howard Kirschenbaum and Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum.

274

I'm always changing. No two of my workshops are ever
alike. And what's coming into my work is just more and more of
the human potential experiences, the personal growth experiences,
that I've learned in workshops that I've taken, in my readings, and
in my experience with both values clarification and Education of
the Self.8 So, for example, I am just much more apt to use values
clarification indepth, take them into a really deep experience,
.with many fewer strategies. In the early workshops, we didn't have
any books out, we had a real need to let them have as many tools
as we could get across in two days. Now I don't care if I get
across four strategies.

I still have a deep need to focus on skills and concepts,

but I draw those out of the four big strategies I might show them.

TAFFEE: Has the theory and practice of values clarification itself

become more affective in nature over the years?

SIMON: In my hands it has. I think Raths would have it more
cognitive, because he's really a beautifully cognitive human being.
Merrill's more cognitive than I. I seem to be the one who cares

most about personal growth aspects.

TAFFEE: Are there any other differences betWeen the type of training
that was given to teachers in the early sixties, and the type of

training they're receiving now?

 

8Reference to a course Dr. Simon teaches at the University
of Massachusetts, entitled "Education of the Self."

275

SIMON: Well, I think in the beginning we spent a lot of time on
the "clarifying response." Found it very difficult to teach, and
awfully hard to get across, and you either had a flair for it, or
it became a monstrosity. You know, asking questions at all the
inappropriate times, confronting people when they don't need a
confronter, but they need you to be tender.

So that's been one of the changes. Again, it's the idea
that so much stuff is in print. Workshops are different because

of that. You don't have to teach them things that they can read.
TAFFEE: How was the three-level curriculum developed?

SIMON: I don't remember very clearly. It seems to me it comes out
of Merrill. And yet I'm sure Howie had an impact on that, because
it was something that Rogers was writing about values. . . .

I don't feel that they were Raths' ideas. As usual, what
I did with it of course, was to put the flesh on it, in the sense
of lots of examples. I was the one who could sit down with anything
that any teacher had to do, and think up new questions, whether
it be home economics or science. So in most of the articles that
we did on the third level things for each of the subject matter .
disciplines, I was the one who had the fun thinking-up things for

teachers to do.

I attribute it to Merrill with some adaptations by Howie.

TAFFEE: Do you have any evidence that values clarification is

being misused by some teachers in classrooms?

.—
—l-...Il.

276

SIMON: Well, every now and then I get a report, you know, that
some parents are aroused or up in arms over somebody using it,
asking things that seem inappropriate. Not a whole lot. It's like
even with the very best teachers who are doing it, there will be

hysterical parents who get aroused.

TAFFEE: Do you see any possibility of kids being damaged in some

way by a teacher who would flagrantly misuse it in some way?

SIMON: Well, if they don't use the safeguards, like the "right to
pass," and that kind of thing. I don't know. I think kids are so
effective at turning-off a teacher who is bad. I really do. Just
witness how hard it is to get kids to quit chewing gum, or whatever.
They're not afraid.

Certainly I've ggygg, in all the years, had any evidence
of anybody who's flipped-out from being in a values clarification
program. And I'm pretty sure I would have picked that up if that

should happen.

TAFFEE: How do you see yourself working with values clarification

during the next ten years or so?

SIMON: Well, this June a really important book will come out for
me. It's called How to Teach Your Child Right from Wrong.9 It's

values clarification in the family setting. That's going to thrust

 

9Sidney 8. Simon and Sally Olds, How to Teach Your Child
Right from Wrogg, in press.

277

me into probably doing more and more family workshops. That's
exciting to me, to get a whole family together and have them begin
to look at values issues in their family.

I will probably move more and more towards personal growth,
and values clarification will always be a part of that. I'm not
very interested in developing things like Merrill is for classroom
teachers, consumable materials. That doesn't interest me right now.
And I don't feel the need to carve out new areas of theory.

I want to be able to synthesize what I'm doing, with what
other people are doing: T.A., Gestalt, Re-Evaluation Counseling.

I feel good that values clarification is now established. It's a
wgrg, It has a parameter. I'm just going to see where it flows,
and wherever it flows will be right-on for me I'm sure, because

I have these skills so deeply within me.

TAFFEE: Whom do you see as playing key or influential roles within

values clarification during the next ten years or so?

SIMON: Well, I'm pretty sure that there won't be much more develop-
ment on it alone. It will be somewhat synthesized. And I guess
what Lee Howe has done, with Mary Martha, in their new book, is one
of the ways that it will go.‘0

And then we'll begin to see people who have a rich back-
ground, say, in alcoholics education; we will see people who are

beginning to use it with, well--a lot of drug programs are using

 

5 iloLeland W. Howe and Mary Martha Howe, Personalizing Education:
Values Clarification and Beyond (New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1975).

278

it. I ran into someone the other day who says that they know some-
one who works for the state motor vehicle bureau in New York state,
and there's this program where if somebody gets picked-up drunk
and driving, they make them go to a class, and the whole class is
being designed around values clarification.

So that's what's going to happen to it. I frankly don't
see any need for that much more to be done to it. There will be
people using it for applications that they already have expertise

in.

TAFFEE: What sort of research, if any, would you like to see

completed in values clarification?

SIMON: Well, I would like to have some research completed that
will call off the people who say there's not enough research.

The specific problems somehow that excite me are things
like: What would happen if instead of the first freshman semester
courses that people take in college, they would have a program in
values clarification and "education of the self." Would that lead
ultimately to greater academic adjustment, greater solid, long-
range marriages and child rearing qualities? I would like to see
that those teachers who use it and use it well, demonstrate kids'
growth in self-confidence and self-concept. I want to see it

reduce vandalism. . . .

TAFFEE: What sort of training models do you foresee being employed

during the next few years? Will the weekend workshop continue to

be a mainstay?

279

SIMON: Oh, I'm pretty sure they will. That seems to be a most
effective way and special way of getting it across. But Howie is
moving, and I think very effectively towards professional support

groups. He just finished a manual.11 Have you seen it?
TAFFEE: Yes. I saw a rough copy.

SIMON: I think it's really very useful.

So the training mode will be probably getting people into
more and more communities like the Re-Evaluation Counseling thing,
having them use the strategies, concepts and processes for their
on-going personal and professional growth. I really think it's a

good model.

TAFFEE: Do you see any possibility of values clarification beginning

to interplay with people from Kohlberg's camp?

SIMON: Well, it's probably inevitable. There will be people who
will see the benefits of both, and will synthesize them. I think,
you know, how can they not? It's dumb for them to ignore us, and
it's dumb for us to ignore them. I sure don't have any deep feeling
»that if something better can come out of the synthesis that I'll
feel abandoned in any way. I really do, despite what may have been
more hysterical prose that people might feel, that that which will
help children eventually, is what I wanted to support with all my

energies.

 

11Reference to a work in-progress by Howard Kirschenbaum and
Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum, National Humanistic Education Center,
Saratoga Springs, New York.

280

TAFFEE: Have any provisions been made amongst the various leaders
in values clarification towards a plan or design for values clarifi-

cation during the next few years?

SIMON: No. We have sort of an annual meeting every summer up at

NHEC, but a lot of it's done for setting schedules and so forth.
It might be a really good thing to put on the agenda for

this next meeting: Where do we want to be ten years from now?

Where are we going? Where is it headed?

TAFFEE: O.K., then if I were to call you up ten years from now and
ask how things had gone with the thing called values clarification
during those ten years, ideally, what would you like to be able to

say?

SIMON: Well, I'd like to be able to say that it had spread widely
and deeply, and that it was never called a "fad," and that more
and more teachers' lives were deeply affected and changed by being
exposed to it, and that they had deeply changed and affected lives
of the children that they work with. And that it chased out of
curriculum some of the "boondoggliness" and nonsense that occupies
a lot of people's time, and that the results were felt across the
whole nation, because more and more people who learned to look at
their lives, and think about what they really wanted, and learned

how to say yes and no to things, were living lives to greater beauty.

APPENDIX H

INTERVIEW WITH HOWARD KIRSCHENBAUM

281

INTERVIEW WITH HOWARD KIRSCHENBAUM

TAFFEE: How did it happen that you became attracted to values

clarification?1

KIRSCHENBAUM: I had just been in the civil rights movement in the
summer of 1964, and met Sid Simon in the fall of that year and
learned about the values theory of Louie Raths that he was working
with. And I was very impressed by a couple of the criteria for
a value, in particular the notion that something had to be freely
chosen to be a value. That appealed to me as both a young man
not over his teen-age rebellion, and liking the notion that kids
should be given freedom, and also seeing the implications of that
in the political realm: that people in general must be given
freedom to guide their own lives. So that had a great deal of
appeal to me, plus the notion of encouraging action: that for
something to be a value, it had to be acted upon. I really saw
so many people talking about how important freedom and liberty
was, and other noble values, but not acting when it came to people
in their own country being deprived of those rights.

So I think those two valuing processes in particular,
helped me identify with this theory, and think that this is an

approach I could see really getting involved with.

TAFFEE: In what ways has values clarification entered your life

personally, and affected your daily living?

 

1It should be noted that the following interview is reproduced
verbatim. Dr. Kirschenbaum received a rough copy of the 1nterv1ew
,just before leaving on an extended trip, and did not have t1me to

edit the transcript.
282

283

KIRSCHENBAUM: I think it reinforced what I was doing already,
which was: continually examing my own life--not wanting to settle
for less than my dreams and the life that I prize and cherish.
And I guess I would say it reinforced that direction. It helped
me understand more cognitively, and helped me feel more secure in
my direction because the "seven processes" describe very much what
I was trying to do myself.

I don't think it changed my life per se. I think meeting
Sid Simon when I was a young man as a model had more influence on
my life in terms of specific values I adopted, or behavior changes
I made. But I wouldn't attribute that to values clarification

per se.

TAFFEE: In what ways do you think your training of other people

in values clarification has affected their lives?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Well, I think it has made some differences, both
personal and professional.

Professionally, I have good reason to believe that many
of the people I've trained go back and start using the values
clarification approach in their classes, and get reinforcement
from their students, continue to use it and continue to get more
interested and involved in values clarification, and then other
approaches to humanistic education and personal growth. So I
think for many individuals, professionally it's their first

jumping-off point into the whole area of humanistic education,

284

and that really continues to evolve and grow in them, and makes
considerable difference in their professional lives.

Personally, I think perhaps the effect would be the same as
it was on me: that being exposed to the theory of values clarifi-
cation and related approaches gives people more confidence in their
own search, in their own growth--strengthens that resolve. And
then, if they had none of that to begin with, I don't think they'd

take to the values clarification.

TAFFEE: In your essay, "Beyond Values Clarification," you suggest
some reformulations of the basic theory.2 What prompted that, and

have those reformulations caught-on amongst most of the other leaders?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Well I think what prompted it was some dissatisfaction
with the theory as a structure--its theoretical structure.

I wasn't satisfied with the concept of "criteria," because
it seemed that if criteria were to have a meaning other than a
philosophical meaning, they had to be operational. They had to be
able to say: "So and so has met the criteria," and there was no
way of determining how "proud" somebody had to be in order to meet
the prizing criteria, and how many alternatives had to be looked
at before meeting the alternative criteria, and so on. So I felt
that it really wasn't a useful concept as criteria, unless one were

asked: "How do you define a 'value?'" But I wasn't so interested

 

2Howard Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification," in
Readings in Values Clarification, ed. by_Sidney 8. Simon and Howard
Kirschenbaum (Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973), pp. 92-110.

285

in defining "value" anymore than I'm interested in defining "justice."
Working with the concept is much more important to me, and its edu-
cational implications.

So I was not satisfied with the concept of criteria both
conceptually, and in terms of the defensiveness it produced in
people when you suggest, even obliquely, that something they believed
in wasn't a value because they didn't meet this or that criteria.

And another thing that was a main misgiving: I had some
misgivings about some specific processes, like "public affirmation."
I didn't see that as being necessary all the time, or desirable all
the time. There would be some circumstances where one would not
publicly affirm a value. And just because you chose the value of
"life" more than the value of the particular belief that you didn't
want to affirm in some life-and-death circumstances, didn't imply
to me that that, say a "political" value, wasn't a value because you
didn't publicly affirm it. So I had some trouble with that criteria.

50 then when I began to re-think it, I realized the
importance of those seven things was not as criteria, but as
"processes" we go through on the way to further developing our
values.

And I guess if I--I know you're not asking this directly--
but if I tried to formulate what changes I've tried to make in the
theory, I would say my efforts have been one, to put a greater
emphasis on the notion of "processes" and a smaller emphasis on the
notion of "criteria," that would be one. And I believe my colleagues

have done that. Maybe not just because I was pushing for that. They

286

may have in their own experience come to some similar conclusions.
But I think I helped raise that in all of our minds as something
worth considering.

The second change I made in the theory was to expand the
concept of what the valuing process is. If we're no longer
interested in values criteria, then I was asking the question:

"What are all the processes which people use to help change,
modify, clarify, and develop their values?" And it seemed to

me the seven processes were insufficient to describe that. And

so I tried to re-define it, expand the notion, creating five
dimensions of valuing: "thinking," "feeling," "choosing," "com-
municatingJ'and "acting," putting down sub-processes under those
dimensions, and including all of the traditional valuing processes,
but adding to them. So then, that was the second change in the
theory I made.

And the third was to expand the notion of what the outcomes
would be if one were to use the valuing processes. Raths had sug-
gested that values clarification would lead to greater value clarity
and greater personal satisfaction with one's value system, if the
seven processes were used. So it was an "if-then" hypothesis. If_
,you start here, and you apply this process, th§g_this is the outcome:
greater personal satisfaction and value clarity.

I tried to expand this by suggesting: if you start with
the individual values confusion and the social values confusion,
and apply the expanded processes that I'm talking about, the outcome

*Would be to make it more likely that people would experience greater

287

satisfaction, value, and meaning in their own lives, but also their
behavior would become more socially constructive. And I think that
was a very important change in the theory, because it made explicit
something that we had kind of jglt_was implicit all along: the
idea that there would be good outcomes, and when people would call
the values clarifiers "relativists" and "amoral," we would kind of
feel, "Well, that's not true. We really believe in our hearts that
values clarification leads to behavior that we would be pleased
with in the social contract sense of the word." But we never made
it explicit. We always talked about: "There are no right or wrong
answers," and so on. And so I think that third modification that
I made in the theory was a big jump in terms of trying to indicate
all that values clarification really can accomplish.

I think interms of these latter two concepts: expanding
the concept of the processes, and making more explicit the idea
of what the outcome of values clarification might be in a social
context--I think my colleagues agree with me, specifically because
Simon, Harmin, Howe and I wrote a position paper in which we used
that formulation, so they were all willing to have their names

3 But I think personally, they don't

publicly go with that concept.
use it as much in their own work. I'd like to believe, though,
that that's the direction that we're going in; that this reformu-

lation of what values clarification is, starting with individual

 

3See Howard Kirschenbaum, Merrill Harmin, Leland Howe, and
Sidney 8. Simon, "In Defense of Values Clarification" (Saratoga
Springs, New York: National Humanistic Education Center, 1975).
(Mimeographed.)

288

and societal confusion and conflict, applying a widely conceived
or broadly conceived valuing process to it, and ending with indi-
vidual lives that are more full and rich, and pleasing, and
meaningful to the individual, and individual behavior that is

more socially constructive. I'd like to think that that could

be the unifying theory that could bring together a lot of what's
going on under the name of values clarification, and other valuing

approaches as well.

TAFFEE: In the sense that values clarification is a type of
"intervention," is it fair when other people label it as a

"therapy?"4

KIRSCHENBAUM: Well, you'd have to have a definition of "therapy"
to decide whether it's fair or not. To the extent that therapy
implies making sense and clarity out of confusion and inconsistency;
to the extent that therapy implies helping people become somewhat
more aware of their feelings and their hopes and their goals and
some of the conflicts which are getting in the way of that, and
some of the things they need to do in their lives to get where
they want to go--yes, values clarification is a "therapeutic"
intervention.

But to the extent you mean by "therapy" an in-depth psycho-
logical exploration, a foray into our inner world where we get

in touch and deal with feelings that are fairly deep-rooted; to

' 4See Alan L. Lockwood, "A Critical View of Values Clarifi-
cation," Teachers College Record, Vol. 77, No. 1 (September, 1975),
35-50.

 

289

he extent that we mean by "therapy" dealing with significant psycho-

logical distress-~no, I don't see values clarification as "therapy."

TAFFEE: Do you see any evidence to suggest that values clarification

in 1976 is more "affective" in nature that it was in l966?

KIRSCHENBAUM: My first thought is that it is. Now I am wondering
about the evidence for that.

Raths was concerned with "prizing and cherishing," that we
do prize and cherish our beliefs and behaviors. And his clarifying
questions and strategies would ask people to look at how much they
did prize and cherish various things they said and did. I think
in our work over the last several years, influenced by other
affective approaches, we've asked people to look more at their
whole feeling realm inside.

For example, we would ask people to do a "Here-and-Now Wheel"

5

strategy, originally learned from Jerry Weinstein, to get in touch

with what they're feeling inside and report back to the group.

We'd have the "Feeling-Thought",sheet.which is more than simply a
"value card." With a value card you talked about something you
prized and cherished, or some things that you felt were important,
but on the "Thought-Feel" sheet, you put any feelings that happen
to be occurring. I would say strategies like that, and other
modifications of our approach, indicate that I think almost all

of us involved with values clarification, of the people I've worked

*with, what to do a little bit more in the area of helping people

 

5Jerry Weinstein is a professor of education at the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst.

290

in general become more aware of their feelings, believing that in
the long run that helps us get to what we really prize and cherish.

Incidently, that was another dissatisfaction I had with the
original values theory. I felt the process of the "prizing and
cherishing" was only one small part of the whole process of learning
to deal with our feelings and our inner-experience, that will
ultimately lead us to know what we prize and cherish. But we have
also to deal with our fears, our hopes, and our concerns--and other
feelings on the way.

So yes, I would say that there is some evidence that we're
more--there's more emphasis on the affective realm. But I wouldn't
call that a major change, because it seems to me that even though
sometimes in values workshops feelings play a bigger part, a lot
of that might be due to the personality of the facilitator, or the
fact that the facilitator just chooses to bring in some things
from a different approach. So Sid Simon, for example, is very
effective at building a climate and using certain strategies, and
bringing up certain topics that generate a heck of a lot of
personal feelings, and that make it much more of a "personal growth"
experience than values clarification workshops used to be. But I
wouldn't say that that's values clarification. I would say that's
more Sid Simon's style.

Others of us from time to time might do an activity that
comes out of Gestalt psychology or Re-Evaluation Counseling or
something, but again that's only values clarification if you use

the broader definition that I've tried to give it. But in terms

291

of traditional values clarification, I don't think that has changed
dramatically in terms of a greater emphasis on the affective. It's

just we've made some modifications, but not major ones.
TAFFEE: How did the Three-Level Curriculum come to be developed?6

KIRSCHENBAUM: It started before I got involved in it. My first
exposure to it was learning about that concept from Sid Simon and
Merrill Harmin. They had written one article-~maybe Louis Raths
was a co-author--in which they talked of three-levels of subject
matter. And I think they used an example from Macbeth and the
Civil War perhaps, so it was just a concept that was introduced at
that time. .

When I became involved in leading workshops in 1968, I
felt there was a real need for more work in the subject areas, and
I pushed very strongly for more work in those areas. And conse-
quently, Sid and Merrill invited me to be on the staff of a two-
week values clarification workshop in Rochester in 1968, the second
week in which Sid and I would be leading, we would focus on building
curricula in the different subject areas. And that initial effort
led eventually to a series of articles which Sid, Merrill and I
co-authored in English, math, science and history, and then to the

book, Clarifying,Values through Subject Matter.7

 

6For an extensive description of the Three-Level Curriculum,
see Merrill Harmin, Howard Kirschenbaum, and Sidney 8. Simon, Clari-
fying Values through Subject Matter: Applications for the Classroom
(Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973TT'

7Ioid.

292

I don't know if, though, it was Raths' initial idea, the

three levels, or Sid's or Merrill's.

TAFFEE: With the exception oijour one article, "Beyond Values
Clarification," the overwhelming amount of publications since 1966
have been in the area of how to implement the theory, with probably
now, hundreds of different strategies having been developed for
teachers to use. Does that say something in particular about what
you and the other leaders in values clarification decided would

be a better way to go as far as getting values clarification into

the schools is concerned?

KIRSCHENBAUM: I think that happened for two reasons.

One, because it was consistent with some of our values, and
secondly, because of historical circumstances.

I think all of us in values clarification have had a com-
mitment to wanting to be of practical help to educators. Most of
us were classroom teachers ourselves, recognized some of the
realities of the classroom, and didn't want to be "ivory tower"
theorists and researchers. That wasn't where our backgrounds were,
and that wasn't where our interests lay.

And I think that's the planned part of why it happened as
it did: because our main goal was to be of concrete, specific
help to people working with people.

I think a second reason was more fortuitOus. That was
reinforced, that behavior in us. It seemed that teachers really

responded to getting specific strategies. They told us: "Gee, in

293

all our college education courses, we never learned how to gg_
things really, and experience them and learn how to do it by
experiencing it in the laboratory setting like we do here.“ People
come to the workshops. There was demand. We got asked to do more
publications that had that bent. So I think that kind of rein-
forcement kept us moving in a direction that we were sympathetic
with to begin with.

I don't think that's to say that we disregarded the
importance of research, or further theorizing. I think we were
all different in that respect, some of us have more interest in
those areas and others don't.

Incidently, I would add you said "Beyond Values Clarifi-
cation" was one example of further work beyond the practical, and
I guess I'd also add my attempt to keep up with the research, to

summarize it, and clarify some of the research that's gone on.8

TAFFEE: Do you feel satisfied with the amount of impact values

clarification has had on the larger educational scene? Dissatisfied?

Disappointed?

 

8See Howard Kirschenbaum, "Recent Research in Values
Clarification" (Upper Jay, New York: National Humanistic Edu-
'cation Center, 1974).(Mimeographed). Reprinted in Values Edu-
cation: Theory/Practice/Problems/Prospects, ed. by John Meyer,
Brian Burnham, and John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975), pp. 7l-78. See also,
Howard Kirschenbaum, "Current Research in Values Clarification"
(Saratoga Springs, New York: November, 1975) (Mimeographed).

294

KIRSCHENBAUM: Well, uh, both. I have felt some pride in the fact
that it has become, other than the traditional approach of moralizing,
probably one of the most popular, if not the_most popular of the
conscious values education approaches used in the country. Our
values clarification handbook has sold 300,000 copies. Thousands
and thousands of teachers have participated in two-day or longer
workshops, and brought the approach back to their own classrooms.
So I think its really had an impact on a lot of professionals'
lives, and indirectly on many students' lives.

But I'm also very dissatisfied with it. I think the large
majority of classrooms still can be characterized as places where
students are not encouraged to think for themselves about relevant
topics, and to look at their own experiences, and to act on their
beliefs and their values.

So, I think we have a long way to go. I think we've got
a long way to go in further developing the approach itself. I
feel proud again, of all that we've done in elaborating on Raths'
original work, but feel that we've got a lot more that could be
done by Raths and others, to further develop the values clarifi-

cation approach.

TAFFEE: You mentioned that you first became involved in presenting
workshops in values clarification in 1968. Do you see any differ-
ences between one, the 1968 workshop itself versus the 1976 work-
shop, and two, the reactions of people involved in the workshop,

the "trainees?"

295

KIRSCHENBAUM: To be honest, I would say my own workshop leading
style has not changed that much, nor has the nature of the workshops
that I lead has changed that much, in that I still try to convey
what I think are some of the basic values clarification strategies,
try to give people practice, experiences with them, try to strike
a balance between professional growth and personal growth, and I

am concerned with back-home situations. So although I may have
different "favorite" strategies today than I did eight years ago,

I don't use the "Fall-Out Shelter Problem," for example any more
it seems, but I'd say the basic kind of way I lead a workshop is
fairly similar.

I think, though, there are a few changes that could be
noticed in my own workshops, and those of my colleagues. And a
few are due to our own changes, and most are due to changes in
the whole values clarification scene since then.

I remember one thing we glygy§_would do in . . . I was
going to say "in week-long workshops," that's significant to say.
Until 1971, there was no such thing as a two-day values clarification
workshop. All workshops were a week-long. We didn't think that
there was any way of conveying the sense of what values clarifi-
'cation was in less than a week. So that's a significant change
right there.

But in the week-long workshops, we would have teachers
and participants prepare, once we taught them some of the basic
strategies like "voting," "rank-orders," and "continuums," and

so on, to prepare some questions. And then we'd bring in children

296

from the workshop area, and students, andgive the teachers a chance
to actually try them out with young people right there. And I can
remember in Rochester, for example, if we had thirty people in the
workshop, we'd get in thirty children or sixty children, and in
teams of four, the teachers would each get a chance to try out

their strategies they had created with eight kids or so. I remember
it started to get out of hand, which is one reason that we stopped.
When we had ninety people in Rochester once, and had three hundred
children, it got to be such an effort to organize it that we decided
we'd find another model.

But I guess that also goes hand-in-hand with what was
happening outside. In '68, '69 and '70, people who would come to
a values clarification workshop would experience values clarifi-
cation as something totally new to them. They might express the
sentiment that they've "been doing this all their lives, but never
had a name for it," or they've "been looking for an approach like
this for several years now and working towards it," and this really
crystallized it for them.

But for the most part, people had "A-ha!" experiences, as
though they were discovering a whole new way of teaching or doing
what they wanted to do. And that began to change in the seventies,
especially after the publication of Values Clarification: A Hand-
book of Prattical Strategies for Teachers and Students, because
then, we had initially thought that handbook would be of interest

and use to people who had been in a values clarification workshop,

297

and were quite amazed at how it began to spread.9 So that by 1973,
you could count on the fact that in most cases, people at a values
clarification workshop would have had some previous exposure to
values clarification. They would have been led through a list of
some "Twenty Things you Love to Do" in some college course, or
they would have seen "voting," or "rank-orders," or "continuums"
demonstrated somewhere.

And that made workshop leading a little bit more difficult,
because the group is going to be at a more diverse point, with
diverse backgrounds. Some will have had previous exposure, will
have used values clarification in their classrooms--and for some
others it will be their very first exposure. So I think workshops
have had now to be more flexible, with team teachers, to divide
into different groups the more experienced and less experienced
people, to sometimes forego some of the basic strategies.

So I would say what's different about leading values clarifi-
cation workshops for me, is not so much that I‘ve changed, but the
population has changed, and I find I need to be more flexible and

'can take less for granted now than before.

TAFFEE: I'd like to go back to the point you made about 1971
being the year in which you instituted the two-day workshop. What

prompted that?

 

9Sidney 8. Simon, Leland W. Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum,
Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for
Teachers and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1972).

298

KIRSCHENBAUM: I'm trying to remember what prompted it. . . .

I guess it was a feeling of: here we had these very
successful summer workshops, and interest seemed to be building
in them. And we just wondered whether we couldn't reach more
people by having weekend workshops in different locations around
the country. Because when we would do one summer workshop in
Rochester, and one in Philadelphia, and maybe one other that we
get invited to somewhere--we recognized that only a small number
of people were going to be able to get to Rochester, New York, or
Philadelphia. And by taking workshops during the school year on
a weekend, to people in different parts of the country, we just
thought it was logical that many more people could attend.

"Would they come on a weekend?" "Would they be able to
get enough out of the workshop to justify doing it?“ We weren't
sure, and we tried it out with three workshops in the spring of
‘1971: one in Washington D.C., one in Chicago, and one in Boston.
And it worked. We had, as I remember . . . seventy-seven came to
the one in Washington, and a hundred to Boston, and a hundred to
Chicago--and we were flabbergasted with the response, and that
fall scheduled eight workshops.

Now you see organizations all over the country: education
centers, and growth centers, and colleges and so on, leading
weekend workshops in values clarification. I find it interesting

to realize that it was only five years ago when it all began.

TAFFEE: Do you feel satisfied that in a weekend workshop you can

touch as many of the bases as you need to adequately?

299

KIRSCHENBAUM: Yes, I do. Five days is better than two days. I
find even in five days I feel frustrated by the lack of time, and
feel I'd like to "cover" so much more. But I think in two days

one can convey the key concepts of values clarification, and
demonstrate and have participants experience some fifteen basic
strategies. And what with the literature that is available to

them after the workshop, I do think that's enough. If they haven't
had a good experience with it in two days, I sincerely doubt that

five days would make that much of a difference.

TAFFEE: Do you have any evidence that values clarification is

being misused by teachers in schools?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Anecdotal evidence. People come to us with stories
now and then.

I can recall someone telling me how somebody did an in-
service program in their school, and the next day fourteen different
teachers had their kids do "Twenty Things You Love to Do." And
that's a misuse of values clarification, although I don't want to
blame the teachers in this case.

Other times you hear about teachers who say: "O.K., every-
body take out a piece of paper and make a list of one to twenty,"
and the kids just have no context, no understanding of "why we're
doing this, what's the point of it?" And unless there's a real
good relationship with the teacher to begin with, they're kind of

turned-off by the whole thing.

300

Other teachers who use it on trivial subjects so often that
it kind of comes to be seen as just "filler"--yeah, there's that
kind of evidence.

I don't know how widespread it is.

TAFFEE: Have you had any thoughts in the area of "quality control?"
How you could better control the quality of the people you train,
so that you can in turn control the quality of the values clarifying

experiences of their students?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Let me talk on that for a little length.

This has been a difficult issue, that of quality control,
for us for many years. And we've gone back and forth along a
continuum from the strictest kind of control of the dissemination
of values clarification, to relatively no control. We've gone
back and forth in terms of our thinking on it.

Our behavior has always tended to be rather permissive.
I guess we made our first crucial decision when we published the
Values Clarification Handbook.10 We recognized, although we thought
it was a step towards quality control in the sense that those who
were in our workshops would then be able to get some written
materials that they could bring back home, and that would help
them implement the approach more effectively, we never realized
how much the materials would spread to people who had never been

in a workshop, or been exposed to much of the theory. And so in

 

'OIoid.

301

a sense that was a decision, although not a fully aware decision,
to give it away. And in effect, we said in the Introduction to
that book: "Use the strategies, change them, adapt them, create
your own." Our tone was then, and always was before and since,
one of wanting to give people some tools and encourage them to go
out and use them.

So I guess that tone, that publication, had the effect of
unleashing to the educational public a series of strategies that
looked very easy to use, and which looked attractive to use, but
which were actually more difficult to use effectively. So the
early work and publications were permissive in terms of: we let
go of the product, and just hoped somehow, that it would turn out
all right.

In hindsight, we could see how quickly it spread and people
began to use it, and if we had known that theg, maybe we would have
done it differently. But I don't want to be too hard on us then,
it seemed like the way to go.

We made some decisions in 1971, '72 and '73, ngt to
franchise values clarification, not to certify instructors as the
Parent Effectiveness Training people were doing, or as the Magic
Circle people were doing. And a lot of that was for personal
reasons. We just didn't want to spend our lives trying to adminis-
ter a system of certification and franchising, or financial rela-
tionships. We wanted to develop new materials, new approaches.
Some of us wanted to integrate values clarification with other

approaches. We saw the dilemmas of maintaining an organizational

302

structure as being very stultifying personally and professionally
for us. So we chose not to institute quality control measures that
would have come out of certification.

We did begin doing "advanced" values clarification work-
shops, where one component was training and the quality of training,
but I don't think that was ever a major effect, so I wouldn't say
that was really an effective quality control measure there. I
think the first concrete thing we did was, in 1973 I guess, draw-
up a letter in which we listed our recommendations for values
clarification trainers and formed a Values Clarification Trainers
Network, in which we hoped people would stay in touch with each
other and therefore continue to improve their work by this affili—
ation.n’12

I think in a small way that's been nice and somewhat effec-
tive, but I don't really think its addressed the major problem. I
think some people probably have really taken these recommendations
seriously and acted on them, and the 120 members or so of the Values
Clarification Trainers Network have been helped by the various
materials they've received, but I think that's just scratched the
surface of the people who are involved in values clarification

training. And for the most part, I would venture to say most people

 

nHoward Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Merrill Harmin,and Sidney 8.
Simon, “Recommended Qualifications for Values Clarification Trainers"
(Upper Jay, New York: National Humanistic Education Center, August,
1975) (Mineographed letter).

12Information concerning the Values Clarification Trainers
Network may be obtained by writing the National Humanistic Education
Center, 110 Spring Street, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. 12866.

303

doing values clarification training now aren't even aware of a
trainer's network.

So, I think the area of quality control is something we
chose not to exercise a control over. We hope to exercise some
influence, but its really gotten beyond us. Values clarification
now is something which I think is very much in the public domain.
And fairly soon after we published the Values Clarification Hand-

13 within a year after we published that, I don't think we

9201..
could have controlled it if we wanted to. I think that decision
would have to have been made back at a time when we just had no
idea of how popular values clarification was going to become.
Perhaps too late, I've just written a book which I hope
will be very useful in terms of quality influence, that addresses
itself to training in values clarification. It's called: ‘Ag
Advanced Values Clarification Handbook for Trainers and Experi-

14 It has much longer sections on theory than have

enced Teachers.
ever been published on values clarification; and research; and

much more on principles of workshop design and different models
for values clarification experiences and workshops; thoughts on
integrating values clarification into curriculum; and some looks

at values clarification, past, present and future; as well as an

updated annotated bibliography on values clarification. That, I

 

13
2P.- sis.

14Dr. Kirschenbaum has informed me that the book is still
in the working stages, and no publishing house or publication date
was available for notation at this time.

Sidney 8. Simon, Leland W. Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum,

304

think, together will be the most thoughtful work on values clarifi-
cation, in terms of looking at it beyond the introductory level of
practical classroom strategies. So I hope that's going to have some
influence on the quality of the work in the area, but I guess I

don't have any real illusions about that either.

TAFFEE: Have you seen a difference in 1976 as opposed to 1966, in

reactions to values clarification by scholars?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Yes. I think the initial reaction was quite positive.
I can recall one fellow at Temple University, who was very research

oriented, who said: "Oh, yeah, Values and Teaching.15 I read that.

 

I really liked how they looked at research at the end." And the
sense that I got from him and others was that: "Hey. Here's some
people who are pioneers in trying to work with values in the class-
room, and not only interested in it from a classroom, "techniquey"
point of view, but they're interested in the research that's been
done and that needs to be done on it."

And I think that was Raths' influence. He was really
interested in the research angle, and encouraged his students to
work in that area. And I think then, that in the sixties, that was
very well respected.

I think by the time the seventies hit, and people saw that
values clarification workshops were being widely attended, and

they imagined that people were making money on the approach, and

 

‘ 15Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney 8. Simon, Values
and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom (Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Co., 1966).

305

they didn't see much further work in the area of research or the
theory--the scholarly community began to be down on values
clarification. Kohlberg's work had become more popular. Other
valuing approaches were being developed. And I think they saw
values clarification as superficial and without a theoretical and
research base. And I think they were both right and wrong.

I think they tended to underestimate values clarification.
I think if you were aware of all the work in the research and the
theory that was done . . . but I think they were also right in seeing
the great emphasis on techniques and classroom methods in values
clarification. So that there was reasons to make some criticiSms.

I think also, part of the phenomenon was the "ivory tower"
criticizing the "practical field workers." So I'm trying to
indicate that I think some of the criticisms was justified, other
parts of it was exaggerated.

It reached its height in 1975, I think, with every edu-
cational journal coming out with some article critical of values
clarification. I don't know what the effects of that were, but I
also have been in touch with many of the people who have written
these critical articles, and find that they're quite open to dialogue
and recognize that values clarification does have something to
contribute. So it seems to me that the pendulum will probably
swing back a little bit now. Having unleashed that barrage of
criticism of values clarification, the scholarly community will
go through an indifferent period for the next few years, and await

further developments.

306

TAFFEE: In what ways has the theory and/or the practice of values
clarification been modified, enhanced or perhaps reinforced by

research which has been completed in values clarification?

KIRSCHENBAUM: I don't see the theory as having been modified on
the basis of the research.

I think mostly so far, the research has been used to give
credibility and support to the theory. I think that may come as
we have a . . . starting around now, with the existing thirty or
more studies, and a half-dozen or a dozen a year that are turned
out--we may start to have enough knowledge now that we can start to
look at some patterns, and where values clarification seems to work
and doesn't work, that would actually modify the theory.

The reason I don't think that the theory has been modified
on the basis of the research, is I don't think hardly any of the
research has really been bg§15_research, in the sense of aiming at
examining some major aspects of the values clarification theory.
Almost all the research that has been done has taken a group of--
just to characterize the research--a group of a couple hundred
elementary school students, and have four teachers teach one hundred
of them using values clarification, and have four teacher teach
another hundred as control groups, and using fifteen hours of values
clarification once a week for fifteen weeks, and see if there's any
change on self-concept or academic achievement. And by and large,
one study will show one change in self-concept but not academic

achievement, and another will show no change in self-concept but a

307

benefit in academic achievement, for the values clarification
groups. And so in general, the values clarification groups have
done as well as or better on the various affective and cognitive
criteria in these studies.

But a fifteen week study is not going to influence the
basic theory. If it shows positive changes, it simply will support
the theory. If it shows no significant differences between the
values clarification and control groups, it's simply obvious to
say that "Well, how can you expect to get a change in self-concept
or cognitive achievement in fifteen weeks?" So I think that the
research, while useful because it really has lent support to the
theory, has not been useful in addressing major aspects of the
theory.

And I don't know if that is going to change or not, because
most of the people who are doing research are doing it for one of
two purposes: they're either trying to get a dissertation, in
which they're certainly not going to tackle one of the major ques-
tions about values clarification--they're going to take some
relatively simple hypothesis that can be tested with a fairly
small population in a short period of time--or they're doing it
for the purposes of funding a drug education program. And there
again, they're certainly not going to tackle some hypothesis that
might prove to be unsubstantiated by the data. They're going to
want to get some clear results on a few specific criteria so they

can get re-funded.

308

TAFFEE: Just to follow-up on that then. What are some of the major
questions that you think should be addressed during the next ten

years in values clarification?

KIRSCHENBAUM: I think the central hypotheses of values clarification
are long-range hypotheses. They suggest that confusion and conflict,
when the valuing processes are applied to them, will change to
clarity and commitment, and as I've suggested, socially constructive
behavior. I think that's where the research should go, in terms
of really meaningful research.

I think we should develop some new tools, or use old
instruments, for assessing the nature of people's lack of clarity
and confusion about value issues; about people's self-esteem;
about people's style of social interaction, get a good set of
instruments that we have confidence in that are relatively easy
to administer, and then test large numbers of students to get a
sense of where they are at the beginning. And then find some measure
that would enable us to assess how much experience they've been given
using the valuing processes--maybe some way of observing classroom
interactions, observing parent behaviors--to see to what extent
they're being asked to be aware of their feelings, to make choices,
to act. And then over a period of five, ten, fifteen, twenty years,
see what kinds of differences there are in the groups that have been
encouraged to engage in the valuing processes to a large extent,
versus the groups who have been denied the opportunities to engage

in the valuing processes to much of an extent.

309

And if it can be shown that the group that grew-up in an
environment, all other things being equal, an environment that
encouraged them to utilize the valuing processes turns out to be
substantially different from the group that wasn't--I think we'll
have crystal clear proof that what we're talking about works. And
more important than that for research purposes, we'll be able to
learn a great deal more about what works and what doesn't.

For example, when we start to factor-out the different
processes, we may find that encouraging students to take action
through elementary and high school, really makes absolutely no
difference in terms of the later outcomes. It really might be
the fact that they're given choices, or the fact that they're given
a climate that build their self-esteem may turn out to be the most
important variable of all.

In other words, we don't know at this point. We say all
these seven processes or all these five dimensions with their
seventeen sub-processes are necessary conditions to achieve the
desirable outcomes. The kind of broad research topic that I'm
exploring might find that there's only a few variables that are
really crucial. And these are the processes that we should be

encouraging teachers and parents to use.

TAFFEE: What do you think the future might hold in general for

values clarification?

KIRSCHENBAUM: I would forecast this as the future of values

clarification:

310

I'd say that, number one, the traditional values clarifi-
cation approach will remain a distinct and viable force in education,
parenting in the helping professions for several more years to come,
maybe that will be ten years.

What I mean by that is that the approach that's been
associated with certain key names: Raths, Simon, et a1.; certain
key valuing processes; certain organizations: Values Associates,
National Humanistic Education Center--the approach that's associated
with these names, concepts, processes, organizations, will remain

‘6 People are still attending values clarification workshops

viable.
in large numbers, the publications are still selling well, there
are many people through-out the country who have not learned anything
' yet about values clarification.

I think there's every reason to believe that many more
people will become involved in values clarification or remain in
values clarification. I think as far as the evidence that the
group I mentioned continue to publish and write: Raths, Simon
and Harmin are working on a revision of Values and Teaching; Harmin
continues to put out new values oriented audio-visual materials;
Lee and Mary Martha Howe have just published their Personalizing

17

Eggcation: Values Clarification and Beygnd; Sid Simon is about

 

16Values Associates, an organization composed of many of
the leaders in values clarification, is now defunct.

17Leland Howe and Mary Martha Howe, Personalizing Education:
Values Clarification and Beyond (New York: Hart Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1975).

311

18 and

to publish a book, Helping Children Learn Right from Wrong;
others are coming out with publications and work and films and so
on, based on the initial approach. So I really do believe that
it's not going to die out in the next couple of years. Its got a
lot of life left in it, the traditional values clarification
approach.

Then secondly, simultaneously, almost paradoxically,
values clarification will take on a life of its own apart from
its traditional associations as described above. By that, what
I mean is, there will be many more people starting to use values
clarification without reference to these individuals' previous
publications. They will start to use values clarification, the
term and the strategies, in all sorts of new ways.

The other day, for example, I came across a book that
arrived from a publisher, and it was entitled Values Clarification.
It was a whole volume of "values sheets" in such categories as:
"rank-order values sheets," "forced-choice values sheets," and so
on. I didn't know any of the authors, and from reading the book,
I couldn't assertain that the authors had ever heard of values
clarification, although I was sure they had. There was no mention
of the seven processes, or any valuing process for that matter, no
mention of the values clarification literature, no mention of any

of the names associated with values clarification. A lay person

might think that they thought it up all by themselves.

 

18Sidney 8. Simon and Sally Olds, Helping:Students Learn
Right from Wrong (in press).

312

And I don't say this bitterly. I say it as a recognition
of the fact that values clarification is becoming something which
will become part of the public domain.

I saw a phrase in a book or an article the other day,
that was mentioning a sentence that was in it, the phrase: "team-
teaching, individualized instruction, values clarification, role-
playing, etc." And it took me back, because what I realized had
happened was values clarification had been included, for this
author, among the many "tried and true" techniques of education,
which could be put in a series like that. And it kind of meant
to me that there will be a growing trend for values clarification
to be seen as an approach, as a style all by itself, not associated
with its traditional roots, and for better or worse, that this will
become something that will be part of the popular jargon in edu-
cation; something we take for granted, that there's such a thing
as values clarification, just like individualized instruction.

It doesn't mean that everybody will use it, it just means that it
will become part of the vernacular.

Third, I see values clarification being subjected to
increasing criticism. And part of this is the result of its
popularity. If something is not very popular or threatening to
become more influential, then people don't bother criticizing it.
Some of the criticism has come from the academic community, as I've
indicated. I think that the barrage of criticism has come now, and

that in the near future probably the academic community will wait

313

and see how the public and the values clarification leaders respond
to that criticism.

But there will be increasing attack on values clarification
by the public at~large. I think we see signs of that. I think
certain parent groups, certain religious groups, certain political
groups, are opposed to and will oppose values clarification because
of their insecurity that if young people are given the opportunity
to ask questions, to be exposed to alternatives--that they'de make
what these parents and groups regard as "wrong" choices.

I see evidence of this in different communities where
there's been a furor over values clarification. Maybe only a
dozen that I could mention around the country, and that's not bad
when you think of how widely it's being used. But I think that
will continue to happen.

I found it interesting that in a committee of Congress,
values clarification was listed along with Man: A Course of Study
and other approaches that were being used as examples of immoral
approaches being introduced into the schools. And legislation has
been introduced in at least three different states, not aimed at
values clarification per se, but aimed at approaches that ask
young people to voice their opinions and get involved in discussing
values, and attitudes, and controversial issues in the classroom.

So this kind of criticism will be in a political context.
And it will be solved as other political issues in education are
solved, whether it's school funding, or parent-community control.

I think we'll see some hard times ahead for education in general,

314

and experimental education in particular. Values clarification
will be part of that melee.

And finally, I see in the future that values clarification
will be expanded and integrated with other approaches. That is a
direction of my own work, and I think other people are recognizing
that values clarification has a great deal in common with other
approaches: to teaching communications and dealing with feelings,
and so on, and other values education approaches, and that it can
and should be integrated with these other approaches. I'm not sure
what the result will be. It may be we won't use the phrase "values
clarification" after a while, or maybe we'll use the phrase "values
education," or maybe "life-skills," or maybe "affective education,"
or maybe a whole new term that will encompass what we presently know
as values clarification and other approaches. But it seems to be
that that's inevitably going to come, and I really think it should
come. It's no longer useful to think of values clarification
entirely different from other approaches, and that to create the
most effective educational environments, we've got to start

integrating the best from many different approaches.

TAFFEE: What provisions have been made, if any, towards a planned
future for values clarification? Getting together with the various
leaders in values clarification and talking about the next three,

four five or ten years for values clarification?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Not much, if any.

315

The only kind of planning that I'm aware of goes on, is
each year, Sid Simon, Merrill Harmin, Marianne Simon, Barbara
Glaser-Kirschenbaum and I get together for a few days in the
Adirondack mountains, and talk about the coming year, in terms of
our own efforts. A lot of that's just simply schedule planning
and business. But we always stop and ask ourselves: "How has the
year been? Where is values clarification going? What needs to be
done?" But it's more of a discussion among friends and colleagues
than an actual planning session.

The Philadelphia Humanistic Education Center, and the
National Humanistic Education Center, as two key organizations in
spreading values clarification, are engaged in dialogue, and from
time to time we talk about a conference, or a cooperative arrange-

]9 But again, it's not far reaching in its implications by

ment.
any means.
50 I don't see any planning going on that would suggest

concrete, new directions for values clarification.
TAFFEE: Do you wish there were such plans?

KIRSCHENBAUhl: No. .I wish there were such plans for humanistic
education in general, and I hope that the National Humanistic
Education Center, in the next couple of years, will be instrumental
in getting groups and individuals together to do that kind of

concrete, constructive planning.

 

19Philadelphia Humanistic Education Center, 8504 Germantown
Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. 19118 (215) CH8-0236.

316

But as values clarification goes, as a separate approach,
I've indicated my feelings, which say that although I will continue
to be involved in disseminating it as a separate approach, because
there seems to be a large number of people who are eager to learn
about it, I don't see, in terms of the pioneering work in education,
that that's a very useful effort, and would much rather put my
efforts towards integrating values clarification with other ap-

proaches, and coordinating the spread of that.

TAFFEE: Much of the recent history of the last ten years of values
clarification--the publications concerning values clarification--
has centered about five individuals within values clarification.
I'd like to know if you see those five continuing to play key

and influential roles. Will others join them and diversify the

leadership?

KIRSCHENBAUM: I've indicated that I think all of those individuals
are still active, and I've given you a major project each is working
on. I think those people will continue to be thought of by the
public at large as leaders in values clarification.

I find it interesting that although many more publications
have come out on values clarification, for the most part only one
or two others, I think, really take a big step into new areas and
applications. I think each of these other publications makes some
small, new contribution, but essentially is a re-adaptation or a

reéhashing of what's already been done.

317

So I think leadership in the eyes of the people using
values clarification, will be given to those whose work is taking
big steps forward. I don't know who's doing that right now. I
don't know who might be involved in projects like that. So it's
certainly a possibility, but of the people whose work I am aware
of, I think certain individuals will be seen as leaders in certain
areas.

For example, Rolly and Doris Larson are coming out with a

book called Values and Faith, which is an adaptation of values clari-
20

 

fication to religious education. I think they'll be seen as key
people who are in that field. The National YMCA is engaged in an
incredibly far-reaching values education project, drawing heavily

2] They'll certainly be leaders. Their

from values clarification.
work is going to touch many lives. I'm terribly pleased at what
they've done and what they're doing. They're adapting values
clarification for their basketball programs, their camping programs,
for families . . . very far-reaching. So they deserve to take a
leadership role, and they will.

Other people are applying values clarification to health
education, or counseling, or special areas, and they may be seen
as key people in their special areas of application.

I just don't know how exactly it's all going to evolve,

and I guess what I'm saying is: I think that the people who in the

 

20Roland Larson and Doris Larson, Values and Faith
(Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., in press).

2IFor further information, contact Mr. Jack Cole, Mid-
America Region YMCA, Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Mn.

318

past have been identified as leaders, will continue to be leaders,
and others will be seen as offering some leadership in some appli-
cations of values clarification.

Some organizations, too, like the Philadelphia Humanistic
Education Center, the Institute for Personal Effectiveness that's
doing workshops in values clarification all over Pennsylvania, the
Ridge that's starting in New York state and starting to do them
all over the state here. There will be organizations that will
do a lot of values clarification workshops, not necessarily making
significant contributions to the field, but carrying on training

in that particular area.

TAFFEE: How do you define a "value," now that the "criteria" for

a "value" have been turned into "processes?"

KIRSCHENBAUM: If you were to ask me how I define a "value" now that
I don't define it in terms of seven criteria, I can answer you two
ways.
' One answer is I don't define a value. That whatever the
dictionary says, I'm willing to go with. I haven't looked lately
at what the dictionary says. That to me, whether I give you three
"official" definitions of it, it won't affect the nature of the work
I do, or the valuing processes that I think are important, and
therefore I think it's a pointless exercise to spend much energy
defining a "value."

But, because I'm aware that some people are dissatisfied

with that, they need a definition to begin with, they will regard

319

me as anti-intellectual or unscholarly if I don't have a definition
of the word "value," I would say,.if you need one, I would define
a ”value" as a "belief about what is desirable that influences us

to act in a certain way."
TAFFEE: Then the next question might be, "What's a 'belief?'"

KIRSCHENBAUM: And my first answer would be the same as the last
one (laughs), "Go ask Merriam Webster."

But, I would say a "belief" is simply a concept of what is
true. I may "believe" that the earth goes around the sun, or the
sun goes around the earth, and it may or may not influence me to
act in a certain way. But if I ggg;t_attach a value judgment to
it, that it's a desirable state of affairs or not, then it is not
a "value." A "belief" is a conception of how things are which might
not have implications for behavior or a value judgment attached to
it.

TAFFEE: Kohlberg, in his essay in the book that came out of the
Ontario conference, distinguished between "values" and "morals."22

Do you distinguish between the two?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Yes. I think that's a good distinction he makes.
He suggests that values clarification. . . . I would say

that values education is a broader field than moral education.

 

*22Lawrence Kohlberg, "The Relationship of Moral Education to
the Broader Field of Values Education," Values Education: Theory/
Practice/Problems/Prospects, ed. by John Meyer, Brian Burnhan, and
John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press, 1975), pp. 79-86.

320

that moral deals with Yshoulds,f "oughts,f what is "right" and
"wrong," what things or behaviors shgglg_be like. Values education
deals with what we wggt, what's good or bad in terms of our desires,
what kinds of food I like to eat, how I keep my room, what kind of
person I want to marry . . . these are values issues. But what are
the rights of my roommate? What are my obligations with respect to
how I keep my room if my roommate has different values, about what
is proper behavior in terms of relationships between the races or
different countries, how people ggght_to act with one another?
These are mgrgl_issues. Moral education is a Egg; of values education,
but all values edhcation is not moral education. I think that's a
useful distinction to make.

We've not made that distinction in values clarification, I
guess because we've just assumed: "Yes, we're interested in moral

issues as well, but we've not named them that way."
TAFFEE: Where does the word "attitudes" fit in with everything else?

KIRSCHENBAUM: You're going to keep it up, are you? (laughs)

"Attitude," I guess, would be a preference for something,

a feeling that something is desirable.

TAFFEE: A "feeling" perhaps as opposed to a more "cognitive. . . .

KIRSCHENBAUM: Right. That would distinguish an "attitude" from

an "opinion." An "opinion" would be the cognitive position on an

issue.

321

Ask me what the difference is between an "opinion" and a
"belief" is. . . . I don't know. I use them interchangeably.

(laughs) A "belief is a strong opinion," Three-o on the Richter Scale.

TAFFEE: How about an "absolute?" Is an "absolute" a "value," an

"opinion," a "belief," an "attitude," a "moral?"
KIRSCHENBAUM: Well, uh. . . .
TAFFEE: Yes or no.

KIRSCHENBAUM: Probably.

I see "absolutes" being used two ways in discussions of
values. Some people are referring to "absolute" truths about the
universe, like "there is a God," or "there isn't a God." And some
people suggest they should not be a matter for each person to
decide for himself or herself, because it's "absolutely" true.

So that's one way that "absolute" is used.

Another I've heard "Absolute values," which to me, I get
the feeling what that means is a value or belief or behavior that
everybody should hold or follow, for reasons that transcend
rationality. That is, if I believe that, let's say. . . . Some
Catholics have an "absolute" value of the sanctity of human life,
that has an implication about abortion. So they would say: "I
don't want abortion to be a free choice for people. Whether they
want to do it or not to do it, it's not up to them. It's an absolute

value: there should not be abortion."

322

Now they may have some rational reasons for it, but then
there are rational reasons why abortions are a good idea too. It's
an "absolute" value to them because, when it comes down to it,
it's a matter of faith: a value that transcends rationality, that
ultimately decides for them that no one should have an abortion.

So that's another way I see "absolutes."

TAFFEE: One question that I meant to ask previously has come

back to me. You were talking about teachers who might inappro-
priately use a values clarification strategy by springing something
on the kids, which you suggest might be totally out of context.

Now I don't recall anything off-hand being written about this, but
do you think it's important when using values clarification with

children that you do some talking about the theory?

KIRSCHENBAUM: Yes. I'm not sure if there's been anything written
about it either.

I know I've heard my colleagues and I frequently say in
workshops that we think young people should learn the theory
itself. I would teach it when I taught high school. Because the
values clarification approach is not a hidden approach, that if
you knew the theory behind it it would lose its effectiveness. On
the contrary, it becomes more effective if people appreciate the
nature of values confusion, the different ways one can help others
with values, and the nature of the valuing process. It becomes
more effective because then you know the ground-rules, you know

what the purpose is of any values clarifying intervention. So I

323

think, at every level, children and students should learn about
the valuing process.

On an elementary school level, it may have to be done piece
by piece: talk about prizing and do a "Proud Whip," and spend a
little time on that whole concept. And then the next day talk about
sharing or public affirmation, and do a strategy connected with it,
and so on. With high school students, you could give a lecture and

explain the whole theory and so on.
TAFFEE: Any parting "words of wisdom?"

KIRSCHENBAUM: I think somewhere, it might be good to get in some

23 because I think that's one

mention of Personalizing_Education,
of the important new contributions in values clarification. The
whole issue of "How do you sequence values clarification strategies?
Do you do them in any old order, does it make a difference?" is
addressed, not totally, in that book, by saying that there are four
states: that in every group you can use values clarification or
other strategies to build human relationships, to build a climate
of trust and acceptance. And strategies that accomplish that should
be the first steps in a group'slife.

And then you can use values clarification strategies, or
other strategies, to help people start becoming aware of establishing

their goals and purposes with respect to that group: what I want

to learn, what I want to get out of the group, what my expectations

 

23Leland W. Howe and Mary Martha Howe, op. cit.

324

are, what some of the obstacles I'll experience are. . . . A lot of
the values clarification strategies are ideal for both the first
stage of "building climatei" "Name Tags" for example, or "setting
goals and purposes."

And then a third stage, where you can utilize a lot of
values clarification strategies to help the curriculum become
more personal to people: both third level teaching, helping
people establish what they want to learn and pursue that, and
do self-contracts, that learning should be a personal thing, all
through. . . .

And fourth, which is kind of done simultaneously with the
others, you can use a lot of values clarification strategies to
help manage the classroom: the record-keeping, the grading, the
group decisions, the class meetings, and all these can utilize values
clarification stratigies to keep the thing going smoothly and
effectively.

I think that they don't go a lot into the theory in their
book. I wish they had said more about each of those four steps.
But I think the message come across pretty clearly. It's a signifi-

cant contribution to the development of values clarification.

TAFFEE: How would you sum up the contributions you have made to

values clarification?

KIRSCHENBAUM: I would sum them up as follows: one, I have added
to the theory; two, I was the chief organizer and mover behind

Values Associates, which helped spread the work very effectively;

325

three, I have served as a clearinghouse for current research,
thereby acting as a catalyst for new research, and I have also kept
the bibliography up to date; four, I co-authored some key books in
volumes clarification; five, I have led some two hundred or so
workshops; six, I have a new publication for trainers in the works;
seven, I organized the National Humanistic Education Center, and
its system of materials distribution, thereby enabling thousands

of teachers to get hold of books and articles they might not have

otherwise obtained, and eight, I organized the Values Clarification

Trainers Network.

APPENDIX I

INTERVIEW WITH BARBARA GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM

326

INTERVIEW WITH BARBARA GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM

TAFFEE: What attracted you first to values clarification?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: I was an undergraduate at the University of
Minnesota, and at that point had been working in social welfare,
social psychology, and education. As part of my second year at
college, I had spent six weeks on the Navajo reservation in Arizona,
and had become aware of very different value perspectives from mine.
The whole area of values became an interest area.

Furthermore, as I went into counseling and was doing more
both in social work and in psychological counseling, it became an
interest for me to find out how to help people deal with values
conflicts that they were confronting in their lives. That might
be the disparity in values systems between two cultures, as it
was in the Navajo reservation, or just trying to sort through con-
flictareas in people's own lives.

Having been raised in the Lutheran church in Minnesota, the
predominant mode of value education that I was exposed to growing
up was moralizing, and I realized how little value that had had in
my life, in terms of the major decisions I made. It was not those
moralizing forces that were most influential. And being aware of
that, I began to look for other ways of helping people deal with

value conflicts.

TAFFEE: In what ways in those four or five years that you've been
involved with values clarification, has it had a direct effect on

your life and the way you're living?
327

328

GLASER—KIRSCHENBAUM: It's interesting. It's had a very direct
effect on my life. As I became more involved in values clarification,
and took the training programs, I began to use the strategies not
only on myself, but with the students I was teaching, clients I was
counseling. . . . And then as I began to teach values clarification,
it became even more important to me to verify or test out every-
thing I was teaching, as to its merits, as to its usefulness. And
so the things that I teach, are the things that have been personally
useful, either to me as a counselor, when I'm working with counse-
lors, to me as a teacher, when I'm working with teachers, or to me
as a partner in a marriage, when I'm doing a "values clarification
for couples" workshop.

Oftentimes when I'm sitting down and thinking about a problem,
I think about alternatives, I think about consequences, I think about
actions. I try to use the processes when I go about making decisions
and dealing with my own value conflicts, I'm very clear that it's
not "something I teach, but don't do."

Yet, I've combined it with many other skills, skills from
Parent Effectiveness Training, and in particular, Re-Evaluation
Counseling. So it has become one skill in a repertoire of skills

that I've used.

TAFFEE: What notions do you have about how it has entered the lives

of those you have trained?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: I have some fairly good notions. One example

comes from experiential data, people saying it made a difference.

329

I know that's not strong research data, but people coming back and
saying: "Hey, this worked! I've tried this in my classes and my
kids are more interested, they're more involved. Teaching is more
fun for me. I finally have a way of dealing with some issues that
I was helpless to deal with before. I know now that I am at least
allowed to talk about some of these values issues." That kind of
feedback.

A second form of feedback has been that people have con-
tinued to be interested in training and workshops. There is some
interest there, or some sense of success that encourages people
to continue to come back for the values workshops, whether it be
the advanced workshops, or those with a more specific focus like
workshops for counselors, or women, or whatever.

Thirdly, I'm aware of a number of training programs in the
country. The Y.M.C.A., for example, has seen the value of values
clarification, and is using it on a wide-scale basis in their

1 So other people find it useful and begin to

training program.
implement it into major programs.

In more personal terms, I'm aware of the reactions of
friends. I was in Minnesota recently, and we were sitting down to
lunch with a friend of mine, and when we were done talking, she
commented on the fact--I guess both Howie and I were there-~of how

unique our friendship is, and how valuable our friendship is to

 

1For additional information, contact Jerry Glagschal of the
Akron, Ohio, Y.M.C.A., or Jack Cole, Mid-American Region Y.M.C.A.,
Hennepin Ave., Minneapolis, Mn.

330

her, and part of that was because "we ask her good questions."
That's how she put it. I questioned her further, and by that she
meant questions that were not intimidating, but were evocative and
provocative, that allowed her to explore things and to question
things, and made our relationship a very rich learning experience.

That's another form of feedback.

TAFFEE: What changes have you seen take place in the theory of

values clarification since you became involved with it?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: That's hard to answer. I think Raths, in-
itially, was the "grandfather," in terms of the real thinking about
theory. And he came up with the original seven processes, and

tried to do and gather research which substantiated those seven
processes. .That research has some value, and yet in terms of
traditional research, it sometimes is questioned as not being suffi-
cient to prove the validity of the theory.

In recent years, as the theory has begun to be attacked by
people in different parts of the country who are working both in
values education and moral education, I think the theory is again
being reconsidered. For many years, Merrill and Sid and Howie,2
were involved mainly in the "spreading of the word," the adaptation,
taking the theory and making it practical, applicable to classroom

uses, really usable and available to teachers--and that's where

most of their time and energy went.

 

2Merrill Harmin, Sidney 8. Simon and Howard Kirschenbaum.

331

More recently I think Howie, of the three, has been the most
interested in theoretical issues. Merrill would be next, and Sid
probably least. And that seems O.K. to me. It seems that each of
them have different skills and talents, and that they should use
those in the way that taps their skills to the greatest extent. In
the last three years, Howie has begun to do a great deal of the
thinking about the theory.

I come out of a developmentalist perspective to some extent,
having worked with Norm and Lois3 at the University of Minnesota.

I think that my working with Kohlberg's stuff, using a developmental
framework in my thesis, and sharing that with Howie, helped introduce
Howie to the developmental perspective. Howie's work in the writing
of Carl Roger's biography has added a perspective on moral edu-
cation and values growth and development that has been useful in

his thinking.4 And his willingness to participate in discussions

and programs like the one we went to up in Ontario, has provided

him with occasions to listen to other people's perspectives, and to

thinking about them, and to evaluate and relate other perspectives

to values clarification theory.5

 

3Drs. Norman Spinthall, and V. Lois Erickson.

4Howard Kirschenbaum's interest in Carl Rogers goes back many
years. His doctoral dissertation "Carl R. Rogers: A Study of a
Psychologist and Education," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple
University, 1974, dealt with Rogers. His present manuscript on Rogers
will not be ready for presentation to a publisher until approximately
September of 1976. Its projected title is On Becoming Carl Rggers.

5This is a reference to "Values Education:. Theory, Practice,
Problems, PrOSpects," an invitational conference held in Oakville,
Ontario, Canada, January 30 through February 1, 1975.

332

More recently, Howie has emerged as the primary theorist
since Raths, with Merrill doing some of it as well. Howie seems
most open to re-evaluating and thinking about the theory.

I think Howie's thinking has been primarily in the direction
of expanding the theory to not only look at valuing processes, but
to place these processes in the context of "life skills." We then
can begin to integrate values clarification and weave together
many different approaches to values and moral education, plus
other approaches to humanistic education that might give us a
better picture of what basic life skills are, and how they are

developed.

TAFFEE: In what ways do you think the practice has changed since

you became involved with it?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: I think Sid's genius--he's an amazingly
creative man-~and a combination of his charisma and creativity,
hooked together with some of Howie's and Merrill's thinking, and
their creativity, has allowed values clarification to become a

very useful, usable tool.. The values clarification handbook, etc.,
are examples of creative and useful applications of the theory.6
These books and others, have taken what came out of the original

Values and Teaching? book, which was usable to some extent, and

 

6See‘Sidn‘ey 8. Simon, Leland W. Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum,
Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers
and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1972).

7Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney 8. Simon, Values
and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom (Columbus: Charles
E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966)}

333

helped people see how they could take the original basic theory

and apply it, and change it, and play with it, and use it and
create--not only strategies, but also ways of teaching on the "third
level," to take the principle and the concepts, and the clarifying
question and have that as a basis for a lot of teaching and subject
matter applications.

So I think that was the first change it underwent: becoming
more usable, practical, applicable, with subject matter applications.

And they also have some very fine training models. They
not only did the writing that helps to apply it, but they went in
and could both "turn-on" teachers, and effectively teach the skills
of values clarification in a way that a great number of teachers
were then able to go back and have something they could use to
enliven their classroom, to deal with values issues, and to increase
their teaching skill. So that's been a second change I've seen, a
very good method of "spreading the word."

Since then, it has taken off. It has become very, very
popular. I Sometimes am somewhat leery of that: "the values
clarification as a 'fad' phenomena," that's how it's being identified
by many. And I sometimes worry about the quality of what's being
taught in the name of "values clarification." Yeah, I have some
concern for quality control there.

I think the third change I'm seeing in practice is that
values clarification is going beyond the classroom. I've seen this
in terms of the composition of our workshops, the kinds of writings

that are coming out, and some of my own interests. Whereas values

334

‘ clarification was predominantly taught to teachers in the first
several years, a larger number of people in the counseling and
helping professions are entering into training.

I just completed a "values clarification for women" work-
shop, which was very interesting. Women, in our culture, are
dealing with a lot of role changes right now. The kind of experi-
ences and skills that values clarification can provide are valuable
to women who are attempting to sort through a lot of the issues in
their lives.

We are getting more people from the ministry, youth work,
drug education programs, etc. I recently have been corresponding
with a doctor and two dentists who are interested in using values
clarification. I've been doing more and more work with counselors
who are interested in the "clarifying question" as a means of
helping their own students deal with, not only vocational questions,

but other questions involving school life.

TAFFEE: Back to "quality control" for a minute. Do you have any
evidence that values clarification is being misused, either by

people purporting to be trainers, or by people in the classroom?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: I think there are times when people who have
had an initial workshop might go back into a classroom and use
values clarification as a means of moralizing. I think we do a
good job with a lot of people, but for some people it's still very
seductive to use values clarification as a means of making a point:

the way they structure their rank-orders, the way they ask their

335

questions, the context in which they ask their questions-~may not

be appropriate, may not be consistent with values clarification.
Whenever I do a workshop now, I really spend a lot of time

working on creation of strategies, and how to and how not to create

strategies. And secondly, I spend time at least talking about 7

this issue of "intent," what the jgtggt_of values clarification

is. But you can't guarantee that everyone who goes through your

training program is going to practice it with the same intent

that you do.

‘ I've had some reports from people, that they had a values
clarification workshop leader who didn't do a good job, or who
communicated values clarification in a way that made the process
seem like a "bag of tricks" or a series of "techniques." I see

it as something much more than that.

TAFFEE: Do you ever wish, perhaps, that values clarification had
gone the route of Parent Effectiveness Training, and moved into

"licensing" its trainers?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: It's an interesting question. Being a P.E.T.
Trainer, I'm aware of both of those systems.

This has been a question that we've debated and talked about.
Do you get a capyright or a trademark for values clarification in
order to have more control over it? By now, values clarification
has pretty much become in the public domain, so that people can
call anything "values clarification." I have some concern over

that.

336

And yet, I do wish there was a bit more control. I think
Howie and Sid and Merrill initially struggled with this issue: did
they want to spend a good deal of their time on the kinds of
restrictive licensing agreements and contracts that Tom Gordon8
has had to go into? P.E.T. has become so rigid as a result of that
kind of control. And even with that, you can't insure that after
your ten week or twelve week training program in P.E.T., that people
are going to teach it well. But you increase the likelihood that
they will. And so I'd say: "Yeah. There are times I wish there
had been a bit more quality control built into the training process,
so that people were either 'certified' or had demonstrated some
competencies before they used it."

On the other hand, you can argue that by letting it become
more free, you increase the likelihood that more people are going
to be exposed to it, and have a greater influence in terms of kids'
lives. So, at times, I would lean more towards the accrediting.

As a compromise, we have appealed to all those who have
completed an advanced values clarification workshop, inviting them
to become part of a Values Clarification Trainers Network.9 In

so doing, they are kept up to date in theoretical issues, new

teaching ideas, etc.

 

8Reference to Dr. Thomas Gordon, originator of Parent
Effectiveness Training.

9The Values Clarification Trainers Network is operated by
the National Humanistic Education Center, 110 Spring Street,
Saratoga Springs, N.Y. 12866.

337

Secondly, Howie has drawn up a letter of "recommended
criteria10 for those training others in values clarification. It
strongly urges people to do the necessary reading and get the
necessary training and supervision in order to use values clari-

fication, and specifies guidelines for adequate training.

TAFFEE: Do you see any evidence, or have any feelings about, the
suggestion that values clarification has become more "affective"
in recent years than it was in 1966, or the late sixties-early

seventies when you began in it?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: That's again a tricky question, Steve.

I think Sid's teaching of values clarification has become
more effective. I think Howie and I continue to work with values
clarification as predominantly thinking skills, with an awareness
and explicit recognition of the importance of the affective domain.

I think we have to be careful not to make values clari-
fication encompass everything. There's a time and a place for
each. And I think the affective domain is an important part of

the valuing process, but it's not primary to the process.

TAFFEE: What might the future hold in regard to the widespread

popularity that values clarification has enjoyed?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: O.K., Best guess: I'm guessing that to some

extent, there is some fadism in values clarification. I hate to

 

10Howard Glaser-Kirschenbaum, Merrill Harmin and Sidney 8.
Simon, "Recommended Qualifications for Values Clarification Trainers,"
(Upper Jay, New York: National Humanistic Education Center, August,
1975) (Mimeographed letter.)

338

admit that. I don't like to see it. I hate to see it become a
"catch-all" for everything, and everybody writes a book on values
clarification. I have some concern over that. The present popu-
larity may subside a bit.

And yet, I think the concepts, some of the basic concepts
of values clarification will remain. They may become re-integrated,
they may become re-defined, but I think they'll live on. I think
the existence of values clarification helped to legitimize the
considering of moral and value issues in classrooms and that will
continue.

So it may change form, but I think it will continue to live.

TAFFEE: How do you see your own future involvement with values

clarification?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: Well, at the moment, my interest lies more in
using v.c. as one of many different kinds of skills in working with
women, and in counseling, and in teaching about death and dying,

as a way of helping people explore those issues.

Further than that, in the next several years, when I go
back into a doctoral program, I'm wanting to do a great deal of
thinking and reading and exploring, as a way of grounding, not
only values clarification, but a lot of other things, in a good
theoretical and philosophical base. This will not necessarily
be "cognitive-developmental," though I think the developmentalists
have a lot on the ball and a lot to offer. I'd like to be a little

more open to other perspectives, and to begin to work and participate

339

in that process of coming up with a broad and adequate theory of
human growth and development that includes not only the moral
dimension, and not only the cognitive dimension--which is where
the developmentalists have predominantly done their work--but also
includes the affective, domain, and social action.

I'm also interested in taking a look at questions like
"Can we start melding the developmentalist's perspective and the
values clarification perspective?" I think the developmentalists
are weak, at least the cognitive developmentalists in the Kohlbergian
tradition are weak, in terms of classroom applications of the
developmental theory. And I'm wondering if there are not ways
to meld the two and glean the benefits of both. To take some of
the theory of the Kolbergians, and use many of the strategies and
awarenesses of values clarification, and put them together in a
way that we might learn that certain strategies, at certain times
at certain stages of development, help to move students to a
different level of development.

And secondly, to recognize that when you're dealing with
values issues you're not dealing totally with the cognitive domain.
We have to take a look at stages in affective growth and develop-
ment, self-esteem, etc.

I'd like to be involved in taking a look at human develop-

ment in this more inclusive way.

340

TAFFEE: John Stewart, writing in the Phi Delta Kappan, expressed

 

some reservations about values clarification.H How would you
respond to his criticism that values clarification (l) is a
relativistic position, and (2) that it deals primarily with
"content," and leaves out the whole other area of "structure,"
which is what Kohlberg, and associates, and Stewart, are inter-

ested in?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: Well, on the issue of relativism, I think.

. . Two things: First, I think John Stewart has been a critic
who has encouraged some good thinking about values. I see him
as being both bright and arrogant. His questions are good. I
wish he could listen as well as he could critique.

On the issue of relativism, I think there is some validity
to his criticism, in terms of what has been explicitly said about
and written about values clarification.

My thinking there came to be: Within values clarification,
I think there are certain values perspectives that are assumed. I
don't think it is totally value-free. I think we assume that
thinking is better than non-thinking, that certain ways of looking
at problems, e.g. taking a look at choices, are better than other
ways. I think inherrent in values clarification are certain kinds
of values that certain processes are better than other processes,

as ways of looking at areas of confusion and conflict.

 

HJohn S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critique," Phi Delta Kappan, LVI, No. 10 (June, 1975), pp. 684-688.

341

When you start putting values clarification in a larger
life-skills framework, I think that becomes even more apparent.

If we look at a broader picture of values clarification, and begin
to think of it in terms of basic life-skills: thinking, feeling,
choosing, communicating, acting--then I think we can begin to take
a more integrative look at the work of Kohlberg, at the work of
Loevinger, of Erickson, of people not only in the field of develop-
mental psychology, but social psychology, and begin to say that
certain ways of thinking may be qualitatively more appropriate at
certain times than others. So that within that larger picture we
might find that Kohlberg may have some validity; that certain

kinds of reasoning may be better than other kinds of reasoning;
certain kinds of feeling skills might be better or more appropriate
than others; certain ways of communicating might be better or more
facilitative than others. And as the research and the findings
come in from different perspectives, then I think we might be

able, in the broader life-skills picture, to identify what are
better ways of thinking or feeling or choosing, and that whole
continuum of skills in that area. I don't know how to make it more
clear than that at this point.

One other thing I'd like to mention here though, is I think
there's some real questions having to do with the Kohlbergian
theory, about whether Stage Six is indeed better than Stage Three
or Four or whatever.

So even within the larger picture, if we begin to buy into

a Kohlbergian model, I'd like to hold it as tentative, saying:

342

"As far as we know right now, it is our best guess in terms of our
best thinking at this time, . . . we believe these things to be
true." But leave it open to change, so that it doesn't become so

rigidified that it becomes inflexible.

TAFFEE: Whom do you see as playing, or perhaps continuing to play,
key and influential roles within values clarification during the

next ten years?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: That's a hard question, coming from the
inside view, here.

I see Howie as having the mind to do it. I'm not sure
he's willing to commit himself to wrestling with values clarifi-
cation for the next ten to twenty years. Sid will keep his finger
in it for awhile, but his own interests in different areas of
human growth, I think, may move him into different areas. Merrill's
concern about social problems may tend to bring him out of values
clarification as such, and into other, new realms of thinking. 50
it's hard for me to know who will stick with values clarification
for a long period of time.

‘I think it might be more likely that certain students of
Raths, Harmin, Simon and Kirschenbaum, who are beginning to work
in moral education and values education, may be the ones who do
more of the critical thinking, integrating, theorizing, and
research validating, than any of the four originators will.

Lee and Mary Martha now are doing something I think is

really exciting and important for the future. Their book on

343

12 which is again less theoretical and more

Personalizing Education,
practical, has begun to put values clarification in a more integrated
look at the whole process of humanizing education. They look at
curriculum and values clarification's role in it, the role of other
approaches in curriculum, building learning communities, at goal
structuring. In so doing, they begin to integrate values clarifi-
cation with a lot of other things. And it may be those kinds of
efforts that go on in the next ten years.

People like you may continue to work with it, to integrate
it, to play with it, to try to reconcile your loyalty to John
Stewart and the developmentalists, with your involvement in values
clarification. And as you struggle with the dissonance that the

controversies provide, you may do some of that good thinking and

integrating.

TAFFEE: Are there any particular areas of research that you think

should be completed in the next ten years?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: Oh yeah, you can raise research questions
forever.

I'd be interested in seeing if the use of values clari—
fication in certain ways can produce stage changes in terms of a
developmental framework.

I'd be interested, and one of the things I'm more inter-

ested in ngw is using the life-skills that values clarification

 

12Leland W. Howe and Mary Martha Howe, Personalizing Edu-
cation: Values Clarification and Beyond (New York: Hart Publishing
Co., Inc., 1975).

344

hopefully teaches, and its effects on self-concept. To what extent,
using for example, the model of Dr. Ardyth Norm-Hebeisen on self-
esteem and its development, can we use a variety of the values
skills and strategies, some of the theory, in helping people examine
and develop various aspects and domains of the self-esteem complex.
That's an interest area of mine.

I'd be interested in comparing the teaching of subject
matter in a traditional mode, with the teaching of subject matter
in the "third-level teaching mode" to see if there is any difference
in student retention and comprehension. That would be, I think,

an interesting doctoral dissertation.

TAFFEE: I think we've already hit on some of what I'm going to
ask about next, but what are some of the issues to which values

clarification will have to speak during the next ten years?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: To not "throw out the baby with the bath water,"
I guess, to look critically at values clarification, but to also

look at those things it does offer and does provide that have made

it so popular, and made people experience it as so useful. We must
look at what it hg§_done in order to capture what's good about it.

And we must critique what needs to be changed, and work on bringing

about those changes.

TAFFEE: What would the ideal look like? If ten years from now
I were to meet you again, and I were to ask you: "Well, how were
the last ten years in values clarification?"--ideally what would

you like to be able to say to me?

345

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: Hmm. Ideally I would like to be able to have
a much more intergrative view of human growth and development, with
a good, strong theory which has integrated a lot of different
independent research efforts.

For me, I was most discouraged at the Ontario conference,
hearing people put-down each other, and present their own views
without doing much cooperative thinking. And I would hope at some
point we would get Larry Kohlberg, and Jim Rest, and Norm
Spinthal--people who are both working in the university and
academic sphere,--and those working in the practical, day to day,
front-line sphere, together to really think cooperatively,
evaluate, and work together to take what's best in each of their
different perspectives. I want them to not be so protective of
their own work that they can't participate in the give-and-take
that allows new theories, a new ideas, and new integrations to

take place.

TAFFEE: What about the future of values clarification and women?

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: Ah, that's exciting! Again, I think there's

a lot more theorizing that needs to be done. Lois Erickson, at

the University of Minnesota, has been working with women in a
developmental context. I think that values clarification can be

a very useful tool on helping women deal with confusion and conflict.
And a lot of the questions that I have revolve around: "Can values
clarification be used as a tool to help women work through develop-
mental stages, both as identified by Loevinger, in terms of ego and

identity, and the Kohlbergian stages?

346

I think the values clarification model can provide an
atmosphere that is safe enough, that people don't have to defend
themselves, and therefore become rigid in their thinking because
they're busy fending off others. In that context, with the safety
that values clarification provides, I think they can begin to
listen to alternatives, they begin to hear arguments and per-
spectives that are very different and maybe of a more sophisticated
nature than theirs. Certain kinds of changes that the develop-
mentalist's are urging and wanting and seeking, might occur in
that context.

So I'd like to continue to use values clarification with
women, to begin to work on, hopefully with Lois and with others,
on developing a theoretical basis for it, to see what we can do
to help women in our own culture and internationally, to begin to
struggle with new definitions, new roles, new concepts of who
they are.

That's exciting for me. I like the idea. And so there
are other approaches that I'd like to integrate too, to work on
women's growth and development teaching people active listening,
which demands that people take the perspective of another, and

that's a high level skill.

TAFFEE: What obstacles do you think values clarification may have

to overcome during the next ten years?

347

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: Fadism and a small research base, which has
not always been as rigorous as the critics would like. But more

good research is on the way!

TAFFEE: Several times during the interview, you have spoken of
"moral education" and "values education" as though they were
separate entities. What distinctions do you see between the two

that lead you to use the terms separately?

GLASER—KIRSCHENBAUM: "Moral education" has to do with "oughts"
and "shoulds," those domains where it can be said "there is a
getter,way."

"Values education" deal more with areas of preference,
where one way is not necessarily better than others.

"Values education" includes "moral education." The reverse

is not always true.
TAFFEE: Is values clarification "therapy?"

GLASER-KIRSCHENBAUM: No. And the book, Values and Teaching
mentions that it should not be used in therapy.13
I imagine that question comes from my mention of using
values clarification in counseling. I see a difference between
"counseling" and "therapy," though the line is often fuzzy.
I use values clarification with people who are struggling

to make decisions about vocations, relationships, life choices.

etc. These people are functioning well in the outside world.

 

13Raths, et al., gp, git.

348

They are not overly distressed or incapacitated by their distress.
The values clarification processes require a capacity for rational
thought and "in-touchness." I don't believe it to be responsible
to use the approach with people who suffer from a great deal of

distress, disorientation, or lack of aware attention.

APPENDIX J

INTERVIEW WITH JOEL GOODMAN

349

INTERVIEW WITH JOEL GOODMAN

TAFFEE: How did it all start for you? How did you come to be

attracted to values clarification?

GOODMAN: When I was eight and nine, I was editor with a friend of
mine, of a neighborhood newspaper which had over two hundred
subscribers. Each month, Billy and I alternated writing editorials.
And the one who didn't write the editorial did a feature called:
"The Inquiring Reporter." And each month the Inquiring Reporter's
question was based on the editorial. When I look back, as I did
just recently at some of those old issues, all of the editorials,
and all of the Inquiring Reporter's questions focused on values
having to do with friendship, and vacations, and things of that
nature. My sense is that it goes way back to then, at the least,
and I think a lot of that has to do with my family. We had an
environment where we took a look at those kinds of issues and
questions.

Beyond that, I think in high school--I had a chance to
attend a couple of week-long, residential workshops in leadership
training. A lot of the issues and the questions that we dealt with
there were values questions. And they were very exciting and
meaningful weeks for me. The week before my senior year in high
school was, without a doubt, one of the turning points for me, in

my whole life.

350

351

Farther down the road, Bailey Jackson,1 who was doing some
consultant work with our Maryland Leadership Workshop organization,2
came down and introduced some of the values clarification activities
to us one summer.

The next year, I entered Mass,3 and in the fall was taking
Sid's course on values clarification.4 And I think the thing that
really got my committment in this direction was one particular
activity we did during the course. It was an "Alternatives Search,"
and Sid had us in trios, and offered several questions, one of
which was: "If a loved one of yours has been smoking, and you'd
like to get that person to stop, what could you do?" And the three
of us brainstormed off a number of alternatives. Then I left that

class thinking about my father and the fact that he had been smoking

for well over twenty-five years, and had been smoking rather heavily

 

1At that time, Bailey Jackson was with the Humanistic Edu-
cation Center at Albany; presently, he is an Assistant Professor at
the University of Massachusetts.

2Maryland Leadership Workshops, founded in 1954 by Felix
Simon, provide leadership training for junior and senior high
school students as well as for faculty advisors. The staff,
consisting largely of high school and college students, offers
programs in small and large group processes, communications skills,
conflict resolution, clarifying leadership values, goal-setting,
creative problem-solving, program planning, organizational develop-
ment, and team-building. Thousands of students from across Maryland
have participated in MLW's local workshops and week-long summer
programs. Joel Goodman has been a staff member of the organization
for many years, has served as Associate Director of the program,
and has co-directed its Advanced Human Relations Seminar Program (on
which his dissertation is based).

3Reference to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

4Reference to Sidney 8. Simon.

352

in spite of, or maybe because of, all of our nagging efforts. He
refused to quit. What I did was essentially, pick one of the

ideas out of that Alternatives Search, and wrote him a letter

and told him how much I loved him, and that I would do anything

I could to support him if he chose to quit smoking. And to my
surprise, and everyone's surprise, he got the letter and stopped
smoking. It was almost an immediate thing: he went to a local
hospital that had a smokers clinic--and I mean for him to even admit
that he needed some help in that area was an amazing thing! And I
just got in touch with the fact that I really could have some control
and impact on my life, and the lives of people I love. And here

was a values clarification activity that was the initial stimulus
for that. So it's probably through a real personal experience that

I began to get more and more interested.

TAFFEE: Has it continued to enter your life since that first time?

Has it entered your life in other ways as well?

GOODMAN: Yeah! It's really important for me, personally, to be
congruent, in terms of the work I do and the way in which I live.
For me, I found always that the values clarification approach,

and humanistic education in general, has been a really natural fit
with who I am, and the way I live. So, I've always felt it's been
a part of me. And in a specific sense, I find myself using a
number of the skills really naturally: I'm compulsive about
looking for alternatives, and sometimes I think about consequences

to the point where I get bruises from sitting on the fence for so

353

long. And an increasingly important area for me is the whole notion
of acting on my values, and a most particular sense of that with
regard to different social issues dealing with forms of oppression.
So it's been a real constant kind of thing.

There are a couple incidents along the way that stand out.
I mean they're minor again, but. . . .

One day, I was playing basketball outside, and a man and
his three-year-old son came by the playground. As he came over
the fence, the man threw a beer bottle behind him into the bushes.
And I took note of that. He came over and joined me, and we played
some basketball for about an hour. Then he and his son started to
leave, and he was just about to climb back over the fence when I
just made the simple statement of: "Oh, you dropped your beer
bottle over there." He sort of turned around and looked at me very
quizzically, and said something to the effect of: "Hey--you really
feel that that's pretty important, don't you?" And I said "Yup."
He then went and picked-up the beer bottle, shrugged his shoulders,
and walked on home. So in a number of incidents like that, I've
seen it pop-up in my life.

I think the way in which I relate with people, in terms of
giving people space, and the proverbial "right to pass," really
trying to respect differences in values are reflections of other

ways. That vc has entered my life.

TAFFEE: You've been training others in the use of values clarifi-

cation for a number of years now. Do you have some notions about

354

how its entered their lives? Do people correspond? Do you have

"harder" evidence of how its affected those people?

GOODMAN: Your question is an important one, and I have a sincere
commitment to "keep in touch" with people after a workshop or
course. I always encourage people to write or call me if they have
any questions, concerns,and/or ideas to share. Surprisingly and
pleasingly, many people do communicate with me after the workshop
or course is over. In fact, this is one of the things that keeps
me going--the realization that it ggg§_and nn§_made a difference
for people to get involved in using values clarification--both
personally and professionally. This is one of the important issues
in my own life and work now--feeling the need to make a difference.
Let me give you some examples of "differences" that have
been made. Several years ago, I had a chance in a work-
shop to be with a person who had just graduated from high school,
and was about to enter college. One day, in a very off-handed kind
of way, I asked a seemingly innocuous clarifying question: "What
was involved in your decision in choosing to go to college?" And
this fellow looked at me as if he were in shock, and talked about
never having really thought about that before. In the midst of
his "aha!" experience, he realized that it hadn't been a question
of "whether" to go to college, it was just a question of "which"
college. It turned out that he did some more thinking, and wrote
me a letter after his freshman year, and said that he was deciding

to take a year off, and that he never would have considered that if

355

it hadn't been for that very simple, innocuous question. So I find,
in terms of seed-planting, that a lot of times people will, a year
later, two years later, say "Hey! That one question was really
important" or "That one experience was really significant." What
intrigues me is the potential in the values clarification approach
for helping people to lead lives of their own choice, lives that

are value-able. '

Other examples of personal "benefits" of participating in
values clarification programs. . . . I've had so many people tell
me that a workshop or course has affected their home and family
life--for the first time, they are able to communicate with their
spouse, or with their children, or with their parents-~they have
discovered and developed some "tools" and guidelines in building
the "WALAC" signs of their loved ones.5

On a professional level, many teachers have sent me ideas
which they have created, adapted, or expanded. This certainly is
a reflection of their ability to n§e_the values clarification
approach. In fact, I see this as one of values clarification's
strengths--its usefulness and practicality. Teachers report that
student response to the new ideas are exciting and encouraging.
One example . . . Connie Morrison, who had.attended a workshop I
led in Michigan several years ago, adapted some of the activities
we had done. It was very clear that she understood and had

integrated the values clarification guidelines in her teaching.

 

5"WALAC" stands for "We Are Lovable and Capable," and refers
to a specific series of values clarification activities.

356

One day, I received a big packet in the mail--it was from Connie.
She and her students were so incredibly excited about one of the
activities they had done (integrating values clarification and

literature) that they sent me everyone's papers so that I could

 

share in their excitement.

For me, the most nourishing response is from students who
see themselves growing from having internalized values clarification
guidelines and skills. In fact, my dissertation is an extensive
case-study of a humanistic program for high school students--part
of which included follow-up reports from the participants. Their
insights, joy, and support in the approach have filled me with hope--
that we can make a difference, that values clarification can make
a difference. At the same time, I am cautious to say that values
clarification is ngt_a magic wand, a cure-all, because I really am
concerned about ethical and strategic issues in the use of values
clarification. But, for me, it does offer a sense of hope. And

I need hope in my work and in my life.

TAFFEE: Since 1970, the time during which you began to formally
act as a values clarification trainer, have you seen any shifts

or any changes occur within the theory?

GOODMAN: For me there have been. And I think most particularly

Howie has generated some changes.6

 

6Reference to Howard Kirschenbaum.

357

For me, I no longer talk about the Seven Criteria. I no
longer focus on what is or isn't a value. I'm personally more
interested in the valuing "skills.“ And it could be seen as a
slight change from talking about seven criteria for a value to
talking about seven valuing skills. But I think it's really an
important shift in emphasis. For me, I think ultimately that's
going to be what's most important and long lasting: focusing on
the skills. To me the Seven Criteria were arbitrary in a sense.
Number, first of all, of certainly not an exhaustive list of what
people considered to be the criteria for a value. And I found that
there's a whole lot of resistance to people in workshop settings,
saying: "Well, who are you, or who is anybody else, to tell me
that unless I meet all seven of these criteria, it's not a value?"

But I personally began moving away when I began asking
myself those same questions, and essentially the way I look at it
now is by taking a look at skills in several areas. I don't even
think about seven valuing skills. I think there's a lot more
interrelated skills.

Essentially, I look at valuing skills in terms of inter-
personal Cthinking," "feeling," "acting"), "interpersonal," and
"extrapersonal." And some of the old Seven Criteria or seven
valuing skills fit into those. Under the thinking skills, I
consider "choosing freely," which I've changed to "choosing with
an awareness of the influences on your choices." Again, I want to
get away from the whole notion of whether there is "free" choice,

or "free" will. I can't answer that. I can have certain beliefs

358

and assumptions, but I think it j§_possible to talk about choosing
with an awareness of the influences on our choices.

50 that one, "choosing with awareness of alternatives,"
"choosing with awareness of the consequences," and then I see a

couple others: "critical thinking skills, which include being
able to make generalizations, and to take a look at cause-effect
relationships and, drawing from my interest in creativity, I also
add "divergent thinking skills," which ties-in with considering
alternatives. I'm basically thinking that before one can consider
alternatives, one may need to be able to.generate the alternatives.
So that's where the divergent skills would come in.
And under the feeling skills, or the affective skills,
I'd include things like: legitimizing feelings, first of all;
second of all, being able to focus on what one prizes and
cherishes; a third skill being "tapping intuition," which is an
area that I think is largely untapped in values clarification. I
know for myself a lot of the important values and life choices
that I've made have been based on intuition when it got down to it.
Under the acting area, I think the old criterion of acting
on one's choices is an important skill, and related to that skill
is being able to set goals. And I also put down the skill of being
able to publicly affirm one's choices when appropriate, under the
acting part, 'cause I think it's really a behavior, where it be
in terms of my writing a letter to my dad about the smoking, or

telling that guy about the beer bottle, that's taking an action

when I publicly affirm.

359

And then, under the interpersonal skills, I sort of see
these as the "fringe benefits" of values clarification. These are
the ones that make values clarification work, so to speak, and
also if values clarification i§.working, then these skills will be
developed as well. Skills like: listening, and community building,
and conflict-resolution, validation, or what I've been saying
lately, value-dation: being able to focus on the value in our-
selves and in others.

And then I think there's yet another skill area actually,
and that would be what I would call "extrapersonal skills." And
maybe this would get into where I see values clarification going
in the future, but I think one important area is helping people
develop skills in relating to society or to our social institutions,
and skills involving organizational development, and being able to
make changes in one's environment. I think these are really crucial
skills.

One of the criticisms leveled at the field of humanistic
education in general is what I call the "navel-watching" syndrome.
In other words, people have been wondering what all this self-
awareness will lead to. For me, self-awareness is a necessary,
but not sufficient element. I feel very strongly that we must move

beyond self-awareness to acting and impacting on our environment,

360

our social institutions. If humanistic education and values clarifi-
cation do not address in more depth and with more commitment some

of the pressing social issues and forms of oppression we face, then

I think they run the risk of being branded as "irrelevant." Thus,

I see the area of extrapersonal skills as a significant future
direction for people in our field.

So, for me, I've sort of expanded, and I think, incorporated
and gone beyond the original Seven Criteria. A real concern I have
is that people might get stuck with seeing values clarification as
being based on the Seven Criteria of a value. I don't think it's
going to hold water for much longer. And I think that one of the
biggest things that values clarification has to work against, in
a sense, is some of its past history, where people get locked into
thinking about: "Oh yeah, seven years ago I was in a values
clarification workshop, and I know what it's about: Seven Criteria
of a value9--and not being aware that there might have been some

new thinking in the field.

TAFFEE: In What ways since you've been involved since 1970, do

you think the practice of values clarification has changed?

(GOODMAN: For me, I think any new movement, particularly movements
or branches within the humanistic education field, go through a

"developmental sequence."
First of all, there's the "honeymoon stage," where it's a

new thing, and people are sort of: "Oh wow! Isn't this exciting

361

and neat!"--and both excited and, perhaps also a little wary of
what it is.

Second stage, I think, is what I would call the "technique-
happy stage," where essentially people see the new field as a
bunch of gimmicks or neat games, and something nice to do five
minutes before the bell rings because you can't do anything else,
or a day-before-vacation, because you can't do anything else any-
way. and really not understanding any of the theory or the guide-
lines.

So in terms of practice of values clarification, I think
it's gone through the first two stages, for sure, and what concerns
I have is that a whole lot of people are still in those two stages.

Beyond that, I think there is a growing number of people
who are saying: "O.K., these activities, and exercises, and
strategies are all well and good, but what do you do with them?
What do I do after I've gone through the seventy-nine strategies
in the book?7 So I think a third stage is taking a look at how do
the activities fit together. And essentially it's a "curriculum
development stage"--how do people sequence activities. Within
that stage, I think, is also looking at "what are some guidelines
and theory underlying it?" And for me, ethically, it's just crucial
that we move on to that stage. It is at this point that people
begin to truly integrate the values clarification approach into
their own lives and work--perhaps it could also be called "the

internalization stage."

 

7Reference to the book by Sidney 8. Simon, Leland W. Howe and
Howard Kirschenbaum, Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical
Strategies for Teachers and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Co.,
1972). ~

362

The fourth stage, I think, is when people start asking:
O.K., what's some research to back-up the fact that this stuff
works or is helpful?" And that's one of the future directions,
and one I think is definitely going to be needed.

And I think all four stages can probably go on at the
same time, but I tend to lean towards stages three and four as
having the most long-range carryover potential. If people do
not move on to these stages, then they may very well see values
clarification merely as a fad.

So in terms of practice, I see at least for myself and I
know a number of other people, who are more and more concerned
about not just coming in, in a workshop setting or a course setting,
running people through eighty-three activities and saying: "O.K.,
fine, now go out and do it." A lot of people really sense the fact
that the "back-home" environment doesn't always support these new
concepts, activities, and approaches, and that there really has to
be a more conscientious and conscious way of going about integrating
this into one's teaching, and developing support back home for

doing that.

TAFFEE: Do you have any evidence or feelings that values clarifi-

cation might be being misused by some folks out in the field?

GOODMAN: Yeah. Yeah, I do. You know--let me give you an example

coming off the last one.

363

One person who was in a "technique-happy stage," did the

8 And this--I heard this through

popular "Alligator River" story.
a close friend of mine--and evidently the way this person did it

is: she told the story to her students, and after telling the

story she told her students that Abigail stands for "infidelity,"
Sinbad stands for "involvement," that Greg stands for "emotionality,"
and that Slug stands for "violence." Then she asked her students

to rank the characters on that basis.

For me, that just gives a clear indication that that person
doesn't really understand--at least I_don't understand what that
person understands about values clarification--and my concern is
that it can be misused in that kind of way.

9

I also heard of an instance that Margie told me about,

wherein a so-called "advanced" values clarification workshop held

10 that the facilitator was putting a great deal

for professionals,
of pressure on people to publicly disclose their values. In essence
saying: "that because this is an 'advanced' values clarification
workshop, you no longer have the right to pass. You should be
beyond that.”

So I hear a number of different horror stories, and that

makes me all the more conscientious and dedicated to trying to be

 

8See Strategy #50, Ibid.

9Reference to Margie Ingram, staff member of the National
Humanistic Education Center, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866.

10Not to be confused with Advanced Values Clarification
Workshops sponsored by the National Humanistic Education Center.

364

explicit about some of the ethical issues. In fact, that is where
some of my latest work is directed: to really being more explicit
about what are some of the concerns, ethically, strategically, and

implementation-wise, in using values clarification.

TAFFEE: So there's some evidence, of a sort anyway, that it's
being misused. Is there any evidence that this misuse is damaging

kids in some way, other than just the inferential?

GOODMAN: I don't have any direct feedback on that. But I do make
inferences that I sure wouldn't want to be, or wouldn't want to
have a kid of mine, involved in that kind of setting.

And I think part of it is a question about, or the notion
that each one of us has values of our own, based on our own past
experience, and I think it's almost unavoidable that at some point
during the course of a school year, a teacher is going to act
irrationally in a sense, or impose or depose students' values.

Not necessarily consciously, but just because of certain experiences
in the teacher's own life.

And one of the issues that was raised at this conference I
was at in California,H was: it's important to look at values, but
what about teachers' put-downs of kids' values? And so a real

concern that I have is just helping teachers to recognize that

that's a potential danger, and it's one of the ways in which values

 

nDr. Goodman made a presentation on "Developing Self-
Awareness and Pride" at the Multi-Culture Institute's annual con-
ference in San Francisco, April 1, 1976.

365

clarification can be misused, and in which students could be hurt
conceivably.

And one other thought in relation to that. It's often been
talked about in terms of "imposing," "exposing," and "deposing"
values, and that it's O.K. that a teacher expg§g_his or her values,
but to be careful about when imposing or deposing. I think I'd
like to add a fourth item: I think it's legitimate for a teacher
to "suppose," to throw-out some questions, in addition to exposing.

But I know for myself it's really tricky sometimes, the
line between exposing and imposing. An example from this
California conference that I was just speaking at: one of the
women was talking about her experiences--this is a conference on
multi-cultural education--and as she's describing it, the way I
was hearing her was pretty racist. And this is where I get a little
confused in terms of: where does my responsibility start or end
in terms of exposing or imposing? And I guess ultimately, I belieye
I can't impose on a person; you may walk away, you don't have to
believe me, but it was important for me to at least expose and

throw-out a couple of thought questions during this symposium.

TAFFEE: The overall preponderance of publications since 1966,

with the one exception of Howie's article on "Beyond Values

""2

Clarification, has been in the area of implementation: different

strategy books, the subject matter book, and so forth. And that

 

12Howard Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification," in
Readings in Values Clarification, ed. by Sidney 8. Simon and Howard
Kirschenbaum (Minneapolis: Winston Press, Inc., 1973).

366

represents one way the major authors have decided about getting

the word out to teachers in the field. While you were at U. Mass,
there was another way: a college course, probably mostly for pre-
service teachers, as another method for impacting schools. Between
the two, is there one which you think might . . . Let me ask it a
different way: their efforts have obviously gone more towards
publication rather than trying to impact colleges and universities
and their pre-service teacher training programs. Any thoughts

about that?

GOODMAN: I think both are needed. And one of the facts of life
it seems, is that one needs to establish a certain amount of
credibility in any field before people who aren't familiar with
the field will listen. And one of the ways of establishing
credibility is through publications. So, I don't see the two

as mutually exclusive, and I really see them as ultimately
complementing each other.

One of the ways in which I personally work, is by inte-
grating the two. Whenever I do a workshop, or an in-service
consultation, or teach a course, I inevitably have a good number
of articles and publications I make available to the participants.

I think what's going to be needed is for more people to
draw on their own resources, in terms of ideas for activities,
strategies, clarifying questions, third-level units. . . . I think
it could best be captured by a phrase I just saw when I was out in

California. I had a chance to visit a Zen farm, and they're selling,

367

at the farm, a book called The Tassajara Bread Book, and the saying

 

on the inside page was: "What we need is more cooks, not more
cookbooks."13

And I think a direction that values clarification needs to
go is providing cookbooks as one possible resource, but not letting
people get locked-into them. Because that's where we get stuck in
the "technique—happy" stage. So I think we do need more in-service
programs, and I think a lot of colleges, because of the financial
setting, are going to have to start coming around and seeing what's
going to attract people, and what's going to be meaningful for
teachers out in the field. And some by necessity are going to swing
around to looking at ways of integrating values clarification into
their pre-service programs.

Ultimately, I think it's going to be the in-service that's
going to be most important, especially with fewer and fewer job
openings each year--that the real emphasis and impact is going to

come in the in-service training as opposed to the pre-service

training.

TAFFEE: Are there any objections commonly raised about values
clarification, which are, for you, the most troublesome to deal

with? Or perhaps have the most validity, and trouble you as well?

GOODMAN: The one that comes right to mind is one I alluded to

earlier, and that's is: "Where do I draw the line in terms of

 

13Edward Brown, The Tassajara Bread Book (Berkeley:
Shambhala, 1970).

368

when I 'expose' and when I 'impose,' or feel like imposing?" On
a real practical, everyday level, I think that's a question that
teachers face all the time. On a more long-range level, it's a
question which I think is important on a society-wide level.

You know, issues about racism, sexism, other forms of
oppression; at what point am I, as a teacher, willing to accept
what a student says, if it is in fact very racist, or I perceive
it to be very racist or sexist? And at what point am I going to
somehow intervene and interrupt that?

So it's essentially, for me, a question of when do I accept
and when do I attempt to interrupt what I consider to be destructive
patterns or behaviors. Destructive either to the individual him-
self or herself, or to other people, or to society at large.

The issue that's often raised in connection with this is
blown-up to an extreme, but I think it has some validity. It's
blown-up to the extreme of: "Well, if somebody like Hitler was
in your classroom, would you be accepting of his or her choices
and actions?" And although I think that is an extreme, the
kernal of that issue is crucial. And that's one that I'm con-
cerned about and confused about.

On a strategic level, I think long-range change on an
individual basis is most often achieved through accepting and
exposing and supposing, as opposed to deposing or imposing. But
I don't want to be naive to certain political realities: that we

might not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting.

369

So that, for me, is probably the most troublesome and also

valid concern.

TAFFEE: Do you see any evidence to suggest that values clarifi-
cation in 1976 is more "affective" in nature than it was in 1966,

or 1970, when you came in?

GOODMAN: I really haven't seen that. Now it's hard for me to
discern it, in that for me, I'm very eclectic in my approaches.

I always incorporate some of my work in other areas of humanistic
education into my so-called values clarification workshops or
courses. I think it would be ludicrous to draw the line arbitrarily
and say: ”This is values clarification, and this is creative
problem solving, and this is cummunications skills (now we're

)"14 because I see

doing the Trumpet or Self-Science Education
them so closely intertwined.

So it's more "affective" in the sense that, I think, at
least in my own work, I've been incorporating more and more
branches of affective education or humanistic education. But
I think it's always been affective, at least in terms of focusing

on what people prize and cherish. So I haven't noticed many major

changes in that. Not really.

TAFFEE: How do you see the importance of, and perhaps the future

for, the work that's gone on within the subject-matter areas, one

 

14Developed by Gerald Weinstein at the University of
Massachusetts.

370

development being the use of the "three level" curriculum? Do you
see other openings within subject-matter areas, continuing to use

the three level curriculum model?

GOODMAN: When I think about all the values clarification activities
that teachers could use in their classrooms, I almost always think
of the "values sheet" as being the most practical, the one that
teachers could most easily start with, and use as a transition
between just dealing with subject-matter on a factual and con-
ceptual level, to dealing with it at a values level. So for me,

I think it's important in terms of getting a foot in the door,

with many teachers, particularly secondary school teachers who

feel a great deal of pressure, and often motivation to focus on
subject-matter.

I was working with a group of teachers in Wyoming in 1971.
One teacher in particular came up during one of the breaks and
said: "Some teachers here teach students, and some teachers here
teach subject-matter." I don't think they have to be mutually
exclusive, but I think they sometimes appear that way to many
teachers. And for me, the three level curriculum and concept is
crucial as a way of bridging the two.

I really see down the road programs being developed--in-
service programs--that will startirffwith teachers dealing with
the subject-matter first, and looking for ways to integrate values
clarification approaches into that. Simply, at the very basic

level, as a way of getting their attention and interest, because

371

I know far too many teachers who say: "Well, this is all nice and
good, but where does it fit in my curriculum? I have to get to
1850 by the end of the semester, and this ain't gonna fit!" So
I see it as really important for me personally.

I see, maybe twenty years down the road, people not giving
a hoot about subject-matter. Maybe I'm being preposterous in
that, but I think that there are going to be certain information
retrieval means, that will be even more developed than they are
now, that are going to make it almost wasteful for people to spend
their time memorizing certain facts. And so I think, maybe twenty
years down the road, we might be able to minimize some of the third
level teaching and learning, and focus more on the valuing skills
and life skills.

In regard to this, I had an interesting experience. And
I think it's also another direction that schools will be taking,
I hope they take, and I know my own work is going to be taking,
and that is focusing more on the ngtign_component of values clarifi-
cation. I think if anything, the emphasis in the last six-seven
years has been on the choosing component, and most of the activities
focus on that. And I see some integration down the road of the
action component with three level. . . . And maybe there will even
be a "four level" curriculum, where students will take a look at
facts, and concepts, and values--and then actions and behaviors.
Because I know far too many times in my own life, there's a slight
discrepency between what I value or say I value, and the way in

which I behave or would like to behave.

372

An experience I had in San Francisco was really spurring
me on in this regard: Last week, I was looking for a shirt, a

15 and essentially

particular shirt--of course it had "Snoopy" on it--
I was involved in a four level curriculum. I was learning a heck
of a lot of facts as I was going about the city trying to track

down this shirt: about clothing manufacturers.. I was learning,

you know, quite a number of concepts about clothing representatives,
what goes into producing and selling, retailing and wholesaling a
shirt. And I also dealt with a lot of values issues about material-
ism; do I want to buy this shirt, and how much money am I willing

to spend? And I certainly acted on my choices. And for me, it

was a very simple and yet meaningful learning experience. I felt

like I learned an incredible amount about San Francisco, also about

myself, and was out in the field doing it.

TAFFEE: One of the questions that plagues me when I am doing a
values clarification workshop, is from the fellow or the woman

who stands up in the back of the room and says something like:
"Listen, bud, before you go any further, before you utter one

more thing, ggfing_what you mean by a value." And it's troublesome
from one standpoint in that when Howie, and I think perhaps right-
fully so, suggested changing from "criteria" to "processes," he
also eliminated the criteria which had, in Values and Teaching,
defined what they meant by a value. What do you consider to be

a value? How would you define it?

 

15Dr. Goodman is an incurable devotee of Charles Schultz
"Peanuts" comic strip.

373

GOODMAN: Let me respond to the first part of your statement first.
In a way, I think it's really good that, at least in my own work,
I don't tell people what a value is. Because I think that in it-
self is a values choice. How I define a value may be different
from how you define it, or somebody else. So I think it's really
a good, clarifying experience in itself to raise that issue. And,
in fact, in a workshop setting, if somebody raised that kind of
question, I might have people go into small groups and come up
with their own definitions, either then or later on.

One of the things I've been doing in workshops is, at the
end, and often times at the beginning to provide some symmetry,
is I ask people to complete the sentence stem: "Values clarifi-
cation is . . . ," or "A value is. . . ." And I find it really
interesting and intriguing--some of the answers. I've certainly
expanded my own thinking on it based on, you know, the input from
others.

For me, what I've been thinking about lately, in terms of
values, is going back to the book Values and Teaching, I think
there's the phrase in there at some point, "guides to our lives,"16
And for me, that's essentially what my values are: guides and
signposts, in the sense of helping me to move between what I'm

likely to do, and what I'd like to do. So again, the action component

is important to me there.

 

16Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney 8. Simon,
Values and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill, Inc., 1966).

374

TAFFEE: The whole area of values education is, I think, in some
respects in their own world of confusion and conflict over some
of the words that they use. "Values," means perhaps one thing to
you, one thing to other people in values clarification, and
certainly something different to Kohlbergians, Rokeachians, etc.
Do you see some essential differences between the words like:
"values," "beliefs," "attitudes," "feelings," "morals," and
"absolutes?" Or do those all run together so they're almost

indistinguishable?

GOODMAN: For me, and maybe this comes from some of my initial
training in values clarification back when we were focusing on the
Seven Criteria of a value, I somehow give more weight to something
that's a "value." It somehow encompasses for me, more of the others.

"Feelings" I see as part of the affective; "beliefs" I see
as part of the cognitive; "opinions" as part of the cognitive.
"Morals," I find sort of interesting. I know a lot of people
interchange more often than not, morals and values. And I know
for some people a moral is even stronger than a value. I guess
for me, I perhaps would equate the two, although I prefer the
word "value" because somehow the word "moral" conjures up issues
and images of "moral-izing," and things of that nature.

In terms of "absolutes," I'm not sure there are any. And
one example I give in a lot of workshops is, and maybe we could
use this in terms of all those words, is the issue of murder.

In the Ten Commandments, an absolute is set forth: "Thou

shalt not kill." And people would say it's morally wrong to kill.

375

For me, it's a little trickier than that, because I can take a
look at, well, the Karen Quinlan case which is in the news yesterday
and today. Is tngt killing? The war in Vietnam, you know, was it
justified to kill? I mean it's unmistakable that killing was going
on. Was "national security" a higher priority than that absolute?
And for many people, many "bible abiding" people, it was. The
whole issue of mercy killing, of self-defense, abortion certainly.

. So I'm not totally clear that there are any absolutes, even
though on the surface level, you know, we all might say: "Of

course, killing is wrong," or "murder is wrong."

TAFFEE: What do you foresee for your own role within values

clarification during the next few years, or maybe to 1986?

GOODMAN: (laughs) I'm not really sure. .And I guess part of that
relates to what I choose to do with my own life. It could range
anywhere between my continuing in education to my getting a job
as a Western Union operator, which is my latest, on-going fantasy.
But even that is related to values issues. And the thing
that attracts me about being a Western Union operator is that I
would be part of some really important issues and messages that
people would be sending to one another. And, for instanCe, the
"'I Urge. . .' Telegram" activity--I'd be a real-live part of that,-
where people would be dealing with a lot of values issues through
the telegram. So if I go that route, I think I'll be involved on
an interpersonal level (laughs), asking clarifying questions of

people sending telegrams.

376

If I continue the education route, in a more formal sense,
I see myself doing a couple things: One is continuing to focus
and raise questions, and generate ideas on some of the ethical
issues and implementation issues facing values clarification and,
related to that, I see myself spending more time and energy of
developing some on-going programs that school systems, or schools,
or faculties, or teams could use to incorporate values clarifi-
cation ideas and approaches on a long-term basis, as opposed to
the short term.

I have a real committment also to the notion of developing
local support groups, which N.H.E.C. is now facilitating.

And I think, for me, one of the most satisfying experi-
ences, and meaningful, is when I have chances to work with intact
systems in some sort of on-going way. Whether it be a faculty
group, a school system . . . and having chances for on-going contact
and really seeing some changes take place over time. So in terms
of those areas, I see myself focusing on ethics, in implementation,
and ways of dealing with each.

I also personally see myself doing some more writing, and
trying to find ways, both in writing and in workshops, to help
people tap their own resources. Part of this comes from my interest
in creativity. I'm always amazed at the workshops I do, at the
incredible creativity and ideas people who are participants in the
workshop can offer and generate.

And again, going back to The Tassajara Bread Book, I think

what we need is more cooks, and fewer cookbooks. So if it's not

377

hypocritical, I can envision perhaps coming up with a cookbook on
how to have more cooks. And as I think about it now, one of the
ways in which the old saying about: "Too many cooks will spoil
the stew," won't come true, is if I also continue to focus on
those ethical issues.

I think a third area is continuing my own thinking about
ways of conceptualizing values clarification. The conceptualization
I mentioned earlier: looking at the intra-, inter-, and extra-
personal skill areas, has been more helpful for me as a handle
than my previous thinking. 50 continuing to think about ways of
having people hear what values clarification is about will remain
another interest of mine.

For example, I like to play with words and letters and
acronyms. Being aware of the pressure to "get back to the basics,"
to the three R's, one of the ways I'm thinking about that is:
"Yeah, that's true, but we also have to go forward to the basics."
And the basics there I'm talking about are the "three V's:" helping
students to focus on value, values, and valuing. I see more and
more of my energy going towards focusing on those three V's. The
value part being: helping students, teachers, adults, people in
general--to acknowledge the yglge_and the worth within themselves
as well as in other people. Helping them to tackle yglgg§_issues,
on a content level, that are of interest and concern to them.
Helping them to develop the valuing skills to tackle those values

issues and to focus on the value within them and others.

378

So continuing to think about ways of looking at the field
will be important to me.

And again, within that, looking for ways of values clarifi-
cation hooking up with the real world as the real world changes.
Again, my interest there for the most part is with the focus on

action and "how do we move from a choice and a feeling to behavior?

TAFFEE: Whom do you see as playing key or influential roles within
the leadership of values clarification during the next ten years,

or who is likely to do that, or perhaps continue to do that?

GOODMAN: Well, I think one source and resource is going to be
people not yet identified. I'm surprised all the time with new
books and articles coming out from people that I haven't had
contact with. And I really firmly believe that in the next ten
years people that we don't know, and perhaps people who haven't
even, in a formal way, been involved in values clarification, will
be taking some leadership.

I think some of the people who have been involved certainly
will continue to have an impact. Howie Kirschenbaum, you know, has
done some of the newer thinking in values clarification, and I'm
convinced that he'll continue to do that. Sid Simon has added the
contribution of making values clarification more visible, and my
hunch is he'll continue. I find Sid to be very innovative in terms
of some of the ideas, activity-wise, that he comes up with. So
I'm sure he'll continue in that area. Merrill Harmin, I'm convinced

also will continue to stretch. Lee Howe and Mary Martha Howe, their

379

17

book, Personalizinngducation, I think is an indication that

 

there's some new thinking on the horizon coming from that direction

as well.

TAFFEE: I think this perhaps goes back to an earlier question in
the interview that relates to research you'd like to see completed
or undertaken during the next few years. Could you say a little

more about specifics?

GOODMAN: For me, the research issue is a tricky one, in that my
concern is that it could be misused. And most specifically, I've
had experiences with some school districts allowing or having a
values clarification course introduced as an elective, say for
senior high school students, and the reason why it's allowed in,
so to speak, is that there's a "drug problem," or "vandalism
problem." And at the end of one semester, when that problem is
still around, the principal or administrator or whoever is involved
says: "Aha! It doesn't work, see?!"

So one concern I have, just on an ethical level, is how
and for what reason is the research being done? And I'd caution
that I wouldn't want research to be done on a "band-aid" basis,
to prove that: "Aha! The drug problem has evaporated," because
I think values clarification can't be EOE answer to that, although

it can be one part of that.

 

17Leland W. Howe and Mary Martha Howe, PersonalizingnEdu-
cation: Values Clarification and Beyond (New York: Hart Publishing
Co., 1975).

380

In terms of some of the specific questions that I think
need answering, I see it falling into a couple areas: one is
evaluation type research, and the other is more "traditional," hard-
core research. I think there's a real crying need for evaluation
research of the kind that are case studies, in which people document
how they've developed, implemented, and evaluated a particular
program. Again, if we are going to move away from the technique
happy stage, into a more on-going, long term stage, then I think
we really need to draw on the resources and experiences of people
who have tried and succeeded and/or failed in those efforts. So
one form, I think is just going to be crucial is the action research,
the on-going case studies, if we're going to make movement away
from just being stuck in techniques.

A second kind of research is going to have to tackle
questions like: "What effect gge§_values clarification have on
students, in terms of, first of all, their own self-concept, and
how they feel about themselves; secondly, on their skills in being
able to clarify values and, related to that, what are some methods,
and teaching approaches that seem to be most effective and appro-
priate and helpful in helping students to develop values clarifying
skills?"

I think a third question or area is related to some of
the other values education approaches. Kohlberg certainly has done
far more in the theoretical and empirical end of values education
than values clarification, and I think it's important that we not

ignore some of his work and his colleagues work. So I think taking

381

a look at how values clarification hooks-up, relates to, agrees
with, disagrees with, some of the work done by Kohlberg and as-
sociates is also going to be important.

And that reminds me of one other thing. In a book that will

18 I have a chapter in it called:

be coming out early next year,
"Humanistic Approaches to Evaluation." And in fact, I borrowed a
saying that I heard from you and one other person, “counting the
apples in a seed, counting the seeds in an apple. . . ."19 Another
real committment of mine is, in terms of my work in the future, is
helping people to take a look at: "What are some specific evaluation

activities and tools that they can use to look at some of those

questions?"

TAFFEE: What sort of training models will be used during the next
ten years? Will the weekend workshop continue as a major training

model, or do you see something else emerging to supplant that?

GOODMAN: I think it's going to depend partly on the economic setting
in our country. I think most likely, weekend workshops will continue.
Whether they continue with as much frequency as they are now is
another question. I think there may be some point at which the

field may be saturated, over-saturated with workshops, and in some

 

18Tentative title: The Search for Values in Health Educa-
tion, by Donald Reed, Sidney 8. Simon, and Joél Goodman, Prentice
Hall. Publication date to be established.

19The saying goes "you can count the number of seeds in an
apple, but you can't count the number of apples in a seed."

382

areas that's already occurred. It's not uncommon for me to run into
a teacher who says: "Oh yeah, I know what values clarification is.
We had a one hour in-service on it in 1971." So, I think there is
some danger of over-saturation.

If the field can continue to expand and develop and stretch,
then I think the weekend workshops will continue to go on, but I
think it will need to change in order for that to happen.

My sense is that, and my hope is, that two other kinds of
training programs will emerge. One is an on-going program. There
are several universities that are developing (e.g., Union Graduate
School) graduate programs which allow people to continue working
and/or to draw on their own life experiences, and not attend in a
formal sense, a full-time university. I imagine that there are
going to be more and more people involved in those kinds of graduate
and/or undergraduate programs. And one of my hopes is that a more
on-going approach to values clarification training will come out
of that, where people will, perhaps, attend a workshop and then
have some sort of support and follow-through in an on-going kind
of way as they try out some of their ideas and skills. And I think
the local support group idea hopefully will burgeon as well.

The other kind of model I think will emerge if school systems
pick up some funds for in-service training to enable a more systemicf'
or systematic approach to faculty training to come about. And it
won't be just the one day a year that's the superintendent's
conference day, that everyone goes to and moans and groans, but that
will go beyond that and have some real serious professional develop-

ment programs within the public schools.

383

I'm not real clear on what kind of impact universities and
colleges, in a traditional sense, will be having. I think their
main contribution will probably come in training the trainers of
trainers, or the educators of facilitators. I balk a little bit at

the word "trainers."

TAFFEE: Have any provisions been made amongst the various leaders,
as far as you know, towards planning the next few years in values
clarification? Collectively, sitting down and thinking about:
"these are some of the things that we should be doing during the

next three or four or five years?"

GOODMAN: I don't think there's been any "pow-wow," other than the
informal contacts that we do have with one another. For instance,
here at NHEC, Howie, Barb, Margie, and myself, a number of times
have taken a look at the future of NHEC, the future of humanistic
education, and we've wrestled with a number of these issues in an
informal way.

One of my personal hopes, in terms of my own job in the next
year, is that I can help set up some "think tanks," where people
in different fields would have a chance to come together and do
some thinking about future directions. And certainly one of the
think tanks I have in mind is setting one up for those interested
in having some experience and background in values clarification.

At some point, I can envision having a national conference '
on values clarification, the goal of which would be partly to take

a look where values clarification has been, where it is now, and

384

alSo to take a look at what are some future directions, and how can
we get the resources together to head there? Right now, that's in

the idea stage.

TAFFEE: What might the next few years hold relative to the wide-
spread popularity of values clarification, which it has assumed

since 1966, but more recently in the last four to six years or so,
when it's caught on like wildfire? Is that growth going to continue?

00 you think it will slow a bit, perhaps be reflected in other ways?

GOODMAN: I think it will vary with the area, and perhaps even within
individual schools. In some places, I think there will be a growing
corrmitment and people will become more and more involved and integrate
values clarification into their school life. In other place, I think
they'll probably perceive it as just another fad as something else
comes down the pike and takes its place.

I'm surprised at how many people often find values clarifi-
cation to be something new that they never heard of. I think there
still is ground to be plowed in terms of introducing people to it.

So I think there will probably be two conflicting and yet simultaneous
directions: in some places it will die-out, phase-out, and in other
places it'll grow.

And I think what's really crucial here is if it can go
beyond the technique stage, if people can §gg_beyond the technique
stage, then it will grow. So I think that's one of the crucial
challenges facing people in the field, is to find ways of communi-

cating that it is more than a bunch of techniques.

385

TAFFEE: If I were to come back, or hunt you down at the Western

Union office ten years from now, or wherever you might be, and

having in that time had no contact with values clarification, and

ask the question: "Gee, Joel, how have things gone in values clarifi-
cation during the last ten years?" What would you like to be able:

to say? Ideally, what would you like to rattle-out?

GOODMAN: I'd like to rattle-out that people understand some of the
theory and the guidelines, and that people are doing more thinking
themselves about the theory and the guidelines.

I'd like to be able to say that people have integrated it
and internalized the values clarification approach in their teaching,
so that it isn't: "O.K., kids. For twenty minutes now we're going
to do values clarification, and then it's back to. . . ."

And I think a third thing is, you know, that hopefully some
of the research and evaluation questions will have been answered,
new ones will have been generated--I guess that will probably be one

of the most basic things that I hope: that some new and exciting

questions would have been generated in the next ten years.

TAFFEE: What might an ideal picture of a classroom look like, that

has been or is now using values clarification?

GOODMAN: The first notion that comes to mind is that the curriculum
would be an emerging one, where at the beginning of the year the
teacher would diagnose student's interests and concerns and values

areas that they would like to focus on. And that during the course

386

of the year, in an on-going, step—by-step way, teacher and students
would take time to look at these questions.

That students would have an opportunity to engage in
"Sensitizing Modules," have a chance to go out into the "real
world," so to speak, and test out some of their ideas.

Where the atmosphere of the classroom would really be free
of "killer statements" and "put-downs," and where people would be
excited to hear of other people's ideas an perceptions.

Where students would be responsible and interested in
generating a lot of the curriculum themselves. They would be the
one's asking the questions that they wanted to have answered. It's
seemingly such a simple, but revolutionary idea, that students in
addition to being responsible for giving answers can also ask some
of the questions.

And that some of the guidelines that I think are important
in values clarification would be a real operational part of the
day: there would be a right to pass, and that people would listen
to one another.

I can envision people in small groups at different times;
different interest groups; moving in and out of them. A lot of
laughter in the room, a lot of intense concentration, a lot of
excitement, and a lot of people going home, thinking. When the
bell rings at 3:30 they wouldn't fold-up their books and fold-up
their minds, and wait until 8:30 the next morning to open them both
back up again, but that people would be going out really talking to

one another, and trying to get each other's ideas.

387

TAFFEE: What is the greatest obstacle you see facing values

clarification?

GOODMAN: I see two, at least right off-hand.

One would be what I call, for lack of a better word right
now, the "charlatans"--people who really don't have a sound
grounding in the theory and the guidelines, and who haven't
internalized the values clarification approach, going around and
teaching others it. And somehow misrepresenting it and using it
unethically, and some of the examples I gave you earlier I think
reflect how it could be used unethically.

The second major obstacle I could see, is what I call the
"mouth-trap." And what I mean by that is a lot of school systems
can pay really fine lip service to the goals and objectives that
values clarification does, in fact, point towards. You know, any
school system philosophy almost inevitably has some of the valuing
skills in it: "helping students develop respect for one another,"
"helping students to make independent decisions," "helping
students to think creatively." And I see one of the greatest
obstacles being really confronting school systems with the
discrepancy between what their mgntn§_say, and what they in fact,
g9; time-wise, energy-wise, budget-wise. So I think we're going
to have to build a better mouth-trap, to get at that.

In terms of something that would help overcome those
obstacles, I think the increasing emphasis on theory and research,

and evaluation and ethics, and moving away from techniques is

388

going to help. Whether it will be enough is one of the questions

we'll take a look at ten years from now.

APPENDIX K

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN S. STEWART

389

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN S. STEWART

TAFFEE: How did your interest in the area of values education

develop?

STEWART: Ever since I can remember, going back even into my youth,
I've always been a searcher, and a seeker, and a questioner. And
I've always been especially interested in human relationships and
the affective aspects--as you know I don't dichotomize "cognitive"
and "affective" and make real things out of them--but if we use
those terms loosley, I've always been interested in the emotional
and personal aspects of relationships, probably growing out of the
horribly deprived and traumatic kind of childhood that I lived.
But that's always been important to me, and in various ways I've
been involved with that. And I suppose that's what led me originally
into my undergraduate work in psychology, and my graduate work in
psychology. Then I have worked in numerous areas in my life with
juvenile offenders and with mentally ill people, and things like
that, and so that provided part of the foundation. I've also had
since I was a child an interest in the whole religious and spiritual
aspects of existence. All of these things relate to everything
that is really underneath all the kinds of things that anything to
do with values represent.

Then getting more to the specific, when I was teaching high
school back in '67, 8 and 9, in that period, I had an opportunity
to work with high school students in these kinds of things and these

kinds of areas. And at that point I began to get tremendously

390

391

interested in the whole business of values and moral development.
Now at this point I had never heard of values clarification, or
cognitive developmental psychology, or any of that stuff. So then
when I decided to go back to school after many years, and came to
Michigan State and started to look for an area of interest, and
finally settled in education, my very special interest in the whole
business of values and moral education and values and moral develop-
ment started to surface again. And in searching around in the
varieties of literature available both in psychology, philosophy
and education, throughout these things I discovered values clarifi-
cation and also other approaches. And also in the process I discovered
Piaget and Kohlberg.

So that's a general, overall background statement of how I
got into it in the first place. Now if you have anything specific

to ask about that, go ahead.

TAFFEE: I was just wondering, in what context you first encountered
values clarification. Was it through the literature, a workshop,

or what?

STEWART: As I recall, Steve, it was, I guess. . . . It was first
of all by "word-of—mouth" in talking with people, particularly Ted

1 They were very aware of

Ward and the people associated with him.
and had been using values clarification approaches for quite some

time. In fact, Ted Ward had been associated with Sid Simon back in

 

1Reference to Dr. Ted Ward, College of Education, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

392

the middle and early sixties. I guess I presumed they were friends
from what he told me in the exchange of correspondence I had.

So I guess my most important introduction to values clarifi-
cation came through my very early contact with Ted Ward, and at the
same time then, of course, I began to explore the literature. I
suppose they came together, but Ted and other people there at the

College of Education discussing it came slightly prior.

TAFFEE: One of the things being talked about a little bit, I don't
think it's being written about too much, is the possibility of down
the pike, values clarification and Kohlberg and associates and their

thinking, being merged in some way. Do you see that possibility?

STEWART: Well, in certain ways I see it already happening. In fact,
in certain ways they were merged from the beginning. Some significant
aspects of both those orientations are rooted in the same fundamental
premises: the same generalized psychological and philosophical
background. But both approaches go at the whole problem, for

instance, of clarification, the induction of disequilibrium and

 

getting people to become aware of their consistencies and incon-
sistencies, and questions and problems, seeking to explore them,
reflecting on them, and attempting to bring Some equilibrium to
them. So both approaches always have been rooted in that kind of
process.

Now that's something I haven't really seen stated explicitly
in the literature, but I don't see how they're vastly different in

that respect.

393

I guess a major place where I see the two could be integrated
would be to explore what kinds of values clarification strategies
and techniques would be most appropriate at various stages of develop-
ment. So one could ask the question, for example: "Alright.
Granted that values clarification is valid, and granted that seeking
clarification of values is valid, and granted that the stage
development theory seems to have some valid things to say about
the way people develop in these areas, granted those things, one
could interface the two approaches by saying 'Aha! the seeking of
values clarification should have some bearing to the positive
affective and other aspects of people's development.'" To put it
another way, the way one would apply values clarification strategies
seems to me would be influenced by the age of the child, by the,
you know, age range and stage and orientation of the child.

If you were to use values clarification, for instance, in
the third grade, you may use in some ways things that would be the
same. But there ought to be some ways things would be different
than using it in the twelfth grade, for example. Now I see a real
opportunity for someone to make a contribution by attempting to
integrate them in that way. That, in other words, would be an
attempt to make values clarification developmental. I see a tremendous

opportunity for an integration there.

TAFFEE: Do you see any points between the two which, at this point,

might appear to be irreconcilable?

394

STEWART: Yes. The most significant one is the issue of relativism.
That's the point on which I see the most conflict and possibly the

least basis for integration.
TAFFEE: Any others?

STEWART: Even if I named others, I think that a probing of them
would show them to be fairly superficial. In other words, there

are points. . . . Let me make this clear first. I don't think they
have to be significantly different in this area, but I think at

this point in history they are. I would say the values clarification
approach largely focuses on what we call "content," whereas the
cognitive developmental approach, which is the structural develop-
mental approach, puts the greater emphasis on "structure." Now
recognizing that you're familiar with those terms and what they

mean technically, anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence
would immediately recognize, of course, that they're not distinct
entities, and that people don't function compartmentalized, and

that "content" and "structure" are intimately related to each other,
and intimately related to something that most approaches consider
important, and that's "processes" or "function." Now I would see
that one thing that needs to be done, is that the developmentalists
need to give greater recognition to the meaning and importance of
"content," and the values clarification people need to give greater
meaning and importance to the relationship of "content" to underlying

"structure."

395

Now there's another opportunity for integration, too. So
at the superficial level, that could look like an irreconcilable
problem. But I think that's ridiculous. I think they are
reconcilable, and especially at deeper levels.

However, there is a problem. Education, as we have talked
about many times, seems to be characterized by an addiction to
fads. Now we know that for years values clarification has been
accepted by many people, partly as a fad. I don't mean gll_people.
But, there are a lot of people who have accepted it as a fad, and
don't really have any in-depth understanding of it.

The same thing, Steve, is already happening for a couple
of years, but you really can't see it, with Kohlberg's theories.
There are people out there accepting it, and they don't even know
what it's about. They haven't explored it--just very superficial
acceptance of it. So there's a tremendous ground swell of a fad
already underway with the Kohlberg stuff.

Now one of the main problems is that educators by and large,
unreflectively grab on to the fads, get committed to them, become
defensive about them, and sometimes close off opportunities to see
things at a deeper level where integrations can take place.

So the two approaches have been set-up against each other
in many ways, that forces people to choose one or the other rather
than saying: "what do they have to say in terms of looking at the
problems of education?" That fadism orientation in education I
would see as one of the main hurdles to overcome if we're ever

going to make any integration of this in an in-depth way.

396

TAFFEE: Another critic of values clarification has been Alan Lockwood.
One of the points that he brings up in his criticism is that values
clarification is "therapy," and Raths and others issue all sorts of

2

disclaimers to the contrary, saying it is ngt_"therapy." What are

your thoughts on that subject?

STEWART: O.K. That's a very good question, and I do want to respond
to that. I suppose in order to respond, we must first get a handle
on what we mean by "therapy."

Generally, the word "therapy" has been associated with illness.
So one of the reasons why the values clarification people may reject
the claim that it's therapy, is because they see therapy in that
context. In fact, even in the 1966 book there are explicit dis-
claimers in there about not using it in cases of emotional problems

3 So there is a definite rejection of values clarification

and stuff.
as "therapy," but within that very limited definition of "therapy."
Now if we look at "therapy" in a different way, if we look
at "therapy" as anything that has to do with bringing change to a
situation, with the implication that if there is change needed
there is something wrong in the first place, then values clarifi-

cation and other kinds of educational devices and approaches do

have a therapeutic element. Now from that perspective, I don't

 

2Alan L. Lockwood, "A Critical View of Values Clarification,"
Teachers College Record, 77, 1 (September, 1975), 35-50.

3Reference to Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney 8.
Simon, Values and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom
(Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, Inc., 1960).

 

397

see how any approach in education can fail to have "therapeutic“
elements and moments when it may be more "therapy" than anything
else.

So, I think the claim that values clarification does not
have a "therapeutic" element, or some aspect of "therapy" contained
in it, would be to not see the whole picture, and not see a deeper
meaning to the concept of "therapy."

I also believe from what I've heard, that there are people
in therapeutic circles who are applying values clarification. So
I agree with Lockwood, but I want to qualify it with those other

statements.

TAFFEE: Do you have any notions about how values clarification has
affected the lives of those people who have been trained in it and

use it?

STEWART: The people that are "trained in it and use it." Now,
let me ask you, do you mean the professionals that make the circuit

or the teachers in schools?
TAFFEE: Mostly the teachers in schools.

STEWART: Oh, alright. Because I can address myself to that very
clearly.

I think that one of the main things that values clarifi-
cation has brought to the field is a general opening up and warming
up of the educational environment. I think that it would be difficult

to be exposed to something like values clarification with the

398

tremendous legacy of traditional education and all its rigidity and
formalism. . . . I think it would be difficult to be exposed to
something like values clarification without it doing a number of
things.

For instance, it opening you up to other things and beginning
to help you be aware of some of the problems in traditional education,
a general tendency to look more at the humanistic and some of the
emotional aspects of education as opposed to just the transmission
of information, and I guess, as much as anything, if values clarifi-
cation has had any effect and can have any effect, surely for a lot
of people it has helped them become more self-reflective. If we ever
needed anything in education, it certainly is that.

So I would say that values clarification has definitely
affected the lives of teachers in the field, by forcing them to
look at some of those things, and forcing themselves to look at

themselves, instead of just the students, in the process.

TAFFEE: Do you have any evidence or feelings about whether or not

values clarification might have had some detrimental effects?

STEWART: Yes. I do have some evidence, having observed it in the
schools, and also talking with a lot of teachers who have used it.
I've directed myself a little bit about some of these in the
article in the finggnn that I wrote, but one of the detrimental
effects that I've seen is that values clarification can lead to

some of the things that it actually wants not to do and claims not

399

to do.4 That is in the issue of peer conformity and peer influence.
There are certain aspects of the values clarification strategies

and techniques that force people to do things that can actually be
for the sake of conforming, rather than for clarification.

There is another point I was going to make that I think
is harmful-~oh yes, I also mentioned this in the article, and I
consider this very serious. By forcing sensitive children and
teenagers into making public claims, public statements can bring
about premature forclosure on the ideas, and can bring about people
becoming committed to things that they may not be really committed
to, but once having made public statements and going on record, there
is an effect there and I think that is a danger.

I also think that since most people don't reflect on deeper
meanings, that values clarification can have the detrimental effect
of actually selling a totally relativistic approach to values and
morality. So yes, I do think there are some detrimental things in

the picture.

TAFFEE: In what ways, John, do you think the theory or the repre-
sentation of the theory of values clarification has changed since

the publication of Values and Teaching in l966?

STEWART: Well, to be honest with you, the only change in it that I

 

4John S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critique," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), 684-688.

 

400

see is what Howie Kirschenbaum has done. In none of the other

literature have I seen any change.5

TAFFEE: Do you think what he has proposed is significant, or is it

just "cosmetic?"

STEWART: Some of what he's doing I see as definitely more than
"cosmetic." I see it as very significant. Let me get a point out
here and I think I can illustrate what I mean.

One of the things that he, I think, has done a very good
service on--he's one of the few people I've seen address himself
to the problem of Raths' processes as "criteria." Howie has some
of the same concerns I have. You know, if you apply those seven
criteria, you have to start asking questions like: "How many times
constitutes making it a 'value?‘ How 'proud?‘ How do you determine
these kinds of things?" And some of his work in the area, I think
is very serious. He talks of "processes" primarily as eliminates
the "criteria."

But he moves, in my opinion, even more to what I call an
"idiographic" or relativistic approach. In a way, he eliminates
the "absolute" part of it, without moving to a "universal” orienta-
tion, but becomes purely relative. He's overwhelmingly process
oriented.

Now another contribution he's made, is to move values

clarification out of the peculiar conflict that it has had. In

 

5Howard Kirschenbaum, "Beyond Values Clarification," Readings
in Values Clarification, ed. by Sidney 8. Simon and Howard Kirschenbaum
(Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1973).

401

the 1966 book, Steve, the so-called "cognitive" aspects are emphasized
and values clarification is presented as a "rational" approach. But
strangely enough, values clarification over the years has been far
more identified with the humanistic orientation and the affective.
Now that's always fascinated me.

Now Howie Kirschenbaum, in his article, in the copy that
I have on page ninety-eight for instance, he moves values clarifi-
cation away from a "cognitive" to an integrated "cognitive-affective"

6 So again I would list that as a contribution that

orientation.
he's making.
I think he's reformulated the theory along humanistic
existential lines, and has improved it. But he has not grappled
with or even acknowledged the relativism or other problems. He
has made values and valuing so broad and general as to not be
distinctive or conceptually distinct, clear, or explicit. However,
I do think that what he's doing is deep, not cosmetic, and I would

love to see him go on and develop it and really wrestle with the

problems.

TAFFEE: You've said that you believe that in some respects the
inepny_of values clarification is more consistent with its affective
bases, e.g., Howie Kirschenbaum's recommendations. 00 you see any
evidence to suggest that the practice, the strategies being used in

classrooms are more affective than they were in '66?

 

6Ibid.

402

STEWART: Hmm. I can really only speculate since I wasn't even
aware of values clarification at that point. It didn't seem used
at that point.

If I were to guess, I would guess "Yes, that's probably
true." My guess is that values clarification moved more and more
away from a so-called, purely "rational" and "cognitive" approach,
because it came along in that middle and late sixties when the
whole thrust was away from that and against the post-Sputnik era,
into a general, humanistic, affective orientation, if you recall
that period. And I think values clarification came to be identified
with the affective rather than the cognitive, in spite of the fact
that it was designed as a rational and cognitive kind of approach
to reflecting on values, you know, it's allegedly rooted in doing.

But you see, this really speaks seriously to that whole
idiotic idea of dichotimizing these things in the first place.
Because you know, human beings function as organismic, integrated

wholes, and not "cognitively" and "affectively."

TAFFEE: In the book by John Meyer, Brian Burnham and John Cholvat,
that came out of the Canadian conference, Larry Kohlberg has an
article in which he responds in part to some of what Howie
Kirschenbaum had to say at that conference, and one of the things
he talks about is the distinction between "morals" and "values."7

How do you distinguish between the two.

 

7Lawrence Kohlberg, "The Relationship of Moral Education to
the Broader Field of Values Education," Values Education, Theory/
Practice/Problems/Prospects, ed. by John Meyer, Brian Burnham and
John Cholvat (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press, 1975).

 

403

STEWART: Oh, yes. If we assume that human beings--now I don't
want to say, "ngyp_values," because I don't know exactly what that
means--if human beings are constantly engaging in valuing processes,
and every moment of our lives we are making "valuations" to use
Dewey's term . . . you and I, you are probably sitting down. I am.
My organism, my whole mind and everything else, is subtly and
probably subconsciously evaluating the stability, for instance,

of the chair I am sitting in: constantly reading the environment
and evaluating it. Now we "have," if you want to use that term
just for speaking purposes, let's say we have many kinds of values.
We have "biological" and "physiological values;" we have "psychomotor
values;" we have "cognitive" and "affective values;" all those kinds
of things.

Well, in another dimension, we also have "political values,"
"interpersonal values," "religious values," "economic values"--
these kinds of things. Now we also have "moral values." So I see
the term "values" as covering a broad arena of behavior, which
incorporates different kinds of values, and I see "moral values"
as a subset.

In other words, when you engage in nppgl_judgments, you
are making npnnl valuations. If I go out, and if I decide whether
one typewriter is better than another, that's a valuation that has
nothing to do with morality. So you can make value judgments that
are not moral value judgments, but you can't make moral value
judgments that aren't value judgments. So moral values are a

part of the whole, broad arena.

404

And that's one of the reasons why in my own writings, in
the later writings, I use that little devise of "values/morals."

Moral values are a subset of the larger arena of values.

TAFFEE: If I recall Kohlberg's article correctly, one of the
things that he was criticizing values clarification for, was that
it dealt with what might be called "non-moral values" to the

exclusion of "moral values." Would you agree with that criticism?

STEWART: I wouldn't phrase it that way. What I would say is that
values clarification treats the whole subject indiscriminately. In
other words, it approaches the whole field of values without making
the distinctions of what kinds of things are what. So it isn't
that it gets into "non-moral values" and excludes "moral values."

I don't see anywhere in the literature where the v.c. people even
make the distinction. So it really gets into all areas, including
moral ones.

A lot of the strategies, for instance that strategy about
the fall-out shelter, how you can see that as anything other than
moral, I don't know.8 There are moral decisions that are being
made there. The thing is that it's not explicit. It doesn't call
them that. So Larry's criticism may be based on the fact that the
v.c. literature doesn't explicitly deal in those terms. But it

certainly gets into many realms, including morals.

 

8See Strategy #48, in Sidney 8. Simon, Leland W. Howe, and
Howard Kirschenbaum, Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical
Strategies for Teachers and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Co.,

1972):

 

405

TAFFEE: Do you have any notions, John, about what the next ten
years might hold in regard to the widespread popularity that values

clarification has enjoyed?

STEWART: Yes, I think as a "fad" it has already peaked, it is
already over the hill. I've noticed in recent meetings, and if you
look at the literature you will see that there's a significant
drop-off in the number of articles about, by and referring to values
clarification. So as a fad, it's already way over the peak, and is
already dropping down.

Now at a deeper level, a lot of the things of values
clarification have probably already become an inherrent part of
the behavior of teachers. I suspect that those who were most
deeply affected by it, have simply incorporated it into their
whole approach, and it's now a part of it.

So I see two different trends: as a fad it would continue
to drop-off and drop-out and level-out, and maybe even disappear.
So I would predict that ten years from now, people will look back
on it and talk about it the way we do other things that took place
in education a long time ago. However, that won't mean that it will
have dropped out of existence. If values clarification, as any
other educational approach, has any enduring meaning and deep
meaning, it gngnlg_become a part of the everyday practice of people,
rather than a special thing set-off.

So I would see that as a bad thing. As a matter of fact,

its passing into oblivion as a fad may actually enhance its

406

capability of becoming part of the mainstream of education, which

is, if I were a values clarifier, that's what I would want to see
happen. But I think the tremendous amount of special attention

that it has received will continue to diminish, and it will eventually
not get that kind of attention.

You also, in order to see where values clarification is
going to go, have to take a look where other elements of education
and education in general, and our society are going. At the moment,
there is a real split in the educational community. There are
people reacting violently against the excesses of the late sixties
and early seventies, and are swinging "back to the basics" and all
this kind of stuff. There's a tremendous element of people out
there that are very anti-anything that's called "affective" or
identified with "affective." On the other hand, there are those
who still believe as they have for the last ten years, that that's
the area that requires the greatest amount of attention. I see a
great split on this, and these elements moving more away from each
other than together.

I think that education is in serious crisis, and within
the next five to ten years, there are going to have to be either
some very dramatic changes, or a continued falling off of the
credibility and importance of education or schooling as we now
know it will occur.

Now that has an implication for values clarification, and
I feel that values clarification, at the moment, could go into

oblivion along with some other so-called "humanistic" things, simply

407

because of the reaction against them. There's a very conservative
swing in the country, and it seems very obvious in education. And
that could, of course, cause people to reject the positive aspects
of values clarification, without even bothering to find out what

it's all about.

TAFFEE: Following up on that, what can humanistic educators or
values clarifiers, or people in that general area, do to perhaps

offset those types of forces?

STEWART: A number of things. First of all, they're going to have to
stop talking and sounding like "whishy-washy humanists." They're
going to have to start really looking at deeply what humanism is:
"What does humanism mean? What are the implications of humanism?"
and see that the implications of a humanistic approach have more
meaning at a deeper level than they do necessarily in sticking with
some of the things they make big issues out of. Humanism in general,
philosophically, religiously, and other ways, is being seriously
called into question. There's no question about it. In every arena
that I have been reading in the last half year, humanism is on the
defensive, and is being viewed as "bankrupt."

Now this means that people who are humanistically oriented
are going to have to find new ways of looking at the problem,
abandon some of the whishy-washy aspects, some of the superficial
orientations, and abandon maybe even some of the jargon involved
in it, and move it to a different and deeper level if it is to

remain around.

408

Right now, it's a bad word. If you go into a school, or
if you go among principals, parents, or some other educational
circles at the moment, and identify yourself as a humanist, you
might not even get to say anything. Now somehow that's got to be
faced. You can't just plow your way through that kind of thing.
You have to be sensitive to that.

And I guess the greatest thing that I would see necessary
here then, would be for the so-called "humanistic educators" to
become more reflective, more philosophical, and attempt to deepen

and integrate their views, instead of being so defensive about them.

TAFFEE: What sort of issues do you think values clarification

should be dealing with between now and 1986?

STEWART: Oh, boy. . . . Well, some of them we've already talked
about. One, we don't even need to discuss further, it's fully
identified. One would be an integration of values clarification
with the developmental approach. I see that as a mpgp.

Two, the kinds of things we were just talking about: a
reflection on a philosophical relativistic, humanistic base, as
a way of reformulating it, strengthening it, and moving it along,
instead of staying with it as it is.

I think it's also going to have to come to grips with
something that I peculiarly highlight in all my work, and that
is the fact that the answer or the answers to this whole problem
of values clarification and other forms of values and moral

development are getting at, are not going to be solved by pedagogy

409

and technology and strategies and gimmicks, and that kind of thing.
But we're going to have to ultimately get at, Steve, and I mean nlj_
of us: the v.c.r's, the developmentalist's and everybody else--I
think we're eventually going to have to say: "Look, technology's
fine, pedagogy's fine, curriculum's fine--but we got to start

doing something about changing the overall nature of education

and educational environments and educational administration, and all
those kinds of things," because that's where the really serious
problems are, and I think that's where the mainstream of education
is, and I don't think that's going to come about by constantly going
on, developing strategies.

50 that leads me to the main point I would make about this:
if values clarification is going to remain around and have an
enduring impact, I think it's got to move above and beyond the
technology, pedagogy, strategies. In other words, I guess what we
need, is to stop workingauuicreating more strategies and start saying:
”Hey. What does values clarification say about the whole problem?
How would we bring the importance of values clarification, and the
main messages of values clarification to bear on principals and
teachers and parents, so that they can begin to see a deeper and
more complete picture of education?"

Now this bears on what I said before then. I guess there's
where values clarification will probably either rise or fall. If
it continues to develop more techniques and strategies and add to
what it already has, I think it will eventually die. If it moves

up to a larger level, and begins to get at some of the deeper

410

problems, then it may be able to stay around in a reformulated way,

and make a different kind of contribution.

TAFFEE: I think we've already hit on this, John, but just to
shore it up and make it definite, what sort of research in values

clarification would you like to see completed by 1986?

STEWART: Hmm. Well, it's a damn hard area to do research in.
I would like to see one kind of research that would try to

get at, really objectively as much as possible, looking at the

 

claims of values clarification to see if there's really foundation
for them: do teachers who use these techniques and strategies and
this approach really bring about any changes that are either meaning-
ful, or wouldn't these come about otherwise? In other words, are
the basic claims of the values clarification people justifiable,
defensible and legitimate? That has never been done, and we really
don't know. The great challenge there, of course, is how in the
hell do you sort out the variables, but I suspect that some of
those things can be done.

And by the way, I'm not holding now, as you know, for a
hard-and-fast, so—called "scientific," "empirical" approach to
that problem. You can do the kind of research I'm talking about,
not necessarily from the kinds of rigid, "control groups" and stuff
that has been so prevalent in education, and attempts to be looking
like the natural sciences. I don't mean that. I mean research in
"naturalistic" settings, usinganthropologicalapproaches: going

out into the schools and devising ways of actually observing,

411

analyzing, and evaluating what's happening, with attempts to sort

out some of the variables, knowing that you'll never be able to
completely do it. But surely there must be ppmp_way to validate some
of the claims.

Now if they would do that, then that research in itself
would begin to be informative about what other kinds of research
to conceptualize, in order to reconstruct values clarification
theory and practice along the lines I mentioned before. So this
would make it more powerful and more meaningful.

So that's one area of research that I guess I see as the
primary thing that it needs to do, but not to gpfgng itself, but
to clarify itself. And I don't really see people doing that.

Values clarification seems to be committed at this point
to classroom use, and I would like to see it branch-out and do
some research, and ask the kinds of questions: "How can values
clarification begin to get at the problems of the schools, as
opposed to just the classroom?" In other words, "How can it
contribute to looking at the problems and also at approaching
them?" And that claim is made because, as you know, I claim that
the overwhelming impact of the schools on the values and moral
development of the children comes from the way the people liyg_in
the school. And that's what I'd like to see values clarification
begin to take a look at instead of more strategies for teachers to
use with kids.

Now that involves a lot of research, but I think the v.c.
people could bring a perspective to that that would be extremely

valuable.

412

TAFFEE: Whom do you see as playing key or influential roles in

values clarification during the next ten years or so?

STEWART: That's difficult for me to answer, since I don't move
in those circles.

With qualifications, I'd say Howie Kirschenbaum, for one.
If he continues to do the kinds of things he said he was going to
do last year, if he's going to continue to do that kind of stuff,
I can see him emerging as a major leader.

I haven't talked with you about what you're doing. You,
as far as I'm concerned, have one of the finest minds and are one
of the deepest people in the whole damn field. So I would say if
you decide to stay in that area, and do some of these kinds of
things we've been talking about, you could make a tremendous

contribution.
TAFFEE: Oh. Thank you.

STEWART: I have met, through Heidi Wilkins, Joel Goodman, and he

9 Now I don't know what he's

looked like a pretty solid fellow.
doing. I don't know if he's just teaching the existing strategies
or working with it. I don't know if he's working in the area of .
new developments.

Now I don't know if my inability to completely answer your

question beyond that is because I don't move in those circles, or

 

9Heidi Wilkins is a teacher in the Walled Lake Public Schools
in Michigan, Joel Goodman is on the staff of the National Humanistic
Education Center, Saratoga Springs, N.Y., and was one of the other
experts interviewed.

413

it's because it's not happening and I haven't seen it in the
literature. It's possible that there's nobody taking that long-

range view.

TAFFEE: As you look at yourself and your own role in values edu-
cation, John, what sort of things do you see down the pike for
yourself, and will any of those visions cause you to cross paths

with values clarification?

STEWART: Oh, I think it's really possible. What's happened to me
in the last year, Steve, is that I've delved more deeply into the
whole business about this problem that I was alluding to earlier:
the problem of getting at the construction and re-construction of
educational environments and approaches along more, what I call
"democratic, developmental" lines. I see that as a must. I've
got tremendously interested in the whole exploration of the relation-
ship between democracy and development, the relationships of democracy
development, community, justice, morality, the human mind and all
these kinds of things. So I see my own interests at the moment,
are in making a long-range and in-depth study with other people in
the field, of the nature of educational environments and approaches
in terms of the massive impact they have on the development of
children and the adults in the system.

So I'm trying to go at it from a different scope. In other
words, I have moved even more away from being tremendously inter-
ested in--I'm not rejecting the contributions of pedagogy and

technology and curriculum, they're all important--but I see more

414

and more the problems of our society and especially as reflected in
our school systems as being as a much deeper and a much higher level
than that, and I'm interested in that. I want to continue to explore
those kinds of things, but particularly, how to integrate democracy
and development, and how can we begin to change our educational
systems into democratic, developmental systems.

Now to whatever extent values clarification people are
interested in that, or are trying to get at some of those problems,
I'd see a great opportunity there. I don't know.

In all frankness, the main problem I have with people who
identify themselves as humanistic educators, and values clarification
people, is that they're primarily in the unreflective, practical
aspects of it, and don't want to look at the deeper problems, and
actually reject theory and philosophy and reflection, and in many
ways are rejecting the very things they claim that it is all about.
So I have a hard time relating to that. I see you as somewhat of
an exception in the field. I see you not only willing to look at
those problems, but interested in looking at those problems. But
I don't find that generally in the people from that particular
orientation. They seem to not see the value of those things. They
see it as abstract crap, you know, and the "ivory tower," and that's

not what I'm talking about at all.

TAFFEE: One last question, and that is: "If I were to call you up
ten years from now, wherever you might be, and ask you what has

happened, John? I've been away for the last ten years, and what

415

has happened in this whole area of values education, and whatever
became of that thing called values clarification?" What would you

like to be able to say to me?

STEWART: I'd like to be able to say that it saw its own limitations
and problems, and changed, for if we keep on going this way we're
going to die. How can we grow? How can we get at these questions?
What will it take to do that? We've got to apply the basic principles
of values clarification to ourselves and our own theories and hunches.
We've got to seek clarification and be willing to accept criticism,
and be willing to grow from that criticism.

So I would love to be able to say ten years from now: "Hey.
Values clarification outgrew its infancy, survived its childhood
and youth, and is now become really serious, really mature, and
very deep, and now is tackling things much more profoundly and with
greater depth, is able to make really significant claims about
what it's doing, and it's constantly changing." I would like to
be able to make that claim.

As it is, I see values clarification clinging too much to
what it already was, as it was developed, and is going on and
generating more content instead of reformulating. So ten years
from now, I'd like to say: "Yeah. It grew-up. It did rebuild
or reformulate and it's better than it ever was." I would not
predict that that will happen.

If I had to predict, I'd predict it won't happen, and it
will by and large die and be forgotten by most people, and will

416

have been unconsciously incorporated into the general behavior of

those who have got into it more deeply.
TAFFEE: Is there anything else that you'd like to comment upon?

STEWART: Ah——yes. Let's see . . . a couple things.

I'd like to possibly see if it sheds light on some of these
things by making a differentiation between two aspects of values
clarification as it's presently constituted. Now just tentatively,
let's differentiate between "strategies" and "process methodology."

I think the greatest emphasis has been and continues to be
on the building of strategies. Now I think that what's going to
be necessary is that we incorporate the general orientation of
clarification into one's teaching style and process. In other
words, to bring inquiry, examination and exploration into the
picture. So to phrase it another way: to incorporate the general
orientation of clarification into one's teaching style and process
i§_to bring inquiry, examination, and exploration into the picture.

The kinds of clarifying responses, for example, that are
contained in the v.c. literature, establish a general pattern that
asks teachers and students pm to engage in positive and constructive
reflection. In other words, the process methodology of v.c. can be
incorporated into any person's style, into any subject matter or
classroom, in ways that are tremendously supportive of the kinds
of educational experiences that lead to growth and development.

So consequently, I would recommend a greater emphasis on this

aSpect, rather than on the strategies aspect.

417

The latter are good or can be good in certain circumstances
and in the hands of competent and responsible educators. But they
have problems and limitations that make them not as useful and
powerful as the overall and pervasive kind of orientation on that
the process methodology involves. So if that differentiation is
useful, it may get at some of the kinds of things we've been talking
about.

Now another thing is, and we've already talked about this,
some of the leaders and others on the v.c. arena seem to resent
and reject criticism, no matter how constructive it might be.
Scientists and philosophers grow as people and develop their know-
ledge and theories partly through subjecting their ideas to vigorous
professional criticism. Generally speaking, I see this dimension
absent in the larger field of humanistic education, and the smaller
dimension that defines values clarification.

Now I see this as a very serious problem, because values
clarification by its definition and nature, should seek this kind
of clarification, and in fact, if it's going to espouse the ideas
contained in its framework, it has a moral and professional obligation
to seek and receive professional clarification and criticism.

Sid Simon's answer to my article in the gppppn,.is both

'0 For some reason, which

manifestation and symbol of this claim.
I wish I understood, Steve, too many educators and values clarifiers

are incredibly defensive. Simon's brief reaction illustrates much

 

'OSee "Sidney Simon's Response," Phi Delta Knppan, 56, 10
(June, 1975), 688.

418

of this. Not only does it reject the substances of the criticism
and questions contained in my article, it violates all the principles
of humanism and values clarification. He reacts personally and
defensively to the critique. He's never met me, but he jumps to

all kinds of conclusions about me as a person and professional.

He side-steps any attempts at clarification, and even implies that

I haven't worked with teachers and children.

Now, what I think Simon needs to ask himself, and all
humanists and values clarifiers need to ask, is: "How does this
reconcile with the basic tenets of values clarification and
humanism?" One of the things I'm leading up to, is saying: I see
as a very bad sign, the fact that the values clarification pppplp.
have not publicly responded to his answer to me. I see that as a
bad sign. I feel that the v.c. theory would call for values clari-
fiers to publicly affirm their basic humanism by speaking out about
the inhumane, unjust, and unclarifying manner in which Simon, the
acknowledged leader of the field, reacted to that article. Now I
see this as important, because many other people have given me
anecdotes about the way he is out of the workshop, and the way he
treats people.

Well, the deep point here is, that if the main people in
v.c., the leaders and the people who are working with it everyday,
don't see that as a problem, then they haven't seen all the other
things that you and I have been talking about that I think are

necessary if they want to stay alive.

419

The point of all that I've just said, was that the people
in_it have got to start looking gp it, rather than just running away

with its success.

There's no question, it has and it could continue to make
a very powerful contribution. But I don't think it's going to last,
unless it takes some drastic changes along the lines that we've

talked about.

APPENDIX L

INTERVIEW WITH ALAN L. LOCKWOOD

420

INTERVIEW WITH ALAN L. LOCKWOOD

TAFFEE: I'm interested, first of all, in how did your interest in

values education first develop?

LOCKWOOD: Well, it came about through my work with the Harvard

Public Issues Series. I don't know if you know that curriculum.
1

 

Don Oliver and Fred Newman were the main creators of it.
I was a high school social studies teacher before I became

a doctoral student, and so the values education interest largely

came about through trying to think about citizenship education.

And their curriculum has this complicated view of "public policy

issues," and ways of analyzing the values components in them and

helping kids develop clear policy positions, which include

defensible value claims; and for them to take seriously the value

issues and how they come up in particular situations. And so then

I was working with Oliver, and Kohlberg came to Harvard while I

was there. And his psychology in particular--I hadn't thought

much about the philosophical aspects of his stages--but the

psychological theory, in particular, the notion that the research

on "comprehension of preference:" the suggestion that kids have

difficulty understanding concepts that are stages above their own,

seemed to be very powerful. Because in using public policy materials,

we found that kids really were having a lot of problems integrating

into their own heads, the approach. They could learn specific

 

'Donald W. Oliver and Fred M. Newmann, The Public Issues
Series (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1967-72).

421

422

discussion techniques and so on, but the rationale for the Harvard
public issues stuff is pitched at Stage Five and Six in Kohlberg
terms. And a lot of the discussion operations assume that kids
can think like Supreme Court judges.

And so at first, we thought Kohlberg's stuff looked real
helpful to explain why so many children couldn't really get "into,"
if that's the right word, but fully comprehend nny they were doing
public issues. And then I began to work more with Kohlberg, and
read more, learn more. . . .

So that's sort of, in a rough way, how I got into it.

TAFFEE: I see. Within that, how did you come to an interest in

values clarification?

LOCKWOOD: When I was still a doctoral student in 1968, some
colleagues of mine and I were in the process of trying to get
better understandings of how we wanted to treat value issues in
social studies. And their book, the first book, Values and
Teaching, which I think was in '66, that's when I first read it,
was in '68.2 And we looked up that approach and found it not
very helpful. Some of the methods, techniques, and so on were O.K.,
but theoretically, it seemed very inadequate for what we were trying
to do.

So that's when I first encountered the approach. And then

it just kept being "thrown-in your face" all the time as it became

 

2Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney 8. Simon, Values
and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom (Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966)T*

423

increasingly popular. And "true believers" of that particular
school would be making certain kinds of claims and so on.

But I think we also--I'm not sure if I could document this
to myself--I think we felt that people were accepting the values
clarification stuff to the exclusion of somewhat more difficult
approaches, but I think more defensible. That is, that Kohlberg
wasn't getting enough play in people's minds as far as I was con-
cerned. It was as though the values clarification version of
values education had driven everything else out of people's minds.

And that was kind of bothersome to me as the years went along.

TAFFEE: On that line, do you see any possibility in the next ten
years perhaps, that people from the Kohlberg school of thought
and people from the values clarification area, might work

cooperatively?

LOCKWOOD: Yes, I do. I'll tell you why.

Although I don't know if you've read any of this stuff I've
written, actually it's only a couple of things out, a lot of other
critiques of values clarification I've done are in press, but I'm
not real fond of it as an approach, for various reasons. But the
virtues that it has can be blended quite nicely into the Kohlberg
or the moral reasoning approach-~I don't know if we want to call
it just the "Kohlberg" approach, because there are a lot of things
that are troublesome with his particular curricula as well.

But yes, I think so. I don't know whether Sidney Simon, if

you think in terms of what is the probability of any personalities

424

from the two schools working together. . . . I've never met Sidney.
I've written to him a few times. My impression is that he is going
pretty much towards the affective education, more “therapeutic,"
group-interaction approach. And I know in some of the things I've
read, he doesn't even seem to quite understand what this charge of
"ethical relativism" is all about. So I have a feeling that there's
not much chance that he, personally, will ever really try to take
the Kohlberg stuff very seriously.

But on the other hand, Howard Kirschenbaum, I think is a
man who can understand the Kohlberg stuff and may, although he's
more research oriented in terms of developing curriculum and so
on, I think he, if he develops an interest in trying to merge the
two, would be able to work with Kohlberg-types.

Merrill Harmin--I've had some correspondence with him. . . .

Did you read that critique I wrote of values clarification?
TAFFEE: In the Teachers' College Record? Yes, I did.3

LOCKWOOD: O.K. As a result of that, Harmin--he and I have been
corresponding a little bit, and in some of his letters, he is
trying to tell me about this kind of "split" in the values clarifi-
cation group. It's not a significant split, it's more a matter
of emphasis.

In the materials that he's developing now, and the things

that he does, they're more toward public policy questions, and less

 

3Alan L. Lockwood, "A Critical View of Values Clarification,"
Teachers College Record, 77, 1 (September, 1975), 35-50.

425

toward the kind of, what I call the "therapeutic, self-understanding,
self-esteem development approach," which I think Sidney is into.

So Harmin is one who I think could work at making some
merging of the Kohlberg stuff. But that's a guess.

It really requires, as far as I'm concerned, that the
initiative for that merger is going to have to come from the
Kohlberg people. This may sound kind of patronizing, but I think
that the values clarification folk, by and large, really don't
understand the Kohlberg stuff. It takes an awful, awful long time
of study, and so on, to really get a good enough understanding of
it to see how you work it in practice.

So my feeling would be that the Kohlberg people, like Edwin
Fenton or Anne Colby--Colby has written some about how the two can
be brought together--and Kohlberg certainly feels that the two can
work together as well--so I think if these folks take the initiative,
it's more likely to occur that curriculum materials merging the two
approaches can come out.4

There's no motivation, really, for the values clarifiers to,
as I see it anyway, try to make that merge. They're doing really

well, and they're busier than hell. So. . . .

TAFFEE: How about yourself? Would you be interested in working on

that?

 

4See Anne Colby, Review of Values and Teaching;_ Working_with
Values in the Classroom, by Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and
Sidney 8. Simon, and Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical
Strategies for Teachers and Students, by Sidney 8. Simon, Leland W.
Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum, Harvard Educational Review, 45, 1
(February, 1975), 134-143.

426

LOCKWOOD: Yes, I am to an extent. I'm developing curricula.
I've written a little book called Moral Reasoning;_ The

Value of Life, which is consistent with the Kohlberg stuff. But

 

I'm now trying to expand my curriculum work.5

The things of values clarification that can be employed
are a lot of the techniques of getting kids to listen to one
another, to take other roles, and there's things you can take
from values clarification that a lot of them are just good class-
room pedagogy, and put with the Kohlberg stuff.

What is probably irreconcilable in the two approaches, is
that the Kohlberg approach is trying to focus exclusively on the
"moral" issues per se, and the current state of values clarification
mixes "moral" and "non-moral" value considerations all in the same
pile. And until the values clarification people say: "Look,.there's
a difference between people deciding whether they want to go to the
movies or listen to a concert--there's a difference between that
kind of value choice, and a value choice which deals with the
question of whether 'mercy-killing' ought to be legalized," until
they're willing to make that kind of distinction, say: "Look, those
are both values questions but they're of a very different order,"
then I don't see much of a possibility of any significant merging
of the two. And they don't, at the moment, really take seriously

this kind of point that I've tried to make in my article and so on.

 

5Alan L. Lockwood, Moral Reasoning: The Value of Life
(Columbus: Ohio: Xerox, 1972).

427

TAFFEE: I hear in your examples of moral and non-moral issues,

implicit definitions of the word "moral," and the word "value."

LOCKWOOD: That's right.

TAFFEE: Could you just quickly "nutshell" what those two are?

LOCKWOOD: Well, yes and no. I can tell you that it's a very
difficult problem to make a clear definition. I've struggled with
that for a year or so. You can give examples, I think.

For example, the non-moral value realm consists of preferential
decisions, which deal with, say, aesthetics: what do you like?
personal career choices; instrumental value decisions usually, you
know: "would it be better for me to go to college, or would it
be better for me to take a few years off? Which would be best at
helping me get clear about what I want to do in my life?" You
know, the selection of means questions, are generally considered
to be non-moral.

But moral values decisions on the other hand, are roughly
those that deal with decisions that fundamentally affect the rights
of other people, and certain kinds of rights that others have, like
"life," "liberty," "property," "autonomy" and so on. So that the
moral value realm is a subset of what you'd call the realm of
"values." There are more non-moral values issues in the world than
there are moral values issues in the world.

But on the other hand, while there's this select little

domain of moral values issues, because the moral decisions that are

428

made seriously affect the rights and welfare of other people, it's
very important that those be made in sort of responsible, careful,
defensible ways.

In the non-moral value realm, say in the realm of aesthetics,
whether you like Picasso or Mondrian or something--we don't care
quite that much. You know, we sort of really don't mind if someone
says: "Well, I just like it and so I'm going to buy it," or if you
like chocolate ice cream as opposed to vanilla--it's hard to get
really worked up about people's preferences in that domain. You
don't really care if they're relativistic or subjectivistic. There's
not a lot of social interest in how they make those decisions. And
it's not clear that fundamental human rights are going to be violated
if they prefer chocolate ice cream or vanilla, or if they'd rather

want to be a doctor, an engineer, or unemployed.

TAFFEE: Could you describe what, in your mind, would constitute a
"responsible decision-making" mechanism for moral decisions, moral

issues?

LOCKWOOD: I can't do it in a real elaborate way.

The first thing I would say is the making of defensible
moral decisions, one of the things you want to have happen, or I_
want to have happen, is that they think seriously. They take into
account in their decision-making certain, what we might call,
"morally relevant considerations." So that you ask yourself such
questions as: "Are fundamental rights of other people going to be

affected by my decision?" You ask such questions as: "What are the

429

implications of my decision for similar situations, analagous situ-
ations? Is it right if I make a decision on the basis of my self-
interest--am I also willing to say that other people can make their
decisions that way?" So that's kind of a variation of thinking of
Kant's categorical imperative. "Are you willing to, if you've made
a particular decision in the moral domain, if you change roles with
other persons in that situation, would you be satisfied? Would it
be defensible if you're on the receiving end of the decision you
made?"

You want people to think in those terms, instead of exclusively
in their own egocentric welfare considerations. You want them to
think of the consequences certainly. In both values clarification
and in defensible moral reasoning, you want people to think of
consequences. I think in the moral area you want them to think
primarily of consequences in terms of influencing the rights and
welfare of others, and not necessarily exclusively for your own
gain. You know, we're not asking people to be martyrs and altruists,
but we want them to take into account things like: consistency of
reasoning, and that's related to what I said: "Are they willing to
let other people think the way they are?" So that's tied up in the
notion of what it means to be a principled moral reasoner, those

considerations are.

TAFFEE: I'd just like to poke at the whole area just one more time,
I think, and ask: Is there a "list," or do you have an idea of
what constitute the ”fundamental human rights" that you've been

referring to?

430

LOCKWOOD: Well, a partial identification of them can be found in
the democratic tradition: rights to free expression; rights to
life, and property; rights to be treated as a full human being, and
not be used as means to other people's ends; rights to autonomy;
rights to liberty. Mostly civil rights and civil liberties that
you can identify. The usual list of things that Supreme Court cases

get made of, constitute "rights" of others as far as I'm concerned.

TAFFEE: Moving into a different area, do you have any notions
about how values clarification has affected the lives of the people
who have assumed it, either in their classrooms, or have been trained

in it?

LOCKWOOD: You mean people who have become values clarifiers?

TAFFEE: Right.

LOCKWOOD: No. I've met very few "true believers." Partly because
"true believers" don't come near me, I guess. (laughs) But I've
read some testimony, you know, where people really have liked work-
shops, and they've been real impressed. Like when Sidney does his
number at conventions and so on, some people think he's terrific.
Other people don't. But they're reacting more to an experience
with it. As far as somebody who's really made a living at doing
values clarification, I don't really know very many people like that.
The people I know who do it, do it as a unit or something

like that.

431

TAFFEE: I'd like to talk a little bit about the terms that are used,
sometimes indiscriminately I think, within the whole area of values
education. You've told me how you see differences between words

like "moral values" and "non-moral values." I wonder if you could
talk a little bit about other words that I hear quite often, and
those are: "attitudes," "absolutes,“ "beliefs," and "feelings."

Do you distinguish between those, and if so, can you give me a few

sentences perhaps, on how you do?

LOCKWOOD: Well, "beliefs" I distinguish within the domain of
beliefs between "factual beliefs," beliefs about the way things
are. Which would be such sentences as: "Most people believe that
it's wrong to do . . . something." That's a factual belief. Or,
"people in other cultures don't respect life as much as we do."
That's a belief of a sort of a "quasi-factual" type.

But there are those kinds of beliefs, and there are kind
of "metaphysical beliefs" about God, about whether what's "right"
or "wrong," is something that's in a Plantonic sense: "prior to
existence," and so on.

Then there are beliefs about what counts as a "defensible
way to make value decisions." So there are different kinds of
"beliefs."

In terms of "feelings," I just think of them as "emotions,"
primarily. Aside from sensing things, of course, like "hot" and
"cold." But I construe "feelings" as like: love and anger, anxiety,

frustration, joy, happiness, uncertainty. . . . Things of that nature

432

which are ephemeral. That's another feature of feelings I think
that distinguishes them from "beliefs," is that they tend to be--
beliefs tend to be more enduring, more stable constructs, whereas
"feelings"--they come and go.

So "feelings" seem to be less stable, unless you're really
a psychopath or something like that, or depressed, or you may have
five months of depressions like some unfortunate people do.

"Attitudes" in my . . . this is right off the top. I
construe "attitudes" as kind of non-reflective orientations that
people have towards certain things. Sort of "pro and con" answers
to different kinds of questions that are posed in the worlds. But
I construe "attitudes" as largely gut-reactions to things, habital
responses.

Now they mgy_be the result of careful thought and reflection
at some earlier time. Like R.S. Peters talks about "habits" as
things that we shouldn't sneer at in the moral domain, because they
may be "good" habits. That is they may be habits that we aquire
because of past careful considerations, and so on, and not simply
unreflective, ill-considered--in terms of action.

But I think of "attitudes" more as the kinds of immediate

orientations we have.
TAFFEE: How about absolutes?

LOCKWOOD: Well, I haven't really got a lot of good things to say.

I don't really know what. . . . I assume that "absolutes" means

433

certain "truths" that people have. They can be "beliefs." They can
be "moral values." They can be any number of things.

But it's sort of a way of treating a "belief." An "absolute"
would be a particular way of treating a belief or a moral value
consideration, or an attitude, I suppose. And that would be that
they are true for all time, and cannot be modified. There are
"absolute" beliefs of factual types, metaphysical types, and so on.
Some people talk about "moral attitudes" also, of the Ten Commandment
type: "It is always wrong to do . . . 'X.'"

I am really not particularly good at thinking about what that

means .

TAFFEE: What sort of role within the moral reasoning domain, might

you see for the affective side of life? Or 1§_there a role?

LOCKWOOD: I think there is. It's not clear yet how the two merge.

A lot of the Piaget work, which Kohlberg hasn't integrated
I don't think real well into his particular schema-~but Piaget has
elaborated certain stages of affective change that go along with
the cognitive.

Kohlberg's also suggested that the cognitive development
and the affective development are closely related. But from my
standpoint, if we talk about, say "feelings" or "attitudes," we
are I think, typically what people first think of when they think
about "affective"--they think about "affective"--they think about
"feeling" and to some extent, "attitudes." Subjective things, I

guess that's what people would consider to be the affective.

434

The moral development area has not paid much attention
to things that are affective, such as motivation, for example, or
feelings about other persons. Some of Selman's work on role-
taking and motivations for empathy that Moser and Spinthall treat--
that I think is an example of where affective considerations,
"empathy" for example being a particularly good one. . . .6’7 It's
pretty clear that you want moral decision makers to be more than
some kind of unfeeling persons,who sit in their rooms somewhere
and decide what's right on the basis of whether you can will it
to the categorical.

Kohlberg tends to dismiss many of the things we'd call
"affective" as a "bag of virtues," and not worth considering in
development, partly because he doesn't see them connecting in any
stable way, to making moral decisions. And there's certainly a lot
of research evidence to support his point of view. But concern for
others is certainly a rough feeling or attitude that I think you
want people to have.

One other area there too, Steve, isn't exactly what we
mean by "affective" I suppose. But one of the things that's left
out of the Kohlberg area are lots of notions about what the "good
u

life" would be. I'd like to relate it to "happiness" and "satisfaction,

and so on. But those kinds of issues really don't get treated in the

 

6See R. Selman, The Relations of Stages of Social Role-Taking
to Moral Development: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (Cambridge,

Ma.: Laboratory of Human Development, Harvard University, 1973).

7Dr. Norman Spinthall.

435

Kohlberg approach, and they do get treated, although on a somewhat
individualistic basis, in the values clarification things.

But I'd like to see more attention paid to those kinds of
questions in the Kohlberg system. "What is the 'good life' for
persons in society?" And so on. Instead of always asking what's
"right" or what's "wrong?"--another general type of question that
is legitimate to raise when you talk about values, is: "What's
'good' and what's 'bad?'" Sometimes the "right" things are not
"good." Like it might be "right" to shoot a person who is about
to assassinate someone else, or is about to spray a crowd with a
machine gun--it would be "right" to shoot that person. But it .
wouldn't be "good." It's not "good" to have to kill people. That
kind of dialectic doesn't go on in the Kohlberg stuff. It's

exclusively "right" and "wrong."

TAFFEE: One of the criticisms that John Stewart mentions in his

article in the Phi Delta Kappan relative to values clarification,

 

is that he-feels values clarification deals primarily with "content"

"8

to the neglect of "structure. Do you also see that, and if so,

would you agree with the criticism?

LOCKWOOD: I haven't read Stewart's article in about a year, and I
can't remember exactly how he uses it, how he defines those terms.
I would say that, in my view, here's one way of distinguishing

between the moral development stuff and the values clarification- is

 

- 8John S. Stewart, "Clarifying Values Clarification: A
Critique," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 10 (June, 1975), 684-688.

436

to say that the values clarification folks are really interested in
the choices that students make, and in that sense, they are more
into "content." They want people to make choices and to act on
them, and so on. So they're really much more interested in that.
Now they do have a "form" and a ”process" obviously, that
they think you should go through. But the objective is to get
people to make choices, and to be happy with those choices. And
in that sense, their orientation is much more towards "content."
"Are you going to try to become a doctor or aren't you?" And I
don't know if that's the way Stewart was using the "form" and

"content." But in that regard, yes, they are more "content" oriented.

TAFFEE: To maybe put that question in a different direction: Would
you think that perhaps, people in the Kohlberg tradition might deal
with "structure," "form," and other aspects of moral reasoning to

the neglect of the "content" of their decisions?

LOCKWOOD: Well, yes. But in a special kind of way.

That “form-content" distinction is a real sloppy one, as I'm
sure you're aware of. You can't. . . . It's really very hard to
make, because he's treating content all the time. Every moral
dilemma has content in it.

But he defines "content" exclusively as the choice that
people make. The "content" of your reasoning is just kind of
either "yes" or "no" to certain kinds of basic questions. And
given that limited sense of Hoontent," if you define "content" that
way, then they're not giving too little attention to "content,"

given the way they define "content."

437

But if you define "content" in another way, like "treating
the factual considerations and the public policy questions," like
"trying to go into some detail about the effects of the general
decision, say like bussing, on kids"--kind of "factual content" as
opposed to "'yes or no' content"--I think they do not pay enough
attention to the former type of "content."

Secondly, I think they just don't acknowledge the amount
of time that they do spend with content. They're tending to think
that they're not treating content when they really are. For example,
most of the dilemmas really involve one actor, one primary protagonist
coming up against sort of "face-less others." Now that's a content
in a sense. It's saying that this is one type of moral dilemma that
pe0ple can confront.

Well, there are a lot of other contents in which moral
dilemmas arise. In the "Heinz dilemma" for example, inyou modified
that dilemma to say that not only was Heinz' wife dying and needed
this drug, but a wealthy man's wife was dying and needed this drug--
and he was going to go pay for it the following day--would it be
right for Heinz to steal it? Now that's a very simple modification
that I think dramatically changes the kind of content that you have
to take into account. "Content" in this sense meaning: "Who are
the people that are going to be affected?" The kind of "factual

content" that's in the dilemma.

TAFFEE: Moving into a different area of questioning now, do you
have any notions about what the future might hold in regard to the

widespread popularity that values clarification has enjoyed?

438

LOCKWOOD: Well I don't really have anything, other than "gut-
reaction."

But my perspective has to be kind of taken with the realization
that the basis on which I'm making my answers is based on the people
who talk to me. And a lot of people who talk to me are saying they
don't like values clarification. It worked O.K. for a while, but
the kids get tired of it.

So I hear a lot of that, but that's also as I said earlier,
because people know that I'm not a real enthusiast for the approach.
I don't think it's immoral in any significant way, just irresponsible
in a lot of significant ways.

So my guess would be that, the more it becomes in the
"therapy orientation" that the Simon group seems to be going in,
the less likely it is to become a significant part of classroom
curricula, and the more likely it is to be employed by counselors.
We're talking about school settings, now. And the more likely it
is to be employed by counselors, who are somehow assigned that task.

And I think that increasing amounts of values clarification
activities will go on in teacher education, trying to help pre-
service teachers in particular to figure out what they believe in,
in terms of education, and so on. We're seeing some of that going
on already.

And I know for a while, Sidney was kind of running values
clarification weekends for businessmen and junior executive-types
and so on. They also, at that humanistic center, I think that's

where it is, they have. . . . I just saw their brochure for the

439

summer. I don't know if you took a look at that. They've got all
these "therapy" orientation, family workshops and couples workshops,
and so on. And that whole movement is kind of an eastern version
of Esalen and pop-therapy from the California scene, as far as I
see it.9
So that particular thrust of values clarification, to
summarize I guess this babbling, is to suggest that the more it
gets therapeutic, the less it's going to be used in regular class-

rooms, and it will more likely be employed in counseling settings

in schools, and in these quasi-therapeutic settings for non-kids.

TAFFEE: What sort of research would you like to see people in the

area of values clarification attempt during the next ten years?
LOCKWOOD: Good, good research. (laughs)
TAFFEE: What's that mean?

LOCKWOOD: Well, I'm currently--I've got a grant for this summer

to compile . . . I'm trying to write a review of existing research
on values clarification, effects of values clarification, and the
effects of the Kohlberg stuff. I really haven't read a lot of it.
I've read, you know, Kirschenbaum's little reviews and so on, which

are a couple of paragraphs statements.'0

 

9Reference to the National Humanistic Education Center,
Saratoga Springs, N.Y., which conducts various workshops in edu-
cation and related fields.

10See Howard Kirschenbaum, "Current Research in Values
Clarification" (Upper Jay, N.Y.: National Humanistic Education Center,
1975) (Mimeographed).

440

And if you look at the research in the back of Values and

 

Teaching, admittedly that's ten years old, but not very much is
really good, quality research, from the standpoint of research

" To my knowledge, and I don't want to jump

methodology and so on.
to that conclusion until I get my summers' work done, the things

I've seen, by and large, have been afflicted with some very serious
methodological errors: in the way that control groups are selected.
You know, frequently there are no control groups selected in some

of the research that Kirschenbaum reports, and he's aware of that.
Very small sample size in some cases. So that's one problem.

Some of the kinds I'm talking about when I say "good"
research, is research that has got some sort of methodological
integrity, according tothe general canons of social science
research.

Even with the inadequacies from a methodological point of
view, a lot of the studies that Kirschenbaum reports don't show
much change in the desired direction. Now I can't spit them off
to you at this point, but if you skim through his articles, and
through the summaries that Howard Kirschenbaum has written, you
frequently see: "Well, they got no change, or they got a little
bit of a change, or something like that." A very serious question
as to whether the treatment is anywhere near as potent as they claim.

A second thing that I'd like to see in terms of future

research, is to get straightened out on what the dependent variable

 

"Raths, et al., pp. c_i_t.

441

is. If you look at just again the Kirschenbaum summaries, it looks
like there's a different dependent variable in every damn study
that's done. In some of them it's “drug usage" or "non-usage."

In some of them it's "attitude towards school." In some of them
it's "reading ability." In some of them it's "satisfaction with
school." Every damn thing under the sun. And that's a problem.

A real problem.

And one of the ways it shows up in some research, is where
they give multiple measures: just a ton of questionnaires or inter-
view things that deal with self-esteem, and reading ability and
drug usage--that gives, say, fifteen dependent variables or something.
And then you find change in two of them, and then you report that
change. Well for Pete's sake, just by law of average you're going
to get change if you give a whole lot of dependent variables, "pre-
and post-." You're going to get a couple that happen just by chance.

And so that's a problem with the design: getting clear
about the dependent variable.

I haven't seen Clark's study, which is supposed to be
complete. And they seem to be holding that up as one of the more
complete or better done studies, methodologically.'2

But I don't know. If you're trying to marry that approach
to virtually every social problem that a researcher can think of--

you know I don't know if they've done research on trying to find

 

'zReference to a study conducted by Jay Clark under the
Sponsorship of Operation Future, Visalia, California.

442

out if values clarification leads to greater sexual satisfaction
in marriage, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that come out.

So, from the standpoint of the leaders of the movement,

I think they should try to respond to that problem. Otherwise,
people are treating it as though it's a panacea for every social ill
that you can think of: vandalism . . . pimples . . . you know.

On the other hand, the Kohlberg stuff--it's pretty clear
what the dependent variable is at the moment, in that while there's
some variation, it's always the stage of moral reasoning. Whether
you think it's a valid measure or not, that's what they tend to be
focusing on, and with some ancillary dependent variables occasionally,
like "empathy" or "role-taking ability.“ But those are tied so
very closely to the theory.

Values clarification theory, you've got. . . . They make
about-~I can't even remember how many different claims in their

books about what the effects of this thing are going to be.

TAFFEE: I've heard suggestions from various people, some within
values clarification and some in different areas, that one area
of research that might be worth looking into is whether or not
the values clarification process can produce stage changes in the
Kohlberg sense. Is that another area you think might be worth

looking into?

LOCKWOOD: Ah yes. It's not a real high priority with me. But I've
got a doctoral student now who is finishing a dissertation which

is going to do exactly that. So I think it's worth doing.

443

It's not a lot of theoretical interest to ask that question
really. Stage change is not what the intervention is designed to
promote. It's almost like what I was complaining about before,
where, you know, you grab whatever your favorite dependent variable
is and see if values clarification can promote it. That's kind of
shitty science.

It's an interesting question from a standpoint of a kind of
practical, pedagogical question. It's rather interesting to know.
But after that, I don't see it as a real, significant kind of question.

What we've tried to do . . . you know Wilson's book on an

'3 John Wilson? You know, how he

Introduction to-Moral Education?
has all these components, and he also has the notion of "pre-
conditions." And I think establishing pre-conditions for optimal
moral development--that would be a very excellent way to try to do
research on the effects of values clarification regarding moral
development. And by that I mean, if you use values clarification
in such a way as to establish getting kids to be more comfortable
in talking to one another, getting them to be more empathetic with
other people's concerns; getting teachers to be less obnoxious;

and getting teachers to allow kids to express themselves and so on,
and so on. Then--and getting kids to be less hostiley critical to
one another--you might be establishing pre-conditions, a result of
which more effective moral development programs can go on.

So in that sense, that's worthwhile research, to try to

find out what the pre-conditions are, or the context and the

 

'3John Wilson, et al., Introduction to Moral Education
(Baltimore: Penguin, 1967).

444

surroundings in which optimum moral development can take place. And
there's something to be said for doing that kind of research with
values clarification.

But I have to keep saying this, I guess because it's not
always clear what values clarification is in practice. One book
has got seventy-eight strategies in it, and they range from raising
your hand on a "voting" thing, to better, intensive personal
discussions, the "Public Interview" you know.

I've talked about, you know, the lack of clarity about what
the hell the dependent variable is that the leaders of the movement
are claiming is the one that they're aiming for. It's very ill-
defined. But there's also this question of: how uniform is the
treatment? Like, I conjure up in my head . . . I tend to conjure
up the more "therapeutic" settings as to what their central
treatment is. The teacher picking up those books could choose
fifteen activities that would look not much different perhaps
than what they already do: taking straw polls, having the kids
discuss certain kinds of questions, write essays. . . . So it's

really hard sometimes, to know exactly what the treatment is.

TAFFEE: I'd like to ask you a "what-if" question. And the "what
if" question is this: "What if you were asked to chair a meeting
between values clarification people, and other people in the area
of values education, and what if you were also asked to establish
an agenda of issues to which you think values clarification people

should speak? What sort of issues might come to mind?"

445

LOCKWOOD: O.K. I can give you a very coherent response to that,

I think, because I've thought about that. I just have been working
on a--suppose you'd call it a "paper." It's not clear whether it's
going to be an article or a speech yet. And one of the things I've
tried to set out is what I see as the major differences between

moral reasoning and values clarification approaches, and the other
thing is what I see as major difficulties with both of those
approaches. And the agenda that I would set for values clarification
would be the following:

One would deal with that issue of the failure to distinguish
between "moral" and "non-moral" value issues in their approach. So
I don't know how the item would read, but that would be an issue
for them to cope with.

The second would be how they deal with the problems of
being ethically relativistic or narcissistic or egocentric in their
views. They have a tendency to promote that, perhaps, in persons.
The absence of social conscience in their approach. So that would
be a second item.

The third would be the therapy problem. They speak in
Values and Teaching_anyway, but not very much elsewhere, about
how they're really not doing therapy, and how they're really into

the intellectual area.'4

And I'd like them of course to respond
to my contention that that's really a "smoke screen," that they're
actually doing some kind of "client-centered therapy," or Gestalt

therapy. And as a consequence for that, as to kind of get clearer

 

”Raths, et al., _p. it.

 

446

about this therapy notion and how they would defend it as being
appropriate for public schools.

Now I'm talking about public school contexts. The difference
there is that teachers aren't trained to be therapists, and if they
think they're not doing therapy, but what they really are is doing
a lousy job of implementing client-centered therapy. Because they
don't really know what they're doing. They've been told that
they're doing some kind of intellectual development.

So that long-winded response would be another. I guess it's
the third agenda item.

Fourth is "privacy rights." I've just written a long paper
on how privacy rights are treated in values clarification, and how
they're treated in the moral reasoning approach. And there's some
very serious problems, as I see it, with the question of whether
values clarification jeopardizes privacy rights of kids and families.
And they have not responded to that.

They have, as you probably know, this little concept of
"pass." That if you're asked a question, you can always pass and
say: "No. I choose not to respond to that." But I suspect in
practice, that that runs counter to the main thrust of the approach.
And in a little book by Clark and Simon, as well as in the seventy-
eight strategies book, there are a number of things that raise
serious privacy questions.

For example, they have some exercises which are projective
devices, in which kids are supposed to talk as to whether their

parents are happy, what do their parents talk about at home, they

447

ask kids. . . . I mean it is pretty obvious that in the absence of
prior, informed consent on the part of parents, that this kind of
thing, especially with younger kids who aren't aware of the conse-
quences of their revelations, seriously je0pardize the privacy "
rights of parents.

They ask kids such things as: "Are you in love right now?”
and a lot of what we might call "personal" questions. So the
privacy rights issue, I think, is one that I'd have on that agenda.

And then, I guess the final one I've already spoken to,
and that's this: "What i§_the goal of values clarification?" That
speaks to my reaction to the multiplicity of goals that they have,
from behavior change to becoming generally happy with your life.

To try to get more coherent statements of what the leaders of the
movement see as the outcomes that they're working toward.

So those would be my agenda items for values clarification.

I'll give them to you for the moral reasoning one if you

want.
TAFFEE: Sure.

LOCKWOOD: The main problems I see with the moral reasoning approach,
on my agenda, would be it's restricted view of morality. And that
relates most simply to what I was talking about much earlier: that
they don't address certain kinds of questions because of the focus

on "right" and "wrong." They tend to ignore questions of "good" and
"bad," questions of "what is a virtuous man?" and so on, which are

important moral questions. Any moral philosopher treats those kinds

448

of questions. He doesn't exclusively treat questions of "right"
and "wrong," and forget about "goodness" and "virtue" and so on.

So, to kind of deal with the issue of whether the Kohlberg
folks have a too restricted a view of what counts as morality would
be one.

I'd also want them to confront kind of practical problems,
one being the "intellectual inaccessibility" of the Kohlberg stuff
for most teachers. There's no problem in understanding values
clarification. For most teachers, reading the book or going to a
workshop, and they have a very adequate grasp of the approach. But
with Kohlberg you know, I spent about ten years of my life fooling
around with it, and I'm just not all that clear half the time. So
you have that difficulty, and it's a significant one. If people
can't understand it, then it's irresponsible to try to get them to
be doing something.

Another one would be to deal with the "labeling problem,"
which is exclusive to the Kohlberg approach, and not to values
clarification. The problem of labeling kids and categorizing them

as "morally immature” and so on.
TAFFEE: What's your feeling on that?

LOCKWOOD: I think it can be treated, but it hasn't been adequately.
I think it can. . . . In my work with teachers, I go to great lengths
in trying to show what's wrong with labeling, not only in general

but in labeling moral reasoning.

449

First of all, you don't really know what you're doing,
because it takes a long time to learn the scoring system. If you
make quick judgments about a stage, it's invalid most of the time.
Secondly, that from a teacher's standpoint, it's of no value for
you to label a "reason" as a "stage," because that doesn't communi-
cate anything.

If you hear a kid say, for example, "I think it's wrong to
have abortions, because the church--my church-~is opposed to it,
and I believe that my church has thought carefully about value
issues. They have some kind of sacred connection with the super-
natural, and so I go along with their view." Now that's, in a
rough way, you'd call that a Stage Four reasoning. But as a teacher,
if you happen to be treating that question, to call that a Stage
Four reason, even in your head, doesn't do anything. What does it
tell you to do? All it does, is you've sort of collapsed a kid's
reasoning into a little category.

If your goal as a teacher is to help kids explore their
reasons, then when you hear a certain kind of reason, you think up
good analogies for them to test it out in, and so on and so forth,
or you ask them to say more about it. But by and large the practice
of labeling the reasoning when you're trying to conduct classes and
so on, does more harm than good. Partly because of the "Pygmalion"
effects, and so on.

And thirdly, it's also bad to do that, because people don't
understand the amount of variation there is in stage of reasoning.

A kid says something that is a clear Stage Two reason, let's say.

450

Teachers may assume since they don't understand the Kohlberg stuff
because of its intellectual inaccessibility, that they have a pure
Stage Two reasoner. No matter what the next issue is that comes up,
they've got that kid categorized at Stage Two. But there's all
kinds of variation in reasoning.

Another problem I see with the Kohlberg stuff is, and again
it's not intentional in there, it's more by pmission than ppmission,
is that perhaps it may have an unintended effect of having people
identify every issue as a moral issue. And there's something
debilitating about construing every controversy that you encounter
as a moral one, one that the decision about which carries all the
heavy weight decisions of something being morally "right" or morally
"wrong." And that can be devisive. And I don't think that they
have taken that issue seriously. .I don't think there's any research
done on it either.

And the final issue toward my agenda for Kohlberg's group,
of which I am one by the way--I'm more with them than not--is the,
what I call the "implied panacea of principled thought." And that
is the notion that if everybody could finally attain these lofty
realms of principled thought, that moral problems would disappear,
and if they didn't disappear, then you could solve them very quickly.
And that's just foolish.

I don't know if they would . . . or Kohlberg sometimes has
been in recent years, has been claiming that in Stage Six you can
get determinant solutions to all moral problems if the facts are

clear, the facts and definitions are agreed upon. That Stage Six

451

generates determinant decisions to moral issues. And that's more
than just applying a panacea for principled thought. I think the
busing issue, for example, cannot be solved at Stage Six in a
determinant way.

So these would be the kind of major difficulties I see

with both of those approaches.

TAFFEE: You also mentioned that in your paper you were dealing with
the major differences, and I think that sprinkled throughout our
conversation are some of those differences you see between the two,
but I wonder if maybe it would be appropriate just to encapsule

some of those?

LOCKWOOD: O.K. This is real shorthand language.

In terms of the general goals, the moral reasoning approaches,
it seems to me, have this notion of "justice," a philosophical concept
of justice that they want as their general goal. It's what they
want people to get.

Values clarification, the general goal it seems to me, is
more of a psychological one. And that is what you would roughly
call happiness.

In terms of the content that kids deal with, moral reasoning
stuff tries to identify strictly moral value issues. Values clarifi-
cation stuff mixes moral and non-moral value issues together in their
curriculum.

The central question of the moral reasoning approach is

"What is right?" and "Why is it right?" or "What is wrong?" and

452

"Why is it wrong?" The central question of the values clarification
approach is, as I see it, "What do you like?" and "Are you sure that
you like it?"

Another central difference is in terms of the specificity
of the outcome variable they are seeking: stage of moral reasoning
is the variable in moral reasoning. It's pretty clear that that's
the "dependent variable" if you want to use that language.

The specificity of outcome variable in values clarification
is just what I said before, multiplicity of outcomes: 'positive,
enthusiastic, purposeful, proud, reduced drug usage, improved
reading, you know, that kind of outcomes. So they're different in
that regard. The moral reasoning stuff getting much more discrete
and clear outcomes variable.

Another difference deals with the types of conflicts that
they see requiring resolution. The Kohlberg stuff or the moral
reasoning approach, tends to deal with intepfpersonal value conflicts,
and essential moral-type value conflicts: one person wants something
and it's against the law, another person wants something that another
person also wants. . . . But interpersonal conflicts.

Whereas in values clarification, the basic conflicts that
they try to resolve are intngrpersonal, they're within persons trying
to get some kind of consistency between behavior and belief, and
so on.

The preferred mode of interaction between kids, and between

teacher and kids in the moral reasoning approach is confrontational.

453

And that doesn't mean "hostile.“ But it's to say: "Look. You try
to confront kids with the inadequacy of their current modes of
thought."

The preferred mode of interaction in values clarification is
more nurturant, non-judgmental nurturance, and so they're different
in that regard.

And finally, just another central difference has to do with
sort of, what the central aim of schooling is. What tradition they
fall in. And the moral reasoning approach falls in the cognitive
tradition of schooling, that the purpose of schooling is intellectual
development. Whereas the values clarification stuff falls into a
more affective tradition, where the purpose of schooling is to deal
with self-esteem, and the whole child, and so on.

So those are the central differences that I've outlined.

TAFFEE: One final question: If I were to call you back in ten
years from now, and ask you "Well, how have things gone in the last
ten years?" Ideally, how would you like to be able to answer me,
as to how things have gone in the area of values education, and

between maybe, values clarification and cognitive moral development?

LOCKWOOD: Well, I guess the main thing I would say is that: One,
that values education has been taken seriously, and not treated as
just some "fad," like career education or something. But in the
course of the last ten years, that the values education movement
has been taken seriously, that its matured, that its resolved or

come to grips with, or become more sophisticated in dealing with

454

the kinds of questions that I set out back when we were talking
about an agenda.

I'd like to say that, and I'd certainly like to see that
moral development has been integrated into a concept of "citizen-
ship education." Moral development is not going to solve all of
our social ills, but I'd much prefer that citizenship education
take on a developmental perspective, in particular so that persons
understand what it means to respect the rights of another person.
Now a lot of that language floats around in citizenship education
curriculum, but what it actually means in practice is a lot of
preaching, but just doesn't get anywhere, because of the cognitive
incapacity of kids to understand how that integrates into a coherent
philosophy of relating to other people.

If you call me in ten years I may not say that. But that's

what I'm thinking right now.

APPENDIX M

INTERVIEW WITH MILTON ROKEACH

455

INTERVIEW WITH MILTON ROKEACH

TAFFEE: How is it that you became interested in values education

and values?

ROKEACH: I get interested in values because I'm interested in
belief systems, and in attitudes. It was in my earlier work in
studying the organization of belief systems that I became persuaded
that the problem of values had to be addressed. Then I became
interested in the question: "How do you change values?" In the
context of that question, I discovered that by making people aware
of their own values, that one can expose certain contradictions in
their value systems, and I began to report some pretty interesting
evidence that values can be changed through processes of self-
confrontation and processes of self-awareness. .And when you get
to the problem of self-awareness, you're getting close to the

problem of values education.

TAFFEE: When was it that you first became aware of values clarifi-

cation?
ROKEACH: Oh, maybe a couple years ago.

TAFFEE: What's your assessment of its contributions, if any, to

the field?

ROKEACH: Well, my assessment is based on my understanding of what
I've read about what it proposes to do, and, goes somewhat as

follows:

456

457

1. Students, however much they get involved in interesting
discussions as a result of values clarification exercises, do not
become aware of their own values, because the definition that the
students are taught as to whether or not they have a "value" is
far too subjective. I don't think students will therefore learn
about their values. They will be none the wiser when they're all
through, about their own values or about the values of others, or
how their own values are similar to or different from those of
other people. They're not asked to read anything about the values
of other people and I don't think you learn anything about your own
values or about those ofothers merely from having a "bull session."

2. I would agree with those who have suggested that values
clarification is an "ethically relativistic" approach: that anybody's
values is as good as anybody else's values. But on the other hand,
it isn't really relativistic, because the authors of values clarifi-
cation are really pushing a set of values secretly through the back
door.

For example, they say a student has no "value" unless he
"publicly affirms" what he says, so "public affirmation" is a value.
They say it's no "value" unless you do it "consistently," which
means that "consistency" is a value.

If you advocate a philosophy of relativism are you suggesting
that the values of bigots are as good as thevalues of tolerant
people? If you believe such a relativistic position, I think you'd
have to say: "Yes. That's what is being suggested." And yet I

- don't really believe that the values clarification proponents believe

that.

458

3. As for those who have suggested that values clarification
is a form of "therapy," I would respond by saying that only to the
extent that any kind of "bull session" is a form of "therapy," would
I consider values clarification "therapy." Any kind of interaction
between people where people reinforce one another with "You're
right!" could be considered "therapy"--if that's therapy, then so
be it, and I don't have any quarrel with it. In that sense, any
permissive discussion in class is "therapy."

But "therapy" for me implies gaining some deeper grasp of
one's self, in addition to the creation of a condition of uncondi-
tional, positive regard.

4. Another criticism I have is that values clarification
encourages the student to be too egotistical, too selfacentered.
It's too much focused on the questions of trying to clarify the
student's own values, without helping that student clarify what
are the values of other people, other groups in society, other
cultures, and so forth.

5. In my own work, I define a "value" as "a belief that a
certain end state of existence is desirable or undesirable, or that
a certain mode of behavior is desirable or undesirable." Given such
a definition, if it is not a belief about an ideal mode of behavior,
or an ideal end-state of existence, I would say it's not a "value."
In other words, you need a rule on when something is not a "value."
To my mind, we cannot allow each student to decide that for himself

or herself. In the same way that we cannot allow each person to

459

decide if he or she is Ycreative" or "prejudiced." I wouldn't want
to leave that to each person to decide, but should be decided
independently, objectively.

6. I distrust any approach where you can't measure that
which you are talking about. There are no suggestions offered by
its advocates on how to measure "values." I've never heard of a
variable in education or psychology that you couldn't measure, that's
either "there" or "not there."

7. I don't understand all this focus on the process of
valuing--that gets awfully vague. And again each student supposedly
gets clarification on his or her process of valuing, but no solid
objective basis for comparison is given. How is my valuing process
different from yours? Or Black Americans'? Or old Americans'? Or

teachers'?

TAFFEE: Do you distinguish between "value" and what might be called

"morals?"

ROKEACH: "Values" is a broader idea, and "morals" is only one kind
of "value." Being "logical" is a value and if you are illogical

you are not "immoral." There are competense values as well as @9591
values. These other "values" are not part of "morality," but are

still "values.“

TAFFEE: Looking ahead, would you welcome the opportunity to engage
in cooperative efforts with people from the values clarification

area?

460
ROKEACH: Of course I would welcome the possibility.
TAFFEE: Is that something you would actively seek out?

ROKEACH: These things happen spontaneously, and ”actively" means
to me, "aggressively," and I believe in everybody doing their own

thing.

TAFFEE: Is there some research that needs to be done or should

be done in values clarification?

ROKEACH: Any form of moral and ethical education that claims to

be worth doing must have some kind of effects. If it hasn't got
any effects, it's probably not worth the time and effort. If it
has effects, it must mean that something has changed: either a
"value" or a position on a social issue, or most important of all,

a behavior. And I would say this for any other form, like moral
education, moral development, or any other form of values education.
Any kind of value education must sooner or later be shown to have

demonstratable effects on values, attitudes, and behavior.

TAFFEE: Do you have any notions about what the future might hold
in regard to the widespread popularity that values clarification

has enjoyed during the last few years?

ROKEACH: I fear people will eventually get bored with it. I am
not sure the exercises are worth all that time in the classroom,
too many of them may be wasting the students' time. The question

arises: "How far beyond the fourth or fifth or sixth exercise is

461

the student getting anything out of it? At what point is the student
'value-clarified?‘ How do you know this?" That's not discussed, and
there's always the danger that what starts out as an innovative

idea ends up becoming a fad.

TAFFEE: If you were asked to chair a meeting of values educators,
the purpose of which was to focus on issues to which values
clarification should speak, what would you want to have on the

agenda?

ROKEACH: Well, I think it would be related to what I was just

talking about: demonstrable effects. Do they or do they not exist?

 

That would be the foremost question I would ask of that or any other
values education approach. And if there are no demonstrable effects,
we should be prepared to conclude that the method or the approach

is invalid.

TAFFEE: What might the future hold with regard to the broader field

of values education?

ROKEACH: Oh, I am sure there will be a proliferation of other
proposals on how to teach value education: I've made one such
proposal myself. Whether my proposal will fare any better I don't

know; that remains to be seen.
TAFFEE: Could you briefly outline what your proposal consists of?

ROKEACH: Well, the proposal that I've made is, first of all, that

the educational system should inculcate the student with a set of

462

values, unashamedly and without apology. Inculcate them with what
kind of values? "Educational" values, in contrast to say, "military"
or "economic," or "religious" values. The job of the educational
institution is to inculcate people with a set of educational values,
because that's what educators get paid to do. For this reason, any
claim on the part of any educator that they are "value-free" should
not be taken seriously.

So that's one form or direction that I would like the edu-
cational institution to take.

A second form is to have substantive courses in values, to
engage in substantive, factual information on the values similarities
and differences of different cultures, societies, institutions,
groups, and various sub-groups--and how those values similarities
and differences are comparable or similar to one's own values. In
the same way that you can teach kids the geography of Turkey, you
can teach them about the values of Turks, and how the values of
Turks are different from those of Pakistanis, or hippies, or whatever.
There's plenty of information in the literature, for example, about
the values of Eskimos, of hippies, the values that are associated
with the "generation-gap," and the values of pigots.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing said about such issues
in values clarification courses. You would never be any the wiser,
you would never know that people in groups and sub-groups had different
values when you're all through with the various values clarification
exercises because these exercises are too self-centered and not

enough society-centered.

463

TAFFEE: How would you define these commonly used words associated
with values education: "beliefs," "attitudes," "feelings," and

"absolute values?"

ROKEACH: A "belief" as "any cognition or expectancy about anything
under the sun that is either true or false, good or bad, desirable

or undesirable."
TAFFEE: How about an "attitude?"

ROKEACH: A "set of beliefs organized around an object or situation,

predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner."
TAFFEE: O.K., how about the word: "feelings?"

ROKEACH: "An emotional concomitant of a belief." For every belief
there is a concomitant feeling, and for every feeling there is a

concomitant belief.
TAFFEE: And the final one would be: "absolute values."

ROKEACH: Well, I can't really conceive of any "absolute values"
myself. I understand that there are people who can. But I don't
understand what they're talking about. For me, "value" by definition
is "a desirable state of existence that you compare with some other
desirable states, and you make a choice between them." So for me,
"values“ cannot be "absolutes," including even the value for life,

as evidenced by the fact that in war we are often glad to see the

enemy killed.

464

TAFFEE: Just one final question. If I were to call you up ten years
from now, and ask you how these last ten years have gone in the
area of values education, ideally, how would you like to be able

to answer me?

ROKEACH: Well, I would like to be able to say to you: "We've really
become very sophisticated about it, and we now have reached the

state of knowledge in this area so that the children that we are
responsible for have a more profound insight into their own values
and into the values of the significant individuals and groups that
they are likely to encounter in their lives." How nice it would

be to be able to say that. Will I be able to say it? I rather

doubt it.

TAFFEE: What, then, do you see as a more likely future?

ROKEACH: I think what will happen is first, one fad will catch on
and then another. It seems that people in the field of education
like things that aren't too complicated and reasonably simple and
an approach that is fun but not too taxing on scholarship or the
intellectual abilities of the student. The question of how useful
it is, or how self-realizing it is, becomes rather secondary. We
need a lot more research on the impact of value education techniques.
Vague claims made by authors of one or another approach to value
education, that you can't pin down very concretely, are simply not
enough.

Now, if you think I have been unduly hard on the values

clarification approach let me close by reiterating what I had said

465

elsewhere in discussing the positive contribution of values
clarification (Rokeach, 1975), namely, that the proponents have
nonetheless made an important contribution to education by stressing
the importance of making students aware of their own values. Quite
aside from the question as to whether or not they have succeeded,
their stressing its importance is to my mind an important contri-

bution.

APPENDIX N

SELF-INTERVIEW

466

SELF-INTERVIEW

The following is a result of a self-interview conducted by
the author in March, 1976. The self-interview was designed to
assist the author in the identification of assumptions he might
be making, and to help him become more aware of the possibility
of "leading" the experts to yield responses compatible with his
own.

Some questions emerged as inapplicable, since they were
basically informational questions aimed at gathering background
data, and were not designed to gather opinions or feelings. Such
questions were not answered by the writer, and are marked with an
"NA" as the response.

1a. How did you become involved with values clarification?
TAFFEE: NA

1b. In what ways has values clarification affected your life?
TAFFEE: NA

lc. In what way has values clarification affected the lives of
others?

TAFFEE: Values clarification has deeply affected the lives of many
people both personally and professionally. It has led people to
be more purposeful and proud of themselves, and has served as an
introduction for many into related areas of humanistic education.
ld. What are the theoretical roots of values clarification?
TAFFEE: NA

le. How were the original seven criteria developed?

TAFFEE: NA

1f. How was the theory received by scholars ten years ago? In

1976?

467

468

TAFFEE: Ten years ago, those scholars aware of values clarification
tended to applaud it. Now, in 1976, there is heavy criticism of the
theory and the practice of values clarification, and comparatively
little support for_it, except from those directly involved in it.
lg. In what ways has the theory been modified since 1966? Before
1966? Why?

TAFFEE: NA

lh. In what ways has the theory been affected by other developments
in values education, e.g. Kohlberg, Rokeach, etc?

TAFFEE: NA

11. In what ways has the theory been affected by research that has
been done within values clarification?

TAFFEE: NA

lj. In what ways has the practice of values clarification been
modified since 1966?

TAFFEE: It has become more practical as a result of the prolifer-
ation of materials available to teachers, and has increasingly
become more "affective" in nature.

lk. Are there any objections which are raised about values clarifi-
cation which are more persistent than others? How do you deal with
them?

TAFFEE: Yes, there are several major criticisms. These are dealt
with in detail in Chapter 2.

11. How would you characterize the early values clarification
strategies?

TAFFEE: NA

469

lm. How were early efforts at clarifying values received?

TAFFEE: NA

ln. What differences are there between values clarification training
conducted in 1966 and that done in 1976?

TAFFEE: I'm sure there are some differences but I'm not sure as to
what they are.

lo. Do you see any evidence to suggest that values clarification
is more "affective" in emphasis in 1976 than it was in 1966? Why
or why not?

TAFFEE: Yes, I think values clarification definitely is more
affective now than it was in 1966. More and more "feeling" activi-
ties are being included in values clarifying materials and in the
workshops conducted by the proponents of it.

lp. How was the three-stage curriculum developed and why?

TAFFEE: NA

lq. How do you distinguish between the following terms: "values,"
"beliefs," "attitudes," "feelings,” "morals," and "absolutes?"
TAFFEE: NA

2a. What might the future hold in regard to the widespread "popu-
larity" enjoyed by values clarification in 1976?

TAFFEE: I think to a degree, its popularity will decline, but not
a great deal. I see it as continuing to play an important and
influential role in values education for many years to come.

2b. How do you see yourself working with values clarification
during the next ten years?

TAFFEE: NA

470

2c. Whom do you see as playing key or influential roles within
values clarification during the next ten years?

TAFFEE: I think probably Simon, Kirschenbaum and Harmin will
continue to be seen as major leaders. Leland and Mary Martha

Howe could also play important roles if they are so inclined. On
the horizon, I see Joel Goodman, Barbara Glaser-Kirschenbaum and
myself as potential leaders. Brian Hall, while I do not know him
or his work personally, is a prolific writer and is certainly
influencing religious education and the role of values clarifi-
cation in it.

2d. What sort of research in values clarification would you like
to see completed by 1986?

TAFFEE: Basic research, empirically! sound research and innovative
research. That is, I think some of the basic assumptions of values
clarification need to be explored in more defensible ways than in
the past. Doing this may require new and innovative approaches

to research.

2e. What sort of training models do you foresee being employed
during the next ten years?

TAFFEE: I think the weekend workshop is going to continue to be a
primary method for introducing educators and other members of the
helping professions to values clarification. Increasingly I think
values clarification will become a part of undergraduate and
graduate teacher education programs.

2f. What issues in values clarification need to be dealt with

prior to 1986?

471

TAFFEE: Certainly all of the major criticisms that I have mentioned
in Chapter 2 need to be dealt with. Other than that, the only

other major issue I see is to decide what directions values clarifi-
cation gnpplg be moving in, and then plan to do it.

29. Ideally, what do you hope will happen to values clarification
and the values clarification movement during the next ten years?
TAFFEE: NA

2h. How do you see the interplay between values clarification and
other movements within education; e.g. Parent Effectiveness Training,
Re-Evaluation Counseling, Kohlberg's Moral Education, Transactional
Analysis, and so on?

TAFFEE: NA

2i. What provisions have been made, if any, towards a plan or design
for values clarification during the next ten years or so?

TAFFEE: NA