Digital Commons @ George Fox University Faculty Publications - School of Education School of Education 1998 Review of Richard J. Edlin's The aC use of Christian Education Ken Badley George Fox University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/soe_faculty Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Education Commons Recommended Citation Badley, Ken, "Review of Richard J. Edlin's The aC use of Christian Education" (1998). Faculty Publications - School of Education. 186. https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/soe_faculty/186 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - School of Education by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REVIEWS modernism does not do justice to the dis­ point, ask. orientation with regard to value (as distinct This edition contains three pieces from mis-direction with regard to value) which did not appear in the original book. which is a characteristic of young people in One of these, the Teacher as mentor and a post-modem society. The structures of model' chapter, is especially helpful, in part assessment that have accompanied the because Edlin spells out eight specific National Curriculum (end ofkeystage tests, implications of the teacher as mentor. The league tables for test and examination sixth and seventh of these warrant mention results) are related to a positivist philoso­ here: that the teacher allows for what Edlin phy; their historical link to the Conservative calls the possibility of defection, and that government's development of a market the teacher, like David, King of Israel, is frail place and parental choice in education is and subject to failings. This reviewer finds missed out. refreshment in any discussion of the The significance given to the idea of teacher as model and mentor that deals metaphor at several points in the book may realistically with teachers' shortcomings. be a novelty to some readers, particularly Besides the conventional bibliography those who are not specialists in RE or lan­ Oargely assembled by Harro Van Brumme­ guage teaching. There is a reasonable bib­ len of Trinity Western University in Can­ liography and an index, but these do not ada), Edlin has also included an appendix make up for a lack of thorough referencing of world wide web sites dealing with educa­ and the lack of a development at a philo­ tion and Christian education. No doubt, sophical level of what is meant by personal Edlin's readers would be able to find some fulfilment. Such a development, perhaps of these sites on their own, but the list along the lines of some recent Catholic includes some that readers might never writers (see John Finnis's article The claim find, and those addresses make the whole of absolutes' in The Tablet of 4th April appendix worthwhile. 1987), would have eliminated the refer­ If the book contains any fault, it lies in ence to 'the unavoidable prioritising of cer­ Edlin's discussion of neutrality. We assume tain values over other values' (p. 49) in that the location of this discussion, in concrete situations, a reference which puts Chapter 2, indicates its importance to a question mark against the meaning of Edlin's whole book (although one could human values altogether. It would also quite ably discuss Christian schools with­ have given a more thorough grounding to out the chapter). Understanding the non­ the standards enumerated for evaluating neutrality of public education or of all edu­ moral principles (p.127ff) which, though of cation is important to Edlin's argument, for practical use, are open to significant philo­ he is discussing the cause of Christian edu­ sophical criticism. cation. Edlin's research on this neutrality If its limitations are recognised, there is question shows: he draws on a range of much in this book that readers will find sources to demonstrate that some educa­ worthwhile. tional thinkers recognize the non-neutrality Joseph Sowerby of education. He even uses the word 'some' in a sub-heading to that effect. After dem­ onstrating his awareness that the myth JE&CB 2:2 (1998), 158-159 1366-5456 seems alive and well, he declares that 'the myth of religious neutrality in education is Richard J. Edlin dead' (p. 45). On inspection, that claim The Cause of ChrisUan Education appears to mean that the myth is logically Vision Press 1998 pb 269pp inconsistent Major changes in law or policy ISBN 1-885219-07-5 in some nations (such as Britain) indicate that this myth may, in fact, be ill. Even the In his revised The Cause of Christian Edu­ United States Supreme Court has seemed cation, Richard J. Edlin has offered an to recognize, beginning about 1993, that ambitious and helpful survey some of the all worldviews are value-laden and that philosophical and practical questions that schools cannot be neutral as regards relig­ anyone in Christian education will, at some ion. Yet, among professors, teachers, 158 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION & CHRISTIAN BEUEF REVIEWS curriculum developers, employees of min­ JE&CB 2:2 (1998), 159-160 1366-5456 istries of education and local school trus­ tees in several parts of the world, the myth Monica J Taylor is alive and quite well, canying on the nour­ Values EducaUon and ishing - or, in this case, corrosive - work Values in EducaUon that myths do. ·Association of Teachers and Lecturers At several points in his book Edlin uses 1998 pb 36pp £4.99 (free to A TL phrases that end in the word 'centred' - members) ISBN 902983-96-2 child-centred, content-centred and Christ-centred - especially with reference It was a wise decision by the Association of to Dewey and humanistic worldviews in Teachers and Lecturers to ask Monica Tay­ education. Without doubt, most picking up lor to write this guide: Monica is a senior Edlin's book will want Christ-centred edu­ research officer at the National Foundation cation. But Edlin's argument would be · for Educational Research, and has edited stronger if he recognized that for Dewey The Journal of Moral Education for over both teaching methodology and episte­ 20 years. She chairs the Values Education mology are child-centred while many Council, and has been elected President of teachers with what we might call a Christ- . the Association for Moral Education. centred epistemology use a variety of The publication is designed for teach­ teaching methods, some of which are ers rather than researchers, but the latter student-centred. If education is to be nei­ will find it very helpful-not least because of ther student- nor content-centred - Edlin all the references to key writings and lists of warns us off both - then ordinary teachers important organisations and resources will be left wondering what methods to use that are included. Almost all the recent par­ in their Christ-centred education. Distin­ ticipants in the debate over values in edu­ guishing these two levels - epistemology cation are mentioned in these pages. and teaching methodology - would help If there is a criticism, it is that the infor­ Edlin and all of us in Christian education. mation and ideas are incredibly con­ The strengths of this book far outnum­ densed. It might seem that 36 pages could ber and outweigh its flaws. For example, in be skimmed through in the lunch hour, but his discussion of the Bible in the Christian teachers will need to use this guide care­ school, Edlin calls for a permeative rather fuUy. It is intended that they use it to reflect than merely additive role for the Bible. He on their practice, and this will only work if does not hesitate to name the shortsighted they take each section in tum and think ways Christians have used the Bible in through the implications of what is here. Christian day school curricula and teach­ The first section deals with definitions, ing, and he illustrates his own ideal with not only of values but of spiritual, moral, examples from instruction and curriculum. social and cultural education (as seen by He provides a useful discussion of the Bibli­ OfSted). Key issues surrounding values are cal limits on the role of the state and what also flagged up. Need values be restricted to those limits imply for education. And he moral values? Are there core, common or gives over a whole chapter to a Biblical shared values that we can all adopt? How do model of evaluation that avoids the errors values relate to attitudes, personal qualities of both the fog-enshrouded liberal view of and behaviour? How do they relate to evaluation meant to boost student-esteem SMSC, PSE and other curriculum areas? despite the facts (or lack thereof), and the After these introductory thoughts, we hard-line, thundering-God view of evalua­ are plunged into the controversies. Section tion taken by some Christians. 2 poses. the question 'A crisis of values?' Overall, Edlin's book is worthwhile. Are society and its values changing for the Those who already own the first edition will worse, or have some of the violent inci­ find that the additions justify purchasing dents of recent years been over-played by the second. Those new to Edlin's work will the media? How do we cope with a more benefit from reading it plural society, whose values may differ in KenBadl.ey important respects, not least in how the JOURNAL OF EDUCATION & CHRISTIAN 8EUEF 159 .