The Teaching of ‘Family Subjects’

In response to the letters of Connie McGray and Anita Burkett (April 28) concerning “The Controversy Over the Teaching of ‘Family Subjects’ in School”: There really is very little controversy. A small percentage of parents (some of whom decry any form of public education) is vociferously objecting to family life education not only for their children, but also for the children of all parents in Capistrano Unified School District, even though the majority of parents in the district want this education for their children.

This minority seems to have no qualms about imposing its will on the majority, and it hoots down anyone at school board meetings who have another point of view, even nervous young students speaking for the first time in a public meeting.

Both McGray and Burkett express concerns about who should educate their children. I am surprised, frankly, they send their children to school at all, especially to public schools, which are mandated to present all points of view to young persons learning the art of critical thinking and rational choice.

Perhaps they should keep them home, so they can teach them their own interpretation of history, literature, art and other subjects. They may also want to turn off the television and prohibit magazines and newspapers.

McGray and Burkett are concerned about the educational techniques used to teach their children. They fulminate about values clarification (“a line of humanistic and socialistic philosophy,” says Burkett) and rant about Project Self-Esteem (“therapy education,” asserts McGray).

Neither seems to realize how important self-esteem is in education--and life, for that matter. Study after study concludes that lack of self-esteem contributes to teen-age sex, drug abuse, irresponsibility, violence--all the behaviors the two of them condemn.

Every educator knows that cognitive and affective skills cannot be separated without hampering each. Nor does either McGray or Burkett see that values clarification is a key strategy in education.

It teaches only one value, the only one it should teach: the value of free choice based on critical thinking. What better strategy to use in a democracy that requires the rational participation of its citizens?

The majority of parents in the district wants education that teaches its children how to make rational decisions based on critical thinking, clarified values and positive self-esteem. Anything less--the belief that there is only one value--is indoctrination, a technique much to be feared in a democracy.

ROBERT OLSON

Dana Point