Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education (JIRE)

ISSN 2232-0180
Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2014, pp.Values
59-73 Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

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

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

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

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

* Corresponding author: Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

Email: rahmanmdaroff@gmail.com

JIRE is a publication of the Centre for Research in Education & Instructional

Technologies, School of Education, Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd

59

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

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

WHY VALUES EDUCATION?

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

Secondly, values education is essential as a preliminary solution to the ever increasing

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

60

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

“di Malaysia... masalah moral membimbangkan” [Deputy Prime Minister,

Utusan Malaysia, 17 April 2007).

To many people then values education is important and necessary; in fact, values
education “is a timeless need of all societies and cultures” and it “often accompanies
periods of cataclysmic change in society” (Lapsley & Power, 2005).

The upsurge of interest in values education, as if values education is a newly discovered

goal in education, has led many educators to state that education should not only produce
“human capital” but must also produce the “human being”. Some of them further opine
that integrating the teaching of values in the curriculum is as (or perhaps more) important
as teaching language, science and math subjects. Additional views that emphasise the
importance of values education in producing the “human being” are as follows:

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

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

What is Values Education?

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

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

61

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

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

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

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

Values Education in the Malaysia Education Blueprint

Rationale for the Malaysian Values Education

Briefly, according to the Blueprint, the need to “develop values-driven Malaysians” (the
third shift) is based on the belief that students

62

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

will inherit a world fraught with challenges. Successfully navigating these

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

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

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

Initiatives to Transform Values Education

To achieve the above aims and to elevate the cause for values education, the Blueprint has
identified several initiatives as follows:
1. Strengthen Islamic Education, Moral Education and civic elements by 2017
a. Community service (civic) element will be a prerequisite for graduation
b. Islamic Education curriculum for Muslim students will include a greater focus
on understanding the core values and underlying philosophies of Islam and other
main religions in Malaysia
c. For non-Muslim students, Moral Education will include an understanding of the
core values of all main religions in Malaysia.
2. Develop students holistically by reinforcing the requirement for every student to
participate in 1 Sport, 1 Club, and 1 Uniformed Body.
3. Enhance and scale up RIMUP from 2016 to facilitate interaction across school types.
4. The Ministry will also look into:
a. Having Moral Education and Islamic Education students share certain classes
together when common universal values are taught
b. Making participation in the co-curriculum a requirement for graduation and
scholarships for further education

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

63

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

the Blueprint, we found it to be acceptable. More importantly it is something that is not

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

1. Strengthen Islamic Education, Moral Education and civic elements by 2017;

2. Develop students holistically by reinforcing the requirement for every student to
participate in I Sport, 1 Club, and I Uniformed Body, and
3. Enhance and scale up RIMUP from 2016 to facilitate interaction across school types.

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

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

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

64

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

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

Strengthen Islamic Education, Moral Education and Civic Elements by 2017

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

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

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

a. Which set of norms and values of the main religions in Malaysia should be
given attention by the Moral Education curriculum?
b. How do we resolve conflicts that arise between religion and morality in the
course of Moral Education teaching and learning?

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

65

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

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

The Ministry will also need to look into:

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

a What are universal values and what yardstick can we use to label a particular
value as a universal value?
b Which universal values are not religious values, or which religious values
are not universal in nature?

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

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

4b. Making participation in the co-curriculum a requirement for graduation and

scholarships for further education
The comment related to (1a) can be applied here to (4b), if, after conducting a survey,

66

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

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

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

Values Across the Curriculum

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

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

67

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

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

Whole School Ethos

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

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

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

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

68

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

of values. In addition, a focus by these teachers on didactic methods or traditional,

authoritarian techniques of direct instruction, preaching or telling students what is right
and what is wrong may involve inappropriate practices such as exhortation and coercion,
drill, and unreflective, uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of values. As a result,
conditioned conformity may arise.

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

In fact, at this juncture, we would like to see some transformation in the pre-service
teacher education and continuous professional development programmes for values
educators. If we are serious about values education in our school (which currently is
mainly through Islamic Education and Moral Education), we really will not want it “to
be a random charade of the blind leading the blind” (Barrow, 1975). Regrettably, there
seems to be a blind spot regarding human capital in the Blueprint, that is, the teachers
required for values education. For an effective values education, the pre-service teacher
education and in-service training programmes need to be transformed, for we believe that
all teachers are values educators. Therefore, they must, to the best of their ability, fulfil
their responsibility towards the values education of their own students. It should also be
noted here that “after the the parent and child, the most profound (values) relationship
our children experience is that between the teacher and the taught” (Clark as cited in
Goodlad, Soder & Sirotnik, 1990). Additionally, in the teaching of values, the personal
examples of the teachers are said to be the testimony or the bottom line and students
do not like teachers who are phonies, do not practise what they preach or those who
discriminate and practise double standards (Wolfgramm, 1991). In other words, teachers
themselves must have good values and be identified as moral exemplars.

SUGGESTION
As pointed out earlier, there are people who associate values education with the hidden
curriculum of the non-academic activities and the whole school ethos. However, these
approaches have certain deficiencies or controversies, and in certain cases, can be counter-
productive. Let us, first, look at the hidden curriculum of the non-academic activities
(such as co-curriculum activities, community service programmes etc). It is true that
values can be taught or are “caught” and students “pick-up” values from watching others
behave. The question is: What if the behaviours that students observe or witness are
bad and irresponsible? Thus as the hidden curriculum is implicit, it would mean that the
students’ attitudes can be shaped or modified unconsciously and their values assimilated

69

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

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

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

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

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

70

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

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

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

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

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

71

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

 Abdul Rahman bin Md Aroff

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

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

REFERENCES
Md Aroff, A.R. (2008). Character building and education. In Chang. L.H. (Ed.), Asia-
Pacific Moral, Civic and Citizenship Education. Kuala Lumpur: University of
Malaya.

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

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

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

Barrow, B. (2006). Moral education’s modest agenda. Ethics and Education, 1(1), 3-13

Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). Integrating structure and content in moral education. Paper
presented at the Nucci, L. (Chair), Developmental Perspectives and Approaches to
Character Education, Chicago.

Chapfika, B. (2008). The role of integrity in higher education. International Journal of
Educational Integrity, 4(1), 43-49.

Goodlad, I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.) (1990). The Moral Dimensions of
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, B. V. (2004). Values education in schools: Issues and challenges. Paper presented at
the National Values Education Forum, Melbourne.

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

Howard, R. W., Berkowitz, M. W., & Schaeffer, E. F. (2004). Politics of character

education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 188-215.

72

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

 Values Education and the Malaysia Education Blueprint

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

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

6-11.

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

Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Pekarsky, D. (1998). The role of culture in moral development. Retrieved from

httpjfparenthood.libra ry.wise.ed u.fPerkasky.html.

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

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

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

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

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

Wilson, J. (1973). A Teacher’s Guide to Moral Education. London: Geoffrey Chapman.

Wolfgramm, K. F. (1991). Teaching values: Examples is the bottom line. Contemporary
Education, 62, 3.

73

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