with the “decision-making” or “moralrnreasoning” approach. This construct resultedrnin a “non-directive” method reminiscentrnof the Rogerian psychoanalyticrnschool and was aimed at “empowering”rnthe pupil to “discover” for himself whatrnis “right” in any given moral situation.rnThis represented, as Professor Kilpatrickrnnotes, the transmogrification of educationrnfrom a didactic exercise into psychology.rnTeaching became counseling,rnand learning, self-analysis.rnThe objective in the avant-garde approachrnwas not to inculcate in the studentrnthose traditional and objectivernideals of honesty, thrift, self-discipline,rnmoral courage, and the like, and to encouragernhim to practice them until theyrnbecame second nature, but to help thernadolescent erect ex nihilo his own moralrnsystem, one that was “right” for him.rnMoral education, according to this approach,rnbecame an odyssey of selfdiscoveryrnin which there were no fixedrnmoral absolutes, only a universe of equallyrnvalid “choices.” “Values clarification”rnstands as a prime example of the antiintcllectualismrnrampant today: the elevationrnof feeling over thinking in ourrnheavily psychologized society, thernsupremacy of the subjective over the objective.rnTo advocate the superiority ofrnone moral value over another is seen tornbe judgmental—one of liberaldom’srndeadly sins—and a violation of the student’srnpersonal liberties, if not his civilrnrights.rnThe flaw here is self-evident to all butrnthe willfully deluded educational ideologues:rnthat a child with an undevelopedrnmoral sense is capable of developing hisrnown moral system, or exercising autonomousrnmoral judgment, without firstrnacquiring a framework, an edifice of values,rnwithin which to exercise such judgment.rnIt is plain lunacy to present ado-rnSin’s Lairrnby Paul RamseyrnSin frets the heart.rnThe loss increases painrnIn clumsy fits and starts.rnThe loss remains.rnUntil a change of heart.rnlescents with bizarre and profound moralrndilemmas—as does so much of the “valuesrnclarification” curriculum—and expectrnthem to extrapolate a useful responsernon the basis of . . . what? Arnvacuum? Whether something “feelsrnright”? It is sheer madness to presentrnstudents with the kind of hypotheticalrnmoral conundrums that have stumpedrnphilosophers since Aristotle—would yournhave strangled baby Adolf in his crib ifrnyou knew what he would become?—rnwhich are thoroughly unrelated to thernreal moral choices they will face in theirrnown lives, and expect such exercises tornproduce coherent “value systems” able torndeal with real world choices. In truth,rnsuch curricula are aimed not at helpingrnchildren cope with the real problemsrnthey will encounter, but at conditioningrnthem to the idea that AUes ist relativ,rnthat no objective standards of truth andrnmorality exist.rnThis novel notion that childrenrnshould be left to their own devicesrnto engage in life’s moral struggles, torn”discover” their own standards of conduetrnwithout adult guidance or fixedrnstandards of right and wrong, is probablyrnunprecedented in human history. Thernubiquity of such a theory in the governmentrnschools goes a considerable wayrntoward explaining the condition of barbarismrntoward which American society isrnwith increasing velocity careening. Oursrnis likely the first society in history that refusesrnto view education as the means ofrncultural conservation and transmission.rnThe government schools—”public”rnschool is a misnomer, as the schools belongrnnot to the public, but to the governmentrn—have become one vast aeulturalrnshrink’s couch. We are rearing generationsrnof young people who “feel goodrnabout themselves” as they merrily dorndrugs, get pregnant, abort the productsrnof conception, join gangs, punch teachers,rnand steal from their employers whenrnthey grow up and get jobs (when they’rernnot on the public dole, of course).rnProfessor Kilpatrick urges parents tornreclaim some lost territory for their childrenrnfrom the education professionals. Irnam not optimistic that they can do it.rnFour decades after the “look-say” readingrnmethod (as though English were a pietographicrnlanguage like Japanese) wasrnthoroughly discredited, it continues to berninflicted on students by teachers whornthemselves learned to read by that dubiousrnapproach, who are themselves barelyrnliterate, and who wouldn’t knowrnMolicrc from Madonna. The socialengineeringrnelites never will, never can,rnadmit that they have been wrong. To dornso would be a defeat from which such socialrnexperimentation would never recover.rnThe reason “look-say,” sex and drugrneducation, and values clarification neverrnseem to produce the promised Utopianrnresults, the controlling elites insist, is becausernsuch programs have never beenrn”fully funded.” A little more money, arnbigger government grab of the nation’srnwealth, and the failing programs, failingrncurricula, and failing schools at long lastrnwould succeed.rnAs Professor Kilpatrick points out, thernpopular culture does not suffer from thern”non-directive,” relativistic educationists’rnqualms about advocating a particularrnset of “values” as superior to all others.rnSince the schools leave children freernto discover their own morality, they do—rnin rock music, MTV, movies, and all thernrest of the sludge the “entertainment”rnindustry spews forth. For children deniedrnthem in the schools, values arernwherever else they find them, and increasinglyrnthat means in the popular culture.rnAnd so, while educators fret overrnhow they can help students think forrnthemselves and invent their own standardsrnof morality while blithely ignoringrnthe mounting evidence and socialrncosts of their failure, the TV, music, andrnmovie industries are happily doing thernjob of “values education.”rnPerhaps nothing is so suggestive ofrnwhat is wrong with the governmentrnschools, notes the Hoover Institution’srnThomas Sowell, as the results of a recentrninternational study of 13-year-olds thatrnfound Koreans at the top and Americansrnat the bottom on the scale of mathematicalrnaccomplishment. When askedrnif they thought they were “good at mathematics,”rnonly 23 percent of Korean 13-rnyear-olds answered affirmatively, comparedrnwith 68 percent of their Americanrncounterparts. Apparently “educationas-rntherapy” has been a success, at leastrnon its own terms. American 13-yearoldsrn”feel good” about themselves, whilernbeing unable to tell algebra from artichokes.rnLittle Johnny not only is incapablernof telling right from wrong, he alsornis incapable of thinking. We are,rnProfessor Sowell notes, raising up generationsrnof “confident incompetents.”rnNevertheless, there is little that is newrnin Tom Sowell’s screed directed at America’srnbankrupt educational system. Hisrn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn