From History to Values: Navigating Education's Complex Terrain

A: Let’s start by laying down three anchors: history, politics, and education. History, at its core, is a chronological study—our attempt to portray past events as accurately as possible. But accuracy isn’t just “facts”—it’s how societies remember, interpret, and assess change.

B: It always feels so tidy on paper, but history’s messy, isn’t it? Memory, bias... Some stories get remembered, others dropped. So—when we teach history, aren’t we already shaping politics too, even if just by what we select?

A: Astute observation. And that connects us to politics: not merely government, but the process of decision-making and negotiation among any group—family, school, workplace, even religious spaces. It’s everywhere power and choices collide. What’s remembered, and how, is always political in some way.

B: And education, then—how does that fit in? Is it just transmission, stamp-to-stamp, or something more dynamic?

A: Education, as Steyn and colleagues put it, is deliberate, planned, purposeful. An adult supports a non‑adult in growing toward adulthood—toward specific knowledge, skills, and values. It’s never neutral, because it frames what matters and how we should be in the world.

B: If I push on that—where’s the line between forming or moulding a person and just teaching? When does guidance slip into outright indoctrination—where questioning isn’t allowed?

A: Excellent challenge. There’s a whole spectrum of educational activities: forming or moulding shapes habits—sometimes unconsciously, through environment—while teaching’s more intentional. Coaching zeros in on skill and precision through practice. Conditioning is about systematic stimulus–response patterns, like shaping routines or attitudes. Training is targeted, prepping for specific roles and tasks.

B: And indoctrination? That’s where ideas are pressed so hard there’s no air left for independent thought. Obedience becomes the rule, not curiosity.

A: Precisely. Indoctrination sets rigid boundaries, suppressing questioning. Education, at its best, does the opposite—opening up space for reflection and dialogue. Now, all these activities interact with the roles learners prepare for: being a family member, a citizen, a worker, part of communities, spending free time meaningfully, and fully becoming themselves.

B: So—formal teaching is... what? Always a planned, structured support—teacher guides, learner follows, in a context designed for growth?

A: That’s the essence: teachers teach, learners learn—within a structure aiming for competence, maturity, citizenship, and flourishing. But as we’ll see, actual institutions and policies can either support or distort these aims. And that’s where things get interesting...

A: Let’s map the architecture of an education system first—think of it as a formal structure built to serve a target group’s needs: there’s policy—who sets the rules; administration—who manages funding, staff, logistics; teaching structures—the schools, curricula, teachers, classrooms; and then support services for students and staff. This is all fundamentally shaped by the context in which it operates.

B: But those contexts are so wide-ranging. For instance, does being a sprawling country make a difference to how education gets organized, or is that overstated? I remember reading something about Canada’s decentralization—is that actually due to size?

A: It’s a textbook example—Canada covers nearly 10 million square kilometers, so it logically developed the world’s most decentralized system. Each province steers its own curricula and calendars, precisely because central control is unwieldy at that scale.

B: Or South Africa’s school calendars: coastal provinces start later to dodge the summer humidity. So even the climate gets written into the system. Does demography trigger the same flexibility—like, more young people, more schools?

A: Exactly. In places with a youthful population bulge, you’ll typically see more investment in primary and secondary schools. Population size, growth rate, and mobility all force education systems to adapt—sometimes rapidly.

B: Then there are the social layers—Belgium splits into two education systems for its Flemish and French blocs. But does that make school culture dramatically different, or just the language and lessons?

A: Both, actually. Language, curriculum, even holiday traditions diverge. Financial factors shape systems too—Singapore shuttered its last agricultural school because the nation’s economy shifted; you won’t see farm training where there’s no farm sector. And tech divides can close doors—if only a fraction of the population has internet, electronic learning stalls.

B: That’s all so structural, but politics seeps in everywhere. If the ruling party wants centralized control or a particular ideology, even schoolbooks change, right?

A: Undeniably. Political views determine the centralization, content, sometimes even the tone of the education system. The values that get taught aren’t neutral—they mirror both dominant and minority worldviews.

B: Which circles us to values themselves. I’m always torn—if values are anchored in personal worldviews, how can they claim to be universal or objective? Or are some values truly global, despite cultures clashing?

A: A key question. Vreken and Rens argue: values spring from worldviews and are deeply personal, yet some—like justice or honesty—become universal cornerstones, surfacing in human rights codes. They guide conduct, shape policy, and are colored by culture. Sometimes subjective, sometimes asserted as independent guiding principles.

B: Could you speed-run the types? I get spiritual and moral—what about the others? Economic, cultural, recreational—how do these play out?

A: Certainly—a whirlwind: Spiritual values shape religious practice; social values, how we relate to each other; moral, our sense of right and wrong; aesthetic, what we deem beautiful; economic relates to wealth and productivity. There are also cultural, political, judicial, national, physical, self, security, authoritarian, environmental, affective, occupational, life, time-spatial, and recreational values. Each inflects what and how we teach.

B: And, tying it back—is the challenge then to teach values that enable full participation in all those learner roles—citizen, family member, worker—while also guarding against indoctrination? How do systems keep that balance?

A: Precisely. Effective education builds capacities for each life-role, but must create space for reflection, dissent, and multiple perspectives, actively protecting against attempts to simply imprint a set of unquestioned dogmas. Good policy and mindful, critical teaching are both safeguards.