The basis of our attitudes and values are learned by observation and experience by the age of seven. Try teaching a formal subject of ethics, law or philosophy to this age group if you want to make a difference. They have already learned who you are before any headway is made in the formal subject. Parents have the final responsibility to teach these values that structure our society.

I agree with Pelican and Antiseptic in their criticism of the cliched 'You can do anything' philosophy which seems to be endemic in schools these days.

Not only is it clearly false, as Pelican has pointed out, but I think it has arguably contributed to the narrowing and self-centredness of students' life choices over the last decade or so. Students see the world as their oyster and as being there to serve them. They've moved away from studying humanities and arts subjects and trended towards instrumental choices like business, IT and any number of mickey mouse and narrowly-based vocational streams.

The teaching of critical and philosphical thinking needs to be returned to a central position in all school curricula. It would enable students to widen their focus beyond their immediate world and to guage an understanding of the problems facing humanity and of the part they could play in alleviating them.

Regarding who teaches this way of thinking, it must definitely be a qualified teacher. Those associated with specific religions should be kept right away from all public schools. Very few of them in my experience have the ability to hold their audience and to command any real level of respect from students. Ideally, critical thinking should not be a stand-alone subject, but an integral part of all teaching.

Steven, it's easy to throw around cheap shots about a dysfunctional state school system. Public schools are required to accept all students, irrespective of the huge discipline and learning problems many of them have today. Private schools have the luxury of vetting which students they want, which they do rigorously. Most are also very generously resourced as a result of the hefty fees they charge, all the while topped up by government funding. Any 'dysfunction', Steven, is a result of long entrenched inequity. Your flippant remarks are uninformed and unhelpful.

*SuzeOnLine*
" ... Why not go one step further and offer LAW and Ethics as a subject for high school students? ... "

Yes, an evolving fusion as a subject. I would also add "1st Aid" into the curriculum mix.

And to draw an element from *Philo* I would concur that that it must be done at an early formative age, and of course can still be tailored to the audience, all aspects considered. At least in the international jurisdiction where I am, this is already being done. Concepts of tolerancey, what does and does not constitute "appropriate" behavior etc, etc from age 6.

I also believe that it is important to do our best not to impose our own limitations on our kids, and I for one at least am hopeful that my step daughter will surpass me in more ways than one. Accordingly, I would argue that to suggest that aspects of law, medicine and ethics/philosophy are only appropriate to tertiary level is a complete irresponsible nonsense. Now that she can read, my child's thirst for knowledge grows daily, demanding me to quicken myself to keep pace.

I myself had a classical education at a methodist college and came out clueless as to the fundamentals of the legal system and the value of money and independent living.

And we may all care to note that some kids are let loose before they are even 16. In my view, it is neglectful to arm kids up with enough capacity to unwittingly get themselves into trouble and risk them being thrown into the not so tender mercies of the "school of hard knocks."

"Heaven forbid" that they hear certain words from a wiggy!

"Even though it is accepted that U r a silly poppet, poppet, ignorance of the LAW is no excuse and I sentence you to bankruptcy and psychic distress for a duration up to the point that you are capable, with or without assistance, of getting yourself out."

Why leave it up to parents who are often clueless themselves?

It isn't April 1 is it? Secularist teaching ethics? How to kill the unborn and reduce the guilt. How to have sex with as many as possible and not catch a disease? How to break your marriage vows? How to create a panic about the earth being overheated while ignoring the values of our Creator. No wonder people are deserting State schools as they see the fruit of this stupidity. I am sure the 'true believers are absolutely sure they are right in teaching non absolutes. Talk about rational!

Runner, as usual you have to bring your particularly unhelpful brand of sarcasm to the debate.

I have no doubt there are plenty of so-called God-fearing Christians and other 'religious' people out there who also have abortions, marriage breakdowns, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases and who believe in global warming.

These actions and beliefs are not the sole domain of the secularists, as you well know.

As to the '...values of our Creator.', well we can only take the words written by ancient fishermen in a 2000 year old book that there ever was a Creator, or his son, who may have said all that!

Teach ethics, morals and law at schools, not religion.

suzionline you write

'Teach ethics, morals and law at schools, not religion.'

Whose ethics do you suggest?