This article reviews values clarification theory and goes beyond its explicit doctrines to discuss shortcomings. (MT)

The author's response to a critique by Boyd and Bogdan of "Values and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom" (Raths, Harmin and Simon, 1966, 1978) states that their interpretation of values clarification is dubious and identifies where errors may have occurred. (MT)

This article discusses the interventionist view of moral education and argues against the libertarian view. (MT)

A critique of widely held objections to the virtues approach to moral education addresses such problems as: distinguishing virtues; defining individual virtues; emphasizing conduct or reason in virtues; the contexts for understanding conduct; justifying the selection of virtues; and defining the scope of the virtues. (CB)

"Values and Teaching", by Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1978) is examined in the context of Dewey's approach to moral education. While the books' authors claim that their approach is practical, the relationships among such concepts as "overdissenting", "aggresssive", "overconforming", and "submissive"…

The suggestion to equate values with purpose is considered. The advantage of value development over moral development is that values apply to a broader category of ideas while morality has a more confined and narrow application. All students and teachers should attempt to become both creators and appreciators of values. (JN)

The view that judgments of value have an objective relation to judgments of fact is supported. (JD)

This article explores the validity of values clarification as an approach to values education. Several passages from "Values and Teaching: Working with Values in the Classroom" (1966 and 1978, Raths, Harmin, and Simon) are used in a discussion of criticisms leveled against values clarification. (DF)