'Moral Democratic Education and Homosexuality: Censoring morality' by John Petrovic: A rejoinder

This article takes issue with certain aspects of the argument put forward by John Petrovic in a recent issue of the Journal of Moral Education : that adherence to principles of democracy requires not only the positive portrayal of homosexuality in schools but also precludes teachers from expressing their beliefs against it. It is argued that certain of Petrovic's appeals to democracy are somewhat rhetorical, and that his fuller characterisation of moral democratic education leaves him open to charges of inconsistency. The second part of the article develops what the author considers to be a more appropriate defence of the view that common schools should indeed present homosexuality as a morally acceptable way of life that some of their students may one day elect to lead, but which argues that there needs also to be within schools (and within the curriculum) full and open debate with those whose competing comprehensive theories of the good life lead them to regard homosexual behaviour as repugnant or even sinful.     

Education for autonomy: a rejoinder to Aviram and Assor

Aviram and Assor try two strategies for rebutting my recent critique of autonomy as an educational aim. First, they argue that my objection to dispositional autonomy fails. Second, they identify and defend a technical sense of autonomy quite different from any that I consider. I show here that there are serious problems with both lines of argument.     

平等还是公正？——试论罗尔斯的教育哲学观

罗尔斯主张,社会中凡是具有相似动机和禀赋的人都应得到大致相等的教育机会和成就前景。社会应该通过差别原则对社会利益进行调节和再分配,解决社会不平等问题,为人们获得平等的教育机会创造条件。同时,教育可以通过培养人才、调适社会心理、代际储备和加强社会成员的自律意识等促进社会的平等和公正。在教育问题上,罗尔斯追求公正,兼顾平等,他主张的教育是一定平等基础上的公正的教育。     

(Mis)Representing underachievement: a rejoinder to Gorard and Smith

This article provides a brief rejoinder to Gorard and Smith’s reply to an article I published in a previous issue of British Journal of Sociology of Education. In that original article I provided a critical review of their quantitative research on gender and education in the United Kingdom. In their reply to this article, Gorard and Smith seem to agree with many of the points I made. However, they appear to be particularly perplexed by why I had written this review given that they feel they have already addressed most of my points elsewhere. In this brief rejoinder I explain very clearly my motivations for writing my original article and refer readers to a more detailed and comprehensive paper where I have responded fully to each and every point raised by Gorard and Smith.     

A rejoinder to Sarangapani and Winch

A statistical relationship between student affect and student achievement is routinely observed—students who like a particular subject also tend to do well in that subject. Theory suggests that the underlying causality is a mutual influence relationship in which affect influences, and is influenced by, achievement. Published analyses, however, usually assume a unidirectional influence—affect influences achievement. To the extent that the latter assumption is an over‐simplification, as theory suggests it is, then current understandings of the importance of affect for achievement are probably in error to some degree. The analyses reported here take a position consistent with theory to model the underlying causality of the relationship between affect and achievement as bidirectional. To this end, the present analyses formulate a non‐recursive structural equation model which specifies affect and achievement as influences on each other. This model is estimated separately for each of 23 nations, 19 of which are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). All 23 nations participated in the OECD‐sponsored Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a programme whose focus is national achievement levels in populations of 15‐year‐olds. The results of these analyses lend support to the proposition that affect and performance exist in a mutual influence relationship, though the nature of this relationship varies between countries.     

Seeing Beyond Sameness: Using The Giver to Challenge Colorblind Ideology

The secondary worlds created in fantasy encourage the reader to compare and contrast the real world with the imaginary. In this way, fantasy as a genre can be transformative. In this article, the dystopia created in The Giver (1993) by Lois Lowry is examined as a metaphor for racism. After exploring the young adult novel as mystical fantasy in the context of reader response theory, the author evaluates the monochromatic world of The Giver as a portrayal of the consequences of a colorblind stance. Pedagogical considerations and implications for practice are also discussed. Susan G. Lea received her M.Ed. from the University of Pennsylvania, where she is currently a doctoral candidate. She also serves as Chair, Board of Trustees, The Agnes Irwin School, an independent girls day school in Rosemont, PA. Her areas of research include how aesthetic response and co-constructed meaning are enhanced through well-known visual art presented in intertextual sets of picturebook art parody, local public mural art parody, and original artwork. Zelnick, “The battle for color-blind public policy.” Lowry, The Giver.