Education,Contestation and Confusions of Sense and Concept

ABSTRACT

In the contemporary literature of educational philosophy and theory, it is almost routinely assumed or claimed that ‘education’ is a ‘contested’ concept: that is, it is held that education is invested – as it were, ‘all the way down’ – with socially constructed interests and values that are liable to diverge in different contexts to the point of mutual opposition. It is also often alleged that post-war analytical philosophers of education such as R. S. Peters failed to appreciate such contestability in seeking a single unified account of the concept of education. Following a brief re-visitation of Peters’ analytical influences and approach and some consideration of recent ‘post-analytical’ criticisms of analytical educational philosophy on precisely this score, it is argued that much of the case for the so-called ‘contestability’ of education rests on a confusion of different concepts with different senses of ‘education’ that proper observance of well-tried methods of conceptual analysis easily enables us to avoid.     

MacIntyre,rival traditions and education

This paper critically discusses MacIntyre's thesis that education is essentially a contested concept. In order to contextualise my discussion, I discuss both whether rival educational traditions of education found in MacIntyre's work – which I refer to as instrumental and non-instrumental justifications of education – can be rationally resolved using MacIntyre's framework, and whether a shared meaning of education is possible as a result. I conclude that MacIntyre's synthesis account is problematic because the whole notion that there are rationally negotiable ways in which to compromise or harmonise opposing justifications of education found in instrumental and non-instrumental forms of education is troubling – the reason being that these are cultural disagreements about human flourishing that are not neutral-free, and due to a lack of care distinguishing between the common uses of the term ‘education’, and its looser usages to mean something like school learning that embraces a range of aims and goals that are often incompatible. In this light, it is argued that the contestability card has been unnecessarily overemphasised, and brings to our attention the complex ways in which we interpret education and what it means to be educated.     

For philosophy of education in teacher education

The time has come to re-assess the role that Philosophy has to play in the education of teachers, both at the beginning of and during their careers. The currently fashionable craft conception of teaching is inadequate as a preparation for a career in teaching. Philosophy of Education has an important role to play in preparing for a career in teaching. First, it enables teachers to acquire a grasp of the conceptual field of education and an ability to find their way around the often contested views within that field, which in turn impinge upon the normative structure of particular education systems. Second, it enables them to understand better the conceptual debates that involve the subjects that they are teaching. Third it enables teachers to understand the scope and limits of empirical research in education and the relationships between that research and conceptual issues in education. These claims are discussed with examples, and recent government statements about standards and competences in teaching are looked at through the perspective of a conceptually informed, career-oriented profession of teaching. Reasons for the past decline of philosophy of education in teacher education and how they might be avoided in the future are also reviewed.     

Revisiting New Zealand's radical educational reforms: continuities and disjunctures

This paper endorses Dick Selleck and Geoffrey Sherington's view that public policy-making is characterised by both fluidity and contestability. In April 1988, the report of a Taskforce headed by Brian Picot recommended major reforms in New Zealand's public education system. Even today, however, there is controversy regarding the major influences on the Taskforce. Utilising untapped primary source material to revisit the deliberations of the Taskforce, this paper epitomises the strongly evidence-based approaches that have long characterised the scholarship of Dick and of Geoff.