I don't have questions about this - just wanted to post what I've been studying recently and see if anyone has any comments. It's in a few parts.
The context is that now, the mainstreatm liberal paradigm of education is connected to the idea of universal free education in and by the liberal state - and hence liberalism as a political position (as opposed to 'liberal education' as advocated by RS Peters).
Liberal educators emphasise non-instrumentality, development of autonomy, pluralism. They also have some for of paternalism towards children - children are not the same as rational human adults.
The dissenting voices from that illustrate the relationship between education and the state.
For example, there are the views of AS Neill (founder of Summerhill), that suggests that any intervention is oppressive. I guess this is an autonomous position. The individual should be allowed to develop - a parent's job is to give birth, love, and leave. This is similar to Rousseau's position in Emile, thouh I suppose that Rousseau was being manipulative. Neill said that "children wll turn out to be good human beings if they are not crippled and thwarted in their natural devopment by interferance"
Then, another dissenting voice would be Mill, a founder of liberalism but certainly not a libertarian. In On Liberty, he said that parents, rather than the state have the moral right and duty to educate their children. His Harm principle is very important here (I'm guessing people coming in the philosophy forum will know what this is) and he had a commitment to free experimentation amongst different life-styles as they are essential to human flourishing. He basically said state education should only exist as an experiment amongst other experiments. He said that we should require that all citizens achieve a certain level of education by requiring everyone to passpublic examinations "confined to facts and positive science".
These two views accept that the state is the basic framework upon which "education" should be delivered though.
The anarchist challenge rejects Nozick (who says that even if we had no state, people would form one). Godwin, writing over 200 years ago said "the project of national education ought uniformly to be discouraged on account of its obvious alliance with national government. .... Before we put so powerful a machine under the direction of so ambiguous agent, it behoves us to consider well what it is that we do. Government will not fail to employ it, to strengthen its hands, ad perpetuate its institutions"
In the 19th Century, social anarchists (as opposed to anarchists with autonomous, individualistic philosophical positions) objected to the state as inherantly hierarchical and oppressive.
They believed the school could be a microcosm of an alternative society - and thus the vanguard of the social revolution, embodying non-hierarchical relationships, mutual aid, and individual freedom. The social anarchists were not libertarian and believed that moral or political neutrality in education was neither possible or desireable. Anarchist schools (in France and Spain especially famously) promoted explicit moral and political values (anti state, military, church).
They had nothing to say on pedagogy.
I've got more, from the Marxists and Ivan Illich and Deschooling, but I'm tired. Very interested in all this stuff though. Anyone else?
The context is that now, the mainstreatm liberal paradigm of education is connected to the idea of universal free education in and by the liberal state - and hence liberalism as a political position (as opposed to 'liberal education' as advocated by RS Peters).
Liberal educators emphasise non-instrumentality, development of autonomy, pluralism. They also have some for of paternalism towards children - children are not the same as rational human adults.
The dissenting voices from that illustrate the relationship between education and the state.
For example, there are the views of AS Neill (founder of Summerhill), that suggests that any intervention is oppressive. I guess this is an autonomous position. The individual should be allowed to develop - a parent's job is to give birth, love, and leave. This is similar to Rousseau's position in Emile, thouh I suppose that Rousseau was being manipulative. Neill said that "children wll turn out to be good human beings if they are not crippled and thwarted in their natural devopment by interferance"
Then, another dissenting voice would be Mill, a founder of liberalism but certainly not a libertarian. In On Liberty, he said that parents, rather than the state have the moral right and duty to educate their children. His Harm principle is very important here (I'm guessing people coming in the philosophy forum will know what this is) and he had a commitment to free experimentation amongst different life-styles as they are essential to human flourishing. He basically said state education should only exist as an experiment amongst other experiments. He said that we should require that all citizens achieve a certain level of education by requiring everyone to passpublic examinations "confined to facts and positive science".
These two views accept that the state is the basic framework upon which "education" should be delivered though.
The anarchist challenge rejects Nozick (who says that even if we had no state, people would form one). Godwin, writing over 200 years ago said "the project of national education ought uniformly to be discouraged on account of its obvious alliance with national government. .... Before we put so powerful a machine under the direction of so ambiguous agent, it behoves us to consider well what it is that we do. Government will not fail to employ it, to strengthen its hands, ad perpetuate its institutions"
In the 19th Century, social anarchists (as opposed to anarchists with autonomous, individualistic philosophical positions) objected to the state as inherantly hierarchical and oppressive.
They believed the school could be a microcosm of an alternative society - and thus the vanguard of the social revolution, embodying non-hierarchical relationships, mutual aid, and individual freedom. The social anarchists were not libertarian and believed that moral or political neutrality in education was neither possible or desireable. Anarchist schools (in France and Spain especially famously) promoted explicit moral and political values (anti state, military, church).
They had nothing to say on pedagogy.
I've got more, from the Marxists and Ivan Illich and Deschooling, but I'm tired. Very interested in all this stuff though. Anyone else?
