Category Archives: philosophy of education

social welfare, the handicapped, and special education

Com­mon sense may sug­gest that increases in social wel­fare are more eas­ily obtained by focus­ing resources on the men­tally and/or phys­i­cally hand­i­capped, rather than using those resources instead to mar­gin­ally improve non-handicapped indi­vid­u­als’ lives. The capa­bil­i­ties approach, as devel­oped by Amartya Sen and Martha Nuss­baum, would also imply that resources are well-spent when devoted to

book review: Ivan Illich's "Deschooling Society"

Ivan Illich’s “Deschool­ing Soci­ety” is a clas­sic in the alter­na­tive edu­ca­tion scene, so I had been mean­ing to read it for ages and finally did. The book has seven short­ish chap­ters, and is a pretty quick read. The first chap­ter, “Why We Must Dis­es­tab­lish School,” is very clearly the strongest one. Illich argues that insti­tu­tion­al­ized school­ing

abolishing schools of education, or MacIntyre on the non-practice of education

Recently, some­one brought to my atten­tion this arti­cle on abol­ish­ing schools of edu­ca­tion. The Cen­ter for Col­lege Afford­abil­ity and Pro­duc­tiv­ity argues that we should doubt the value of schools of edu­ca­tion: hold­ers of degrees in edu­ca­tion do not seem to be any more effec­tive at teach­ing than non-education majors, because the schools some­times try to

on the non-normativity of value-added analysis

As you are likely to have heard by now, the Los Ange­les Times recently con­ducted and pub­lished a value-added analy­sis of some of the city’s ele­men­tary school teach­ers, using data that had been col­lected by the school dis­trict but never pre­vi­ously ana­lyzed in this way. There was a nice sum­mary of the value-added analy­sis and

plagiarism, etiquette, and morality

Pla­gia­rism by col­lege stu­dents has got­ten some atten­tion in the New York Times lately, and it occurs to me that I have dropped the ball on a series of posts about pla­gia­rism that I started ear­lier this sum­mer. Although I had planned to write other stuff next, I’m instead going to allow myself to be

education, the state, and protecting children from ignorance

The other day, I started Edu­ca­tion and the State by E.G. West. It is some­times argued that state funded, state reg­u­lated, and state pro­vided edu­ca­tion is jus­ti­fied by the neces­sity of  pro­tect­ing chil­dren from igno­rance. So, West begins with two chap­ters explor­ing this argu­ment philo­soph­i­cally and assess­ing how well this “pro­tec­tion” works in prac­tice. These chap­ters

what's in a name? - labels and tracking

Yes­ter­day, I dis­cussed the issue of whether work-related lan­guage is appro­pri­ate for describ­ing learn­ing. Here’s another lan­guage in edu­ca­tion con­tro­versy that has made it into the news lately: ‘At hope’ kids bet­ter than ‘at risk’?: Wash­ing­ton state law­maker wants to ban­ish neg­a­tive labels The bill is moti­vated by the good-hearted desire for dis­ad­van­taged chil­dren to

the work of learning

Recently, Alfie Kohn tweeted an older arti­cle of his, “Stu­dents Don’t ‘Work’ — They Learn.” Sounded inter­est­ing, so I went and read it. Kohn’s main point is that work-related lan­guage  encour­ages think­ing about edu­ca­tion in ways that are detri­men­tal to stu­dent learn­ing. This work-related lan­guage per­vades edu­ca­tion dis­course — “home­work,” “seat work,” “get to work,” “class­room