Volume 25, Number 1, 2018

EN:

Agonistic critiques of democratic theory conceptualize democracy as a site of conflict and struggle; as the fight against privatization escalates, these critiques become more relevant for educational governance. Public education governance has, in addition, increasingly been the site of growing conflicts between federal, states and local levels, as populist and other types of dissent are now emerging in educational politics. These conflicts reached a new nexus with the nomination of Betsy DeVos as U.S. Secretary of Education. This nomination represents a vivid battle over public school as a “public thing,” a material object, space, institution or place of symbolic and embodied civic importance (Honig 2017). DeVos’ nomination stirred up, in popular imagination, the idea of public schools as “public things” of meaning and value for many citizens who participated in unprecedented ways to (unsuccessfully) block her appointment. It was with this threat to public education that the value of school as a “public thing” became crystalized among a diverse network of citizens. This political moment reveals 1) the nature of schools as public things, 2) the importance of agonist critiques of democracy, and public work, as a means for citizens to help safe-guard the future of schools as public things. I conclude by explaining the limits of agonism as a comprehensive approach to the democratic governance of schooling, advocating for its use as a critique and expansion of current models of public engagement with educational politics.

EN:

Cosmopolitan education has been much theorized, discussed, and proposed, but what, exactly, might it look like and what specific processes might it involve? Cosmopolitanism’s recognition of shared humanity and the subsequent entailment of democratic inclusion make explicit the moral and political nature of cosmopolitan education and philosophy. As an ethico-political process, existing political and ethical processes can be brought to bear on its educational manifestations. The political concepts of epistemological restraint, discourse ethics, and agonistic pluralism are offered as models for cosmopolitan education in agonistic morality: epistemological restraint is used to address the need for prioritization of moral inquiry over moral belief; discourse ethics addresses the necessity of inclusive and democratic dialogue; agonistic pluralism offsets the implications of the inevitability of pluralism in educational inquiry. All three combine to form a process of cosmopolitan education in agonistic morality.

EN:

Being responsive to the experiences, ideas, and stories of others is an essential trait for democratic citizens. Responsiveness promotes the general welfare, it shows respect for others, and allows for what Tony Laden has called the social practice of reasoning. Political theorists have shown how responsiveness is a middle ground between dominance and acquiescence, where citizens show a willingness to be moved by those around them. Responsiveness is tested, though, when citizens interact with those who hold what are thought to be immoral or unjust beliefs. The key question: Is it possible to engage responsively with those who hold morally suspect beliefs, to be legitimately “moved” by those around us, without necessarily acquiescing to the moral problems? We argue that such engagement is both possible and desirable. There are at least five different ways to be moved by others in a productive, civic sense. We describe these modes, explain their moral depth, and give some examples. Civic educators should be aware of these modes and teach students how they can be manifest in democratic life.

EN:

This paper considers the end of education and the demands it makes upon us. It argues that the feared end of education, underpins, and unduly shackles reflection on the current crisis of education. As a spectral, abysmal prospect, it both fetters and stimulates educational critique, mobilising critique to the support of a cause it cannot question because it is committed to its rescue. In a time of crisis, we find ourselves tied only more firmly to education, forced to express or enact our faith in educational redemption. Drawing from the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault, a contrasting, genealogical critique of education is imagined, one that might defer the impulse of educational redemption and defy the limits on thought currently imposed. A genealogy of education is outlined that would strip education of its dignity, and thereby challenge its dominion. The necessary incoherence of such an approach is explored.

EN:

Many symposia and special journal issues over the last several decades have been devoted to concerns over the decline of philosophy in teacher education programs. I pursued an answer for my doctoral project and found institutional explanations are rarely invoked in the “decline literature.” I have sketched here the theory, and have shown it to be equally applicable to the last several decades of this literature. I argue that institutional organizational theory (IOT) shows how teacher education institutions have changed over time in a way that ultimately rendered the environment less and less hospitable to philosophy of education curriculum and faculty. Particular attention is paid to the educational context of Ontario, Canada, but I also include the wider American and British decline literature. In the final pages I offer de-institutionalizing solutions that, if realized, could provide a new soil in which philosophy and other humanities fields could take root again in teacher preparation programs.

EN:

I address some tension between Roman Catholicism and the anti-“heterosexist” education within some of Ontario’s regular, public schools. In particular, I argue that the anti-“heterosexist” education within the Peel District School Board (PDSB) and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) stigmatizes some Roman Catholic beliefs, however incidentally. I then offer a proposal for how this stigmatization could be extinguished without abandoning an effort to prevent bullying against students with same-sex sexual inclination.