Search

A main goal of this paper is to complicate "learning loss" as the only, or even the main, thing schools should be concerned about as they respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While schools have a responsibility to make sure students who are enrolled in school are learning, this cannot come at the cost of ignoring the other substantial losses students are also contending with. Following the work of Jonathan Lear, I make the case that schools should engage students in a process of learning how to mourn for their individual and our collective losses, while also considering ways that school can move beyond narrow conceptions of the purposes of school and to a deeper appreciation for the ways that an education can promote human excellence. As this pandemic wears on, it becomes harder and harder to do anything but endure. One goal of this paper is to serve as a reminder that schools can do more than endure: they can envision new possibilities for schooling that promote conceptions of wellbeing that go beyond fear of learning loss.

This article explores Stanley Cavell’s ordinary aesthetics through a close reading of one passage in The Claim of Reason. This close reading leads to the suggestion that educating our aesthetic sense and responsiveness has ethical implications, especially as these relate to the mental health crisis in schools. The article draws implications for individuals in caring relationships with young people, suggesting that Cavell’s thinking on ordinary aesthetics is a powerful tool in our time.

This article is a retrospective look at Chris Lebron's essay 'Thoughts on Racial Democratic Education and Moral Virtue'. I argue that Lebron's work remains extremely relevant, both for its vision of antiracist education, and for the methodological questions it allows readers to contend with. As we are living in an age of increasing backlash to antiracist education, taking another look at Lebron's essay also allows us to consider the reasonableness of this backlash and what this backlash says about imagination and failures of imagination.

This article discusses the ways that labeling students can contribute to epistemic injustices. The harms of labeling are discussed, and Patricia Carini's practice of descriptive review, along with her general philosophical approach to teaching and education, are offered as ways of mitigating against these harms. The main goals of this article are to uncover new ways of thinking about epistemic injustice and to introduce Carini's work to philosophers of education and readers who think philosophically about teaching and education. I suggest that Carini's lived approach to philosophy deserves the widest possible audience, and that her approach to teaching and education present a model for how we might resist forms of injustice that are all too common in schools.

In this paper, I make the case that John Dewey's philosophy of education aims to bring about a democratic community of teachers capable of creating a science of teaching. To make this case, I will do a three things. First, I will discuss "Sources of a Science of Education" and argue that this work is deeply connected to a work written at about the same time, "Individualism Old and New." As I will show, the creation of a science of education is a complex endeavor that is premised on an ability to create a democratic community that reconstructs outmoded notions of individuality. Second, I will argue that the position put forward most directly in these later works is not a deviation from Dewey's overall educational philosophy by offering a reading "Democracy and Education." I will argue that Dewey's thinking on a science of education is held nascent within "Democracy and Education," especially in his discussion of individualism and democracy. Finally, I will assess whether and how current work in teacher education is consonant with Dewey's philosophical project, and draw out implications for philosophers of education.

This paper introduces the special section on Cora Diamond's significance for education and educators. The introduction is meant to be the beginning of a conversation, and--to that end--the special section editors suggest lines of connections that philosophers of education might draw between their work and the work of Cora Diamond. Their list is not meant to be exhaustive, but it is meant to suggest Diamond's far-reaching significance for education and educators.

This essay has several related goals. The first is to contribute to the philosophy of education literature on Cora Diamond while introducing the work of her sister, Julie Diamond, to the field. I introduce Julie Diamond's work by connecting it to the work of John Dewey, and a secondary goal of the paper is to test lines of connection between Dewey and Cora Diamond. Finally, by developing Cora and Julie Diamond's thinking on teaching and the moral life, I hope to contribute to conversations in teacher education, especially ongoing conversations about the meaning of responsive teaching. The first half of the paper discusses and engages Cora Diamond's thinking on the moral life drawing on a range of her published work, the middle of the paper builds a bridge from Cora Diamond to Dewey as a way of introducing Julie Diamond, and the final part of the paper offers an engagement with Julie Diamond's work. I discuss teaching throughout the paper, and my hope is that a vision of responsive teaching, one grounded in the work of Julie and Cora Diamond, emerges that allows teachers to come alive to aspects of their work that can disappear in the rush and whirl of classroom life. The paper begins with a personal story as a way of connecting with the style of Cora and Julie Diamond's approach to teaching and the moral life.

This paper aims to provide parents and others resources to resist technology-mediated personalized learning. To develop these resources and make the case against technology-mediated personalized learning, I turn to the work of American philosophers Henry Bugbee and John William Miller.

Background/Context: This paper is part of the special issue "Reimagining Research and Practice at the Crossroads of Philosophy, Teaching, and Teacher Education." In it we respond to the question of what role there might be for philosophy of education in an era marked by the demand that students graduating from teacher education programs be immediately effective, with "effectiveness" often narrowly, if not wholly, defined by the results of student standardized test scores. Research Design: We address the question by offering an appreciative exploration of core practices approaches to teacher education. We argue (a) that philosophers of education have much to learn by engaging these approaches, and that (b) practitioners and advocates of core practices can deepen their work through a critical appreciation of philosophy of education. Conclusions/Recommendations: Though philosophy appears marginalized by core practices approaches to teaching and teacher education, we suggest that as core practices gain traction, philosophers of education will find new opportunities to engage with teaching and teacher education. Though much mitigates against this type of work, most notably the pressures related to effectiveness and institutional habits that still often separate methods and foundations courses, we argue that such work is indispensable in rendering teaching, and teacher education, both effective and responsible.

This paper has two interrelated goals. The first is to introduce a framework: oppositional democracy. The second is to use this framework to address what I see as a central problem that occurs when learning to teach: the moment when someone with power tells an aspiring teacher that something she hopes to accomplish is "unrealistic". The framework of oppositional democracy helps us understand this problem while also suggesting responses that free an aspiring teacher to experiment in responsible ways, thereby empowering her to work against practices she does not want to be complicit in perpetuating.

Neoliberalism is a force that seeks to commodify the time of education. Time must be productive. We rank journals and reward scholars who produce work published in those highly ranked journals. In the process of commodifying the work of scholarship, we lose time to the logics of neoliberalism. In search of this lost time, we need allies and resources that allow us to resist and reclaim that which replenishes value. This paper makes the case that a vision of progress connected to Dewey's thought may preclude us from appreciating sources of value that deserve further attention. The paper is not an exercise in nostalgia and does not seek a return to values undergirded by tradition or traditional ways of thinking, but it does ask that we exercise vision so that we don't turn our back on sources of resistance that lie waiting to be cultivated.

This article offers a close reading of the novel Stoner by John Williams. "Stoner," and not the countless reports and jeremiads on teaching, helps us find what we are searching for: a way to live--and talk about--teaching in a dignified and artful way. We need to seek out voices that remind, recall and reveal teaching for the beautifully lovingly difficult work that it is. We need more voices like the one Williams provides in "Stoner" as we work at teaching, teacher education and educational reform. When we think about educational policy related to teaching, we must remember that philosophical readings of literature have much to offer our thinking. My hope is that this essay turns our attention back to "Stoner" while encouraging us to see the potential that literature holds for how we think about teaching. Though a more superficially uplifting book may initially feel like the right book to keep teachers excited to teach, I find that "Stoner" is the work that I keep returning to as a check against demoralization and a reminder of what living teaching means.