209
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Ends, principles, and causal explanation in educational justice

Pages 184-200 | Published online: 10 Apr 2017
 

Abstract

Many principles characterize educational justice in terms of the relationship between educational inputs, outputs and distributive standards. Such principles depend upon the causal pathway view of education. It is implicit in this view that the causally effective aspects of education can be understood as separate from the normative aspects of education. Yet this view relies on an impossible division of labor between empirical and normative work in educational research: it treats the causal roles that are understood and explained objectively through empirical research as separate from the normative theorizing that informs the assessment of particular policies and practices. Such principles therefore rely on unreliable causal claims and are unable to make prescriptions about practices even according to their own conceptions of justice. Furthermore, such principles obscure other relevant considerations of justice that pertain to the internal processes of education and the structural relation of education to external social conditions.

Notes

1. It is worth noting that such principles are concerned with formal education in particular. Education might still happen if there were no formal schools or educational institutions within society. But in the discussion that follows, education is taken to be a deliberate social enterprise with particular goals and formally recognized ways of imparting knowledge and skills within educational settings.

2. For a principle of educational equality, see Brighouse (Citation2003). For a discussion of different conceptions of equality in education, see Ruitenburg and Vokey (Citation2010), and Jencks (Citation1988). For some formulations of educational adequacy, see Anderson (Citation2007), Satz (Citation2007), and Gutmann (Citation1987). Also see Brighouse and Swift (Citation2009, 2014) on the relationship between educational equality and adequacy.

3. Notable here is (Brighouse Citation2003).

4. Notable here is (Satz Citation2007). Aristotle’s (Citation1984) claim that education should equip individuals for their particular role in the state and their role in securing the common good is relevant here, as well: ‘… the excellence of the part must have regard to excellence of the whole, women and children must be trained by education with an eye to the constitution, if the excellences of either of them are supposed to make any difference in the excellences of the state …’ (Politics 1260b10–20).

5. For a discussion of such goals, see Robertson (Citation2009), and Moshman (Citation2009).

6. For a discussion of the role of education in living the good life, see Curren (Citation2014). For a discussion of the relationship between education, individual freedom, and civic virtue, see Gutmann (Citation1993).

7. For a discussion of children’s interests in attaining autonomy and how this can be reached given both state and parental involvement in education, see Reich (Citation2009).

8. For a discussion of a prioritarian principle, see Schouten (Citation2012). Also see Brighouse (Citation2014).

9. This is an improved argument that draws off of the initial formulation in Brighouse (Citation2000, 112–140).

10. For their specific discussion of Winch, see Smeyers and Smith (Citation2016, 31–48). Cf. Phillips and Burbules (Citation2000) on the relationship between natural science and social science research.

11. The discussion in Smeyers and Smith (Citation2016, 129–138) should also be of interest.

12. Ansalone (Citation2010), Callahan (Citation2005), Cherng, Calarco, and Kao (Citation2013), and Kubitschek and Hallinan (Citation1998) are originally cited in Berliner et al. (Citation2014b).

13. For a discussion of issues such as accountability, validity, and fairness in relation to educational assessment and the aims of education, see Holloway-Libell and Amrein-Beardsley (Citation2015), Curren (Citation2009), and Davis (Citation2003).

14. See Fraser and Honneth (Citation2003, 259), and Honneth (Citation2002, 516).

15. See Fraser and Honneth (Citation2003, 181).

16. Curren (Citation2017), and Young (Citation1990, 192–225) contain critical discussions of credentialism in education.

17. Young (Citation1990, Citation2007, Citation2011) should also be of interest. Also see (Cudd Citation2006) on the structural oppression that can obtain between groups.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 178.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.