REFERENCES
- Hereafter referred to as HET.
- Blyth , W. A. L. “The History of Educational Thought: Its Status and Value” . Educational Review, , 14 1961 – 2 . 171 – 85 .
- I am taking it for granted that there is general agreement that history is a primary area of knowledge. If this is allowed, it follows that HET is a primary educational discipline. Whether or not it is included, as option or requirement, in a course of educational study at whatever level will depend upon many important secondary considerations. Many would argue that where time will allow only one” of HET or philosophy of education, the latter ought to take precedence. I would agree. Where there is time for both, the former is found to be a useful complement to the latter—more useful than the history of practical education.
- Or of certain ideas only, yet always viewed as derivative from particular systems. The point is taken up later, pp. 151‐3
- I have in mind such logical and conceptual muddles as that running through the paragraph starting on p. 47 and continuing for three further paragraphs in J. Dover Wilson's edition (C.U.P. 1950). T. S. Eliot has, amongst others, referred in both his “Arnold and Pater” essay and the essay entitled simply “Arnold”, to the latter's incapacity for connected reasoning and clarity of concept; and Eliot's animadversions in the former essay on the logical insufficiency of Arnold's exposition of culture are well known. I am not aware that anyone has suggested that Arnold was a philosopher. But this is not my point. Many writers have heavily criticised his capacity for abstruse reasoning, and quite rightly. We must assume that we were intended to understand Culture and Anarchy, yet the argument is in the last analysis impossible either to accept or reject because of insufficiently precise grounding of concepts and criteria.
- 1931 . James and John Stuart Mill on Education , xii C.U.P. .