By the 1980s, the rather simple if not simplistic ordinary languageanalysis practiced most often in philosophy of education was reelingunder the attack from the combination of forces sketched above, butthe analytic spirit lived on in the form of rigorous work done inother specialist areas of philosophy—work that trickled out andtook philosophy of education in rich newdirections. Technically-oriented epistemology, philosophy of science,and metaphysics flourished, as did the interrelated fields of social,political and moral philosophy. John Rawls published A Theory ofJustice in 1971, a decade later Alasdair MacIntyre's AfterVirtue appeared, and in another decade or so there was a flood ofwork on individualism, communitarianism, democratic citizenship,inclusion, exclusion, the rights of children versus the rights ofparents, and the rights of groups (such as the Amish) versus therights of the larger polity. From the early 1990s philosophers ofeducation have contributed significantly to the debates on these andrelated topics; indeed, this corpus of work illustrates that goodphilosophy of education flows seamlessly into work being done inmainstream areas of philosophy. Illustrative examples are EamonnCallan's Creating Citizens: Political Education and LiberalDemocracy (1997), Meira Levinson's The Demands of LiberalEducation (1999), Harry Brighouse'sSocial Justice and School Choice (2000), and Rob Reich's Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in AmericanEducation (2002). These works stand shoulder-to-shoulder withsemi-classics on the same range of topics by Amy Gutmann (1999), WillKymlicka (1995), Stephen Macedo (2000), and others. An excerpt fromthe book by Callan nicely illustrates that the analytic spirit liveson in this body of work; the broader topic being pursued is the statusof the aims of education in a pluralistic society where there can bedeep fundamental disagreements:
It is necessary to keep music education in the American school system because it enhances the development of skills that children will use for the rest of their lives.
Others argue that bilingual education is beneficial to those who come to live in America and want to become a part of the culture, but lack proficiency in the English language.
This is a form of sex inequity being applied in the education system affect women both for the duration of and after their educational practices Social stratification Theory First of all it is important to understand that in the whole world Gender is the basis of social stratification....
This statement was written in a Marxism perspective by individuals who see education not just an important part of the superstructure but as well an important aspect in a child life.
It should be appended here that it is not only “external”world events that have stimulated this body of work; events internalto a number of democratic societies also have been significant. Tocite one example that is prominent in the literature in North Americaat least, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling (Wisconsinv. Yoder) in which members of the Amish sect were allowed towithdraw their children from public schools after the eighthgrade—for, it had been argued, any deeper education wouldendanger the existence of the group and its culture. In assessing thisdecision—as of course philosophers have frequently done (see,for example, Kymlicka 1995)—a balance has to be achievedbetween (i) the interest of civic society in having an informed,well-educated, participatory citizenry; (ii) the interest of the Amishas a group in preserving their own culture; and (iii) the interests ofthe Amish children, who (according to some at least) have a right todevelop into autonomous individuals who can make reflective decisionsfor themselves about the nature of the life they wish to lead. Theseare issues that fall squarely in the domain covered by the worksmentioned above.
After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons theinfluence of APE went into decline. First, there were growingcriticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education hadbecome focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practicalimport. (It is worth noting that the 1966 article inTime, cited earlier, had put forward the same criticism ofmainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970's radicalstudents in Britain accused the brand of linguistic analysis practicedby R.S. Peters of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to“traditional values”—they raised the issue of whoseEnglish usage was being analyzed?
Third, criticisms of language analysis in mainstream philosophy hadbeen mounting for some time, and finally after a lag of many yearswere reaching the attention of philosophers of education. There evenhad been a surprising degree of interest in this arcane topic on thepart of the general reading public in the UK as early as 1959, whenGilbert Ryle, editor of the journal Mind, refused tocommission a review of Ernest Gellner's Words and Things(1959)—a detailed and quite acerbic critique of Wittgenstein'sphilosophy and its espousal of ordinary language analysis. (Ryleargued that Gellner's book was too insulting, a view that drewBertrand Russell into the fray on Gellner's side—in the dailypress, no less; Russell produced examples of insulting remarks drawnfrom the work of great philosophers of the past. See Mehta 1963)
The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analyticphilosophers of education, for, it was argued, getting clear aboutprecisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarifythe border that demarcates it from acceptable educationalprocesses. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not produceunanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rivalanalyses were put forward. Thus, whether or not an instructionalepisode was a case of indoctrination was determined by the contenttaught, the intention of the instructor, the methods of instructionthat had been used, the outcomes of the instruction, or of course bysome combination of these. (Snook 1972) The danger of restrictinganalysis to ordinary language (“normal English usage”) wasrecognized early on by Scheffler, whose preferred view of analysisemphasized
The quantity, variety and quality of work being produced on thecomplex and interrelated issues just outlined amounts to a veritablecottage industry of post-Rawlsian philosophy of education. There are,of course, other areas of activity where interesting contributions arebeing made, and the discussion will next turn to a sampling ofthese.
One answer to this important question may be “long enough”—long enough for you to address your points and explain your main idea. To grab attention or to present succinct supporting ideas, a paragraph can be fairly short and consist of two to three sentences. A paragraph in a complex essay about some abstract point in philosophy or archaeology can be three-quarters of a page or more in length. As long as the writer maintains close focus on the topic and does not ramble, a long paragraph is acceptable in college-level writing. In general, try to keep the paragraphs to around four to eight sentences in length, though there are always exceptions to every rule.
During this period, pressure was placed on the Federal Government to examine their roles in the perseverance of inequalities when it came to Multicultural Education (Russell, Robert, The History of Multicultural Education, 2011)....