philosophy of education as a teacher essay

4 Teaching Philosophy Statement Examples

Develop Your Own Teaching Philosophy

ThoughtCo / J.R. Bee

• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• M.S., Education, Buffalo State College
• B.S., Education, Buffalo State College

An educational philosophy statement or teaching philosophy statement is a brief essay that all nearly prospective teachers are required to write. Vanderbilt University explains:

"A teaching (philosophy) statement is a purposeful and reflective essay about the author’s teaching beliefs and practices. It is an individual narrative that includes not only one’s beliefs about the teaching and learning process but also concrete examples of the ways in which he or she enacts these beliefs in the classroom."

A well-crafted teaching statement gives a clear and unique portrait of the author as a teacher. Ohio State University's Center for the Advancement of Teaching further explains that a teaching philosophy statement is important because a clear philosophy of teaching can lead to a change in teaching behavior and foster professional and personal growth.

Examples of Teaching Philosophy Statements

This passage is an example of a strong statement of teaching philosophy because it puts students where they belong in education: at the front and center of a teacher's focus. An author who writes such as a statement is likely to continuously examine and verify this philosophy by always ensuring that student needs are the primary focus of all lessons and schoolwork.

"My philosophy of education is that all children are unique and must have a stimulating educational environment where they can grow physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. It is my desire to create this type of atmosphere where students can meet their full potential. I will provide a safe environment where students are invited to share their ideas and take risks.

"I believe that there are five essential elements that are conducive to learning. (1) The teacher's role is to act as a guide. (2) Students must have access to hands-on activities. (3) Students should be able to have choices and let their curiosity direct their learning. (4) Students need the opportunity to practice skills in a safe environment. (5) Technology must be incorporated into the school day."

The following statement is a good example of a teaching philosophy because the author emphasizes that all classrooms, and indeed all students, are unique and have specific learning needs and styles. A teacher with such a philosophy is likely to ensure that she spends time helping each student achieve her highest potential.

"I believe that all children are unique and have something special that they can bring to their own education. I will assist my students to express themselves and accept themselves for who they are, as well embrace the differences of others.

"Every classroom has its own unique community; my role as the teacher will be to assist each child in developing their own potential and learning styles. I will present a curriculum that will incorporate each different learning style, as well as make the content relevant to the students' lives. I will incorporate hands-on learning, cooperative learning, projects, themes, and individual work that engage and activate students learning." 

This statement provides a solid example because the author emphasizes the moral objective of teaching: that she will hold each student to the highest expectations and ensure that each one is diligent in her studies. Implied in this statement is that the teacher will not give up on even a single recalcitrant student.

"I believe that a teacher is morally obligated to enter the classroom with only the highest of expectations for each and every one of her students. Thus, the teacher maximizes the positive benefits that naturally come along with any self-fulfilling prophecy. With dedication, perseverance, and hard work, her students will rise to the occasion."

"I aim to bring an open mind, a positive attitude, and high expectations to the classroom each day. I believe that I owe it to my students, as well as the community, to bring consistency, diligence, and warmth to my job in the hope that I can ultimately inspire and encourage such traits in the children as well."

The following statement takes a slightly different tack: Classrooms should be warm and caring communities. Unlike the previous statements, this one minimizes the individuality of students and emphasizes that, essentially, it take a village to foster truly community-based learning. All teaching strategies then, such as morning meetings and community problem solving, follow this philosophy.

"I believe that a classroom should be a safe, caring community where children are free to speak their mind and blossom and grow. I will use strategies to ensure our classroom community will flourish, like the morning meeting, positive vs. negative discipline, classroom jobs, and problem-solving skills.

"Teaching is a process of learning from your students, colleagues, parents, and the community. This is a lifelong process where you learn new strategies, new ideas, and new philosophies. Over time, my educational philosophy may change, and that's okay. That just means that I have grown and learned new things."

Components of a Teaching Philosophy Statement

A teaching philosophy statement should include an introduction, body, and conclusion—just as you would expect of your students if they were writing a paper. But there are specific components that you need to include in any such statement:

Introduction: This should be your thesis statement where you discuss your general belief about education (such as: "I believe all students have a right to learn") as well as your ideals in relation to teaching. You should "begin with the end," says James M. Lang in an Aug. 29, 2010, article titled, " 4 Steps to a Memorable Teaching Philosophy " published in "The Chronicle of Higher Education." Lang says you should consider what the students will have learned once they depart your class, after having been guided by your teaching philosophy and strategies.

Body: ​In this part of the statement, discuss what you see as the ideal classroom environment and how it makes you a better teacher, addresses student needs, and facilitates parent/child interactions. Discuss how you would facilitate age-appropriate learning , and how you involve students in the assessment process . Explain how you would put your educational ​​ideals into practice.

Lang says that you should clearly state your goals and objectives for students. Layout specifically what you hope your teaching will help students to accomplish. Be specific by telling a story or offering "a detailed description of an innovative or interesting teaching strategy you have used," says Lang. Doing so, helps your reader understand how your teaching philosophy would play out in the classroom.

Conclusion : In this section, talk about your goals as a teacher, how you have been able to meet them in the past, and how you can build on these to meet future challenges. Focus on your personal approach to pedagogy and classroom management, as well as what makes you unique as an educator, and how you wish to advance your career to further support education.

Lang notes that, while you don't need to use official citation style, you should cite your sources. Explain where your teaching philosophy originated—for example, from your experiences as an undergraduate, from a faculty mentor you worked with during your teacher-training program, or perhaps from books or articles on teaching that had a particular influence on you.

Formatting Your Statement

In addition to considering the type of teaching philosophy to write, Ohio State University offers some general formatting suggestions. The Ohio State University Center for the Advancement of Teaching states:

Statement Format

"There is no required content or set format. There is no right or wrong way to write a philosophy statement, which is why it is so challenging for most people to write one. You may decide to write in prose, use famous quotes, create visuals, use a question/answer format, etc."

There are, however, some general rules to follow when writing a teaching philosophy statement, says the university's teacher-training department:

Keep it brief. The statement should be no more than one to two pages, according to the Ohio State University Center for the Advancement of Teaching.

Use present tense , and write the statement in the first person, as the previous examples illustrate.

Avoid jargon. Use common, everyday language, not "technical terms," the university advises.

Create a "vivid portrait" that includes "strategies and methods ... (to help) your reader take a mental 'peek' into your classroom," adds the Ohio State University Center for the Advancement of Teaching.

Additionally, make sure you talk about " your  experiences and  your  beliefs" and ensure your statement is original and truly describes the methods and philosophy you would employ in teaching, the university adds.

• How to Write a Philosophy of Education for Elementary Teachers
• 10 Questions to Ask Yourself to Design Your Educational Philosophy
• Educational Philosophy Basics
• Top Tips for Acing a Teacher Interview
• How to Write a Homeschooling Philosophy Statement
• Teacher Interview Questions and Suggested Answers
• Strategies for Teachers: The Power of Preparation and Planning
• 5 Keys to Being a Successful Teacher
• The Inclusive Classroom as the Best Placement
• 4 Tips for Effective Classroom Management
• Sample Weak Supplemental Essay for Duke University
• The ABCs of Teaching: Affirmations for Teachers
• Topics for a Lesson Plan Template
• How to Set up Your Classroom for the First Day of School
• Why Teaching is Fun
• How Does Montessori Compare With Waldorf?

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff
• Academic Leaders
• Faculty and Instructors
• Graduate Students and Postdocs

Center for Educational Innovation

• Campus and Collegiate Liaisons
• Pedagogical Innovations Journal Club
• Teaching Enrichment Series
• Recorded Webinars
• Video Series
• All Services
• Teaching Consultations
• Student Feedback Facilitation
• Instructional Media Production
• Curricular and Educational Initiative Consultations
• Educational Research and Evaluation
• Thank a Teacher
• All Teaching Resources
• Aligned Course Design
• Active Learning
• Team Projects
• Active Learning Classrooms
• Leveraging the Learning Sciences
• Inclusive Teaching at a Predominantly White Institution
• Assessments
• Online Teaching and Design
• AI and ChatGPT in Teaching
• Documenting Growth in Teaching
• Early Term Feedback
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Writing Your Teaching Philosophy
• All Programs
• Assessment Deep Dive
• Designing and Delivering Online Learning
• Early Career Teaching and Learning Program
• International Teaching Assistant (ITA) Program
• Preparing Future Faculty Program
• Teaching with Access and Inclusion Program
• Teaching for Student Well-Being Program
• Teaching Assistant and Postdoc Professional Development Program

Your teaching philosophy is a self-reflective statement of your beliefs about teaching and learning. It's a one to two page narrative that conveys your core ideas about being an effective teacher in the context of your discipline. It develops these ideas with specific, concrete examples of what the teacher and learners will do to achieve those goals. Importantly, your teaching philosophy statement also explains why you choose these options.

+ Getting Started

Your reasons for writing a teaching philosophy may vary. You might be writing it as an exercise in concisely documenting your beliefs so that you can easily articulate them to your students, peers, or a search committee. It might serve as the introduction to your teaching portfolio. Or, it can serve as a means of professional growth as it requires you to give examples of how you enact your philosophy, thus requiring you to consider the degree to which your teaching is congruent with your beliefs.

Generating ideas

Teaching philosophies express your values and beliefs about teaching. They are personal statements that introduce you, as a teacher, to your reader. As such, they are written in the first person and convey a confident, professional tone. When writing a teaching philosophy, use specific examples to illustrate your points. You should also discuss how your values and beliefs about teaching fit into the context of your discipline.

Below are categories you might address with prompts to help you begin generating ideas. Work through each category, spending time thinking about the prompts and writing your ideas down. These notes will comprise the material you’ll use to write the first draft of your teaching philosophy statement. It will help if you include both general ideas (‘I endeavor to create lifelong learners’) as well as specifics about how you will enact those goals. A teaching philosophy template is also available to help you get started.

Questions to prompt your thinking

Your concept of learning.

What do you mean by learning? What happens in a successful learning situation? Note what constitutes "learning" or "mastery" in your discipline.

Your concept of teaching

What are your values, beliefs, and aspirations as a teacher? Do you wish to encourage mastery, competency, transformational learning, lifelong learning, general transference of skills, critical thinking? What does a perfect teaching situation look like to you and why? How are the values and beliefs realized in classroom activities? You may discuss course materials, lesson plans, activities, assignments, and assessment instruments.

Your goals for students

What skills should students obtain as a result of your teaching? Think about your ideal student and what the outcomes of your teaching would be in terms of this student's knowledge or behavior. Address the goals you have for specific classes or curricula and that rational behind them (i.e., critical thinking, writing, or problem solving).

Your teaching methods

What methods will you consider to reach these goals and objectives? What are your beliefs regarding learning theory and specific strategies you would use, such as case studies, group work, simulations, interactive lectures? You might also want to include any new ideas or strategies you want to try.

Your interaction with students

What are you attitudes towards advising and mentoring students? How would an observer see you interact with students? Why do you want to work with students?

Assessing learning

How will you assess student growth and learning? What are your beliefs about grading? Do you grade students on a percentage scale (criterion referenced) or on a curve (norm referenced)? What different types of assessment will you use (i.e. traditional tests, projects, portfolios,  presentations) and why?

Professional growth

How will you continue growing as a teacher? What goals do you have for yourself and how will you reach them? How have your attitudes towards teaching and learning changed over time? How will you use student evaluations to improve your teaching? How might you learn new skills? How do you know when you've taught effectively?

+ Creating a Draft

Two ways of organizing your draft.

Now that you've written down your values, attitudes, and beliefs about teaching and learning, it's time to organize those thoughts into a coherent form. Perhaps the easiest way of organizing this material would be to write a paragraph covering each of the seven prompts you answered in the Getting Started section. These would then become the seven major sections of your teaching philosophy.

Another way of knitting your reflections together—and one that is more personal—is to read through your notes and underscore ideas or observations that come up more than once. Think of these as "themes" that might point you toward an organizational structure for the essay. For example, you read through your notes and realize that you spend a good deal of time writing about your interest in mentoring students. This might become one of the three or four major foci of your teaching philosophy. You should then discuss what it says about your attitudes toward teaching, learning, and what's important in your discipline.

No matter which style you choose, make sure to keep your writing succinct. Aim for two double-spaced pages. And don't forget to start with a "hook." Your job is to make your readers want to read more; their level of engagement is highest when they read your opening line. Hook your readers by beginning with a question, a statement, or even an event from your past.

Using specific examples

Remember to provide concrete examples from your teaching practice to illustrate the general claims you make in your teaching philosophy. The following general statements about teaching are intended as prompts to help you come up with examples to illustrate your claims about teaching. For each statement, how would you describe what happens in your classroom? Is your description specific enough to bring the scene to life in a teaching philosophy?

"I value helping my students understand difficult information. I am an expert, and my role is to model for them complex ways of thinking so that they can develop the same habits of mind as professionals in the medical field."

"I enjoy lecturing, and I'm good at it. I always make an effort to engage and motivate my students when I lecture."

"It is crucial for students of geology to learn the techniques of field research. An important part of my job as a professor of geology is to provide these opportunities."

"I believe that beginning physics students should be introduced to the principles of hypothesis generation, experimentation, data collection, and analysis. By learning the scientific method, they develop critical thinking skills they can apply to other areas of their lives. Small group work is a crucial tool for teaching the scientific method."

"As a teacher of writing, I am committed to using peer review in my classes. By reading and commenting on other students' work in small cooperative groups, my students learn to find their voice, to understand the important connection between writer and audience, and to hone their editing skills. Small group work is indispensible in the writing classroom."

Go back to the notes you made when getting started and underline the general statements you’ve made about teaching and learning. As you start drafting, make sure to note the specific approaches, methods, or products you use to realize those goals.

+ Assessing Your Draft

Assessing your draft teaching philosophy.

According to a survey of search committee chairs by the University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, there are five elements that are shared by strong teaching philosophy statements:

• They offer evidence of practice (specific examples)
• They are student-centered
• They demonstrate reflectiveness
• They demonstrate that the writer values teaching
• They are well written, clear, and readable

Now that you’ve completed an initial draft, ask whether your statement captures these elements and how well you articulate them.

You might find it useful to compare your draft to other teaching philosophies in your discipline. It can also be useful to have a colleague review your draft and offer recommendations for revision. Consider printing out a teaching philosophy rubric from our “Rubrics and Samples” tab to provide your reviewer with guidelines to assess your draft. These exercises will give you the critical distance necessary to see your teaching philosophy objectively and revise it accordingly.

+ Rubrics and Samples

Rubrics and sample teaching philosophies.

Here are links to three teaching philosophy rubrics to help you assess your statement. We have included four different rubrics for you to choose from. These rubrics cover similar elements, and one is not necessarily better than the other. Your choice of which to use should be guided by how comfortable you feel with the particular instrument and how usable you find it. 

• Teaching Philosophy Rubric 1   This rubric allows a reader to rate several elements of persuasiveness and format on a scale of 1 to 5.
• Teaching Philosophy Rubric 2   This rubric contains prompts for assessing purpose and audience, voice, beliefs and support, and conventions.
• Teaching Philosophy Rubric 3   This rubric contains prompts for assessing content, format, and writing quality.
• Rubric for Statements of Teaching Philosophy  This rubric was developed by Kaplan et. al. from the University of Michigan.
• Marisol Brito – philosophy 
• Benjamin Harrison – biology  
• Jamie Peterson – psychology
• The University of Michigan has a wide variety of  samples  organized by field of study.
• Research and Resources
• Why Use Active Learning?
• Successful Active Learning Implementation
• Addressing Active Learning Challenges
• Why Use Team Projects?
• Project Description Examples
• Project Description for Students
• Team Projects and Student Development Outcomes
• Forming Teams
• Team Output
• Individual Contributions to the Team
• Individual Student Understanding
• Supporting Students
• Wrapping up the Project
• Addressing Challenges
• Course Planning
• Working memory
• Retrieval of information
• Spaced practice
• Active learning
• Metacognition
• Definitions and PWI Focus
• A Flexible Framework
• Class Climate
• Course Content
• An Ongoing Endeavor
• Align Assessments
• Multiple Low Stakes Assessments
• Authentic Assessments
• Formative and Summative Assessments
• Varied Forms of Assessments
• Cumulative Assessments
• Equitable Assessments
• Essay Exams
• Multiple Choice Exams and Quizzes
• Academic Paper
• Skill Observation
• Alternative Assessments
• Assessment Plan
• Grade Assessments
• Prepare Students
• Reduce Student Anxiety
• SRT Scores: Interpreting & Responding
• Student Feedback Question Prompts
• Research Questions and Design
• Gathering data
• Publication
• GRAD 8101: Teaching in Higher Education
• Finding a Practicum Mentor
• GRAD 8200: Teaching for Learning
• Proficiency Rating & TA Eligibility
• Schedule a SETTA
• TAPD Webinars

Book Reviews

The Importance of Philosophy in Teacher Education: Mapping the Decline and Its Consequences by Andrew D. Colgan & Bruce Maxwell (Eds.), New York: Routledge, 2020

• Nicolas J. Tanchuk

…more information

Nicolas J. Tanchuk Iowa State University

Online publication: July 27, 2021

A review of the journal Philosophical Inquiry in Education

This article is a review of another work such as a book or a film. The original work discussed here is not available on this platform.

Volume 28, Number 1, 2021 , p. 66–69

© Nicolas J. Tanchuk, 2021

Article body

The essays collected in The Importance of Philosophy in Teacher Education: Mapping the Decline and Its Consequences , edited by Andrew D. Colgan & Bruce Maxwell, tell the story of a discipline’s fall from prominence in teacher education and some ways this trajectory might be meliorated or reversed. In the mid-nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, philosophical study was “widely recognized as essential to the craft of teaching” (Colgan & Maxwell, 2020, p. 1). During this period, nearly all pre-service teachers were required to take a course in the philosophy of education. Compare this today with Canada, the only country for which there is data, where less than 10% of educator preparation programs require a course in philosophical thought (p. 5), and the decline is obvious.

The anti-philosophical bent in teacher preparation programs, of course, is not anomalous. As Alasdair MacIntyre (2007), Philip Kitcher (2012), and others have noted, we live in an age that is generally skeptical of philosophical inquiry. The Importance of Philosophy in Teacher Education does not spend much time reflecting on this broader context. For Kitcher and MacIntyre, at least, some of the blame for our present age’s philosophical skepticism falls at the feet of philosophers. Kitcher laments a drift in academic philosophy from a Deweyan focus on the “study of the good life” and seeking “to understand how opportunities for living well can be promoted by social institutions” (2012, p. 345) towards “arcane puzzles” (p. 346) of metaphysics and epistemology. MacIntyre’s worries point to a deeper anxiety: that seemingly unavoidable methodological tendencies in ethics and political philosophy – where the problems of life are defined and rooted – make it unlikely that philosophers are likely to make progress on these problems.

Specifically, MacIntyre (2007) observes that in contemporary ethics and political philosophy it is standard to appeal to conflicting starting points – basic judgments, perceptions, or intuitions – to establish what purport to be “normative” ethical and political conclusions. But problematically, the inferences drawn from these disparate starting points leave us with conflicting conclusions – all purporting to be “normative.” Philosophical inquiry into “normative” ethical issues can thus appear to boil down to a purely preferential choice between internally coherent but conflicting views. MacIntyre refers to the non-cognitive ethic we are left with amidst such fragmentation as “emotivist” (p. 8). MacIntyre’s insight, if well founded, bears directly on the predicament of the philosophy of education. The empirical study of preferences and their satisfaction is a canonical domain of social scientific inquiry. So, if MacIntyre is correct, then it should be no surprise that philosophy in general and philosophy of education in particular have witnessed a decline not felt in the same way by the social (and natural) sciences. The latter but not the former, one might think, are more conducive to solving the problems of life.

The chapters in Colgan and Maxwell’s edited volume – divided into three sections – largely abstain from such meta-philosophical questions and their practical consequences. Nevertheless, the chapters shed light on the decline in prominence of the philosophy of education, what has been lost, and how the field is already rethinking and re-establishing its place in the unique context of teacher education. A common theme that emerges across the volume’s sections is a shift of the sort Kitcher recommends towards the concrete problems of life and theorizing on terrain closer to that studied by social scientists. This, of course, is one response to problems in the epistemology of philosophy noted by MacIntyre: if the most philosophers can hope to do is reframe possibilities for interpreting and practically satisfying preferences, then focusing one’s work on interpreting what people descriptively think, desire, and do allows the philosopher of education to be made useful to at least some public or other’s interests. Philosophy, in this picture, gives up the role of “queen of the sciences” and is instrumentalized in the service of the public’s present problems.

The first section of the volume, “Diagnosis and Prognosis,” lays out some of the features of philosophy of education’s current predicament in educator preparation programs that motivate this empirically oriented shift. In the first chapter, Robin Barrow argues that while claims to do “philosophical work” have proliferated in faculties of education, little of this work would be recognized as such by analytic philosophers. The “4Cs” that characterize analytic philosophy – an argument’s being “clear, coherent, complete, and compatible” (Colgan & Maxwell, 2020, p. 19) – are, in Barrow’s view, neglected, leaving much educational debate and practice to proceed without sufficient analytic rigor.

The volume’s second chapter, by David Waddington, traces a different decline, this time not in current analytic philosophical work in education, but in John Dewey’s status as an educational scholar. Waddington, a Dewey scholar, suspects that Dewey’s status is unlikely to persist into the twenty-first century. The reason, according to Waddington, is Dewey’s ethical, political, and epistemic modernism, which involves a commitment to a form of “liberation through science” (p. 34) that seeks to control nature for the sake of satisfying human desires. Dewey’s modernism, according to Waddington, entails an unwarranted ethical assimilation and integration of other cultures – most notably those of Indigenous peoples – that see nature as bearing inherent worth (p. 37). By Waddington’s lights, this modernist tendency makes Dewey less well suited to our present moment, in which the modern liberation of human desires through science has led to a near total collapse of natural life and in which many inside and outside educator preparation programs are rightly worried about colonialism. An opportunity is missed in Waddington’s insightful essay to signal awareness of Indigenous ethical and political thought as an alternative to Dewey’s, to post-Marxist critical theorists, and to European postmoderns’ views (e.g., Borrows, 2016; Kruse, Tanchuk, & Hamilton, 2019; North, 2021; Simpson, 2017). Nevertheless, Waddington, like Kitcher, and Dewey himself, can be read as calling philosophers to attend to the most pressing public problems of our day. Ironically, if Waddington is correct, the problems of the public now cut against Dewey and his pragmatic, problem-focused form of scientific modernism.

The third chapter, by Matthew J. Hayden, rounds out the first section, but with a more favourable outlook on the Enlightenment project, as it is reinvigorated by Jürgen Habermas. For Hayden, the neoliberal enemies of philosophical thought are largely to be found outside the walls of faculties of education (although technocrats within educator preparation programs are also a concern). The enemies within and without, according to Hayden, have failed to attend adequately to the critical “emancipatory interests” (Colgan & Maxwell, 2020, p. 51) of students. In Hayden’s view, Habermas rigorously articulates these interests. Read in dialogue with Waddington’s piece lamenting the Deweyan attempt to liberate humanity through scientific and communicative exchange, Hayden’s chapter calls us in the opposite direction: towards the discursive and political conditions for rational emancipation, as they are spelled out by Habermas.

This dissensus between Waddington and Hayden, both well-trained philosophers of education, exemplifies MacIntyre’s metanormative anxiety that philosophers (including philosophers of education) lack a genuine basis upon which to adjudicate the normative dimensions of the problems of life. Where one despairs of answering questions such as “Is a modernist ethic (of some form or other) true?,” it can be tempting to reduce the scope of analysis and turn towards more concrete concerns. The bulk of rest of the volume takes this line as the most promising pathway forward for philosophers of education.

In the middle section of the volume, “Philosophy and Teacher Development,” all four chapters recommend, in different ways, a tighter tie to empirical problems of educational practice. The Philosophy for Teachers (P4T) movement described by Leonard Waks in the fourth chapter and by Janet Orchard & Carrie Winstanley in the fifth, the problem-based approach to philosophy of education championed by Dianne Gereluk in the sixth chapter, and Michael R. Matthews’ focus on concrete problems in science education in the seventh, all evince a focus on building teachers’ philosophical literacy within the context of the present practice of teaching.

This trend continues in the third section of the volume, “Historical Perspectives.” In the eighth chapter, Douglas Yacek and Bruce Kimball argue for a return to an approach to teacher education based in the liberal arts. Yet, rather than unseating the current marginalization of philosophy in schools of education, Yacek and Kimball claim that philosophers more realistically might seek “to widen our understanding of what it means to embody a philosophical spirit and to teach for liberal sensibility” (p. 160) within the constraints of existing courses. In chapter 9, Lee S. Duemer similarly argues for a vision of educational foundations that allows policy and practice to be placed in a broader “epistemological and theoretical framework” (p. 173) that illuminates the human condition. By contrast, the final chapter of the volume, by David T. Hansen and Megan J. Laverty, recounts how the Philosophy and Education program at Teachers College, Columbia University has largely resisted the trend towards problem-based inductive approaches to the philosophy of education in favour of a historical curriculum focused on the “Great Books.” Yet, even at Teachers College, where admissions are highly selective and placement rates are strong, Hansen and Laverty report that the program faculty intend to reflect on ways to deepen the curriculum’s connection to the empirical realities of teacher education in response to graduate feedback (p. 195).

This wealth of perspectives on how to reinvigorate the field through deeper engagement with the problems of life is a strength of the volume. Such a shift towards problems that are both empirical and philosophical, in my view, aptly characterizes some of the most vibrant and thoughtful work in the philosophy of education today. Extending these insights, one might look to recent work that not only starts in worldly problems, but that features philosophers of education themselves engaging in empirical data collection and analysis as part of their research agendas. In recent books like Jen Morton’s Moving Up Without Losing Your Way , qualitative data collected by Morton herself figures prominently in the context in which theoretical considerations are unpacked. In a similar spirit, Lauren Bialystok, et al. (2019) have conducted empirical research on the teaching of philosophy in schools, Doris Santoro (2018) has empirically researched the way the demoralization of teaching has affected teacher retention, and David Hansen (2021) draws on his own field work to articulate his vision of the ethics of teaching.

Philosophers of education have reason to avoid Dewey’s colonial tendencies. The broadly Deweyan unity of philosophical and empirical educational problems recommended in this volume, nevertheless, strikes this reader as a promising pathway forward for the philosophy of education. The Importance of Philosophy in Teacher Education provides an excellent occasion for the field to reflect on the intersection of these problems, to seek knowledge of the empirical realities that form their backdrops, and to start to deliberate about how we should move forward together.

Bibliography

• Bialystok, L., Norris, T., & Pinto, L. (2019). Teaching and learning philosophy in Ontario high schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 51 (5), 678–697. Google Scholar 10.1080/00220272.2018.1563632
• Borrows, J. (2016). Freedom and Indigenous constitutionalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar
• Colgan, A. D., & Maxwell, B. (Eds.). (2020). The importance of philosophy in teacher education: Mapping the decline and its consequences. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar 10.4324/9780429426827
• Hansen, D. T. (2021). Reimagining the call to teach: A witness to teachers and teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. (2012). Education, democracy, and capitalism. In Preludes to pragmatism: Toward a reconstruction of philosophy (pp. 345–362). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899555.001.0001
• Kruse, M., Tanchuk, N., & Hamilton, R. (2019). Educating in the seventh fire. Educational Theory , 69 (5), 587–601. Google Scholar 10.1111/edth.12388
• MacIntyre, A. (2007 [1981]). After virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Google Scholar
• Morton, J. (2019). Moving up without losing your way: The ethical costs of upward mobility. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar 10.23943/princeton/9780691179230.001.0001
• North, B. (2021). Philosophy and the ethics of public Alaskan Indigenous education: A normative case study. Journal of School and Society , 7 (1), 35–46. Google Scholar
• Santoro, D. (2018). Demoralized. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Google Scholar
• Simpson, L. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar 10.5749/j.ctt1pwt77c

Citation Tools

Cite this article, export the record for this article.

RIS EndNote, Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero

ENW EndNote (version X9.1 and above), Zotero

BIB BibTeX, JabRef, Mendeley, Zotero

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

FREE Poetry Worksheet Bundle! Perfect for National Poetry Month.

40 Philosophy of Education Examples, Plus How To Write Your Own

Learn how to define and share your teaching philosophy.

These days, it’s become common for educators to be asked what their personal teaching philosophy is. Whether it’s for a job interview, a college class, or to share with your principal, crafting a philosophy of education can seem like a daunting task. So set aside some time to consider your own teaching philosophy (we’ll walk you through it), and be sure to look at philosophy of education examples from others (we’ve got those too!).

What is a philosophy of education?

Before we dive into the examples, it’s important to understand the purpose of a philosophy of education. This statement will provide an explanation of your teaching values and beliefs. Your teaching philosophy is ultimately a combination of the methods you studied in college and any professional experiences you’ve learned from since. It incorporates your own experiences (negative or positive) in education.

Many teachers have two versions of their teaching philosophy: a long form (a page or so of text) and a short form. The longer form is useful for job application cover letters or to include as part of your teacher portfolio. The short form distills the longer philosophy into a couple of succinct sentences that you can use to answer teacher job interview questions or even share with parents.

What’s the best teaching philosophy?

Here’s one key thing to remember: There’s no one right answer to “What’s your teaching philosophy?” Every teacher’s will be a little bit different, depending on their own teaching style, experiences, and expectations. And many teachers find that their philosophies change over time, as they learn and grow in their careers.

When someone asks for your philosophy of education, what they really want to know is that you’ve given thought to how you prepare lessons and interact with students in and out of the classroom. They’re interested in finding out what you expect from your students and from yourself, and how you’ll apply those expectations. And they want to hear examples of how you put your teaching philosophy into action.

What’s included in strong teaching philosophy examples?

Depending on who you ask, a philosophy of education statement can include a variety of values, beliefs, and information. As you build your own teaching philosophy statement, consider these aspects, and write down your answers to the questions.

Purpose of Education (Core Beliefs)

What do you believe is the purpose of teaching and learning? Why does education matter to today’s children? How will time spent in your classroom help prepare them for the future?

Use your answers to draft the opening statement of your philosophy of education, like these:

• Education isn’t just about what students learn, but about learning how to learn.
• A good education prepares students to be productive and empathetic members of society.
• Teachers help students embrace new information and new ways of seeing the world around them.
• A strong education with a focus on fundamentals ensures students can take on any challenges that come their way.
• I believe education is key to empowering today’s youth, so they’ll feel confident in their future careers, relationships, and duties as members of their community.
• Well-educated students are open-minded, welcoming the opinions of others and knowing how to evaluate information critically and carefully.

Teaching Style and Practices

Do you believe in student-led learning, or do you like to use the Socratic method instead? Is your classroom a place for quiet concentration or sociable collaboration? Do you focus on play-based learning, hands-on practice, debate and discussion, problem-solving, or project-based learning? All teachers use a mix of teaching practices and styles, of course, but there are some you’re likely more comfortable with than others. Possible examples:

• I frequently use project-based learning in my classrooms because I believe it helps make learning more relevant to my students. When students work together to address real-world problems, they use their [subject] knowledge and skills and develop communication and critical thinking abilities too.
• Play-based learning is a big part of my teaching philosophy. Kids who learn through play have more authentic experiences, exploring and discovering the world naturally in ways that make the process more engaging and likely to make a lasting impact.
• In my classroom, technology is key. I believe in teaching students how to use today’s technology in responsible ways, embracing new possibilities and using technology as a tool, not a crutch.
• While I believe in trying new teaching methods, I also find that traditional learning activities can still be effective. My teaching is mainly a mix of lecture, Socratic seminar, and small-group discussions.
• I’m a big believer in formative assessment , taking every opportunity to measure my students’ understanding and progress. I use tools like exit tickets and Kahoot! quizzes, and watch my students closely to see if they’re engaged and on track.
• Group work and discussions play a major role in my instructional style. Students who learn to work cooperatively at a young age are better equipped to succeed in school, in their future careers, and in their communities.

Students and Learning Styles

Why is it important to recognize all learning styles? How do you accommodate different learning styles in your classroom? What are your beliefs on diversity, equity, and inclusion? How do you ensure every student in your classroom receives the same opportunities to learn? How do you expect students to behave, and how do you measure success?

Sample teaching philosophy statements about students might sound like this:

• Every student has their own unique talents, skills, challenges, and background. By getting to know my students as individuals, I can help them find the learning styles that work best for them, now and throughout their education.
• I find that motivated students learn best. They’re more engaged in the classroom and more diligent when working alone. I work to motivate students by making learning relevant, meaningful, and enjoyable.
• We must give every student equal opportunities to learn and grow. Not all students have the same support outside the classroom. So as a teacher, I try to help bridge gaps when I see them and give struggling students a chance to succeed academically.
• I believe every student has their own story and deserves a chance to create and share it. I encourage my students to approach learning as individuals, and I know I’m succeeding when they show a real interest in showing up and learning more every day.
• In my classroom, students take responsibility for their own success. I help them craft their own learning goals, then encourage them to evaluate their progress honestly and ask for help when they need it.
• To me, the best classrooms are those that are the most diverse. Students learn to recognize and respect each other’s differences, celebrating what each brings to the community. They also have the opportunity to find common ground, sometimes in ways that surprise them.

How do I write my philosophy of education?

Think back to any essay you’ve ever written and follow a similar format. Write in the present tense; your philosophy isn’t aspirational, it’s something you already live and follow. This is true even if you’re applying for your first teaching job. Your philosophy is informed by your student teaching, internships, and other teaching experiences.

Lead with your core beliefs about teaching and learning. These beliefs should be reflected throughout the rest of your teaching philosophy statement.

Then, explain your teaching style and practices, being sure to include concrete examples of how you put those practices into action. Transition into your beliefs about students and learning styles, with more examples. Explain why you believe in these teaching and learning styles, and how you’ve seen them work in your experiences.

A long-form philosophy of education statement usually takes a few paragraphs (not generally more than a page or two). From that long-form philosophy, highlight a few key statements and phrases and use them to sum up your teaching philosophy in a couple of well-crafted sentences for your short-form teaching philosophy.

Still feeling overwhelmed? Try answering these three key questions:

• Why do you teach?
• What are your favorite, tried-and-true methods for teaching and learning?
• How do you help students of all abilities and backgrounds learn?

If you can answer those three questions, you can write your teaching philosophy!

Short Philosophy of Education Examples

We asked real educators in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE group on Facebook to share their teaching philosophy examples in a few sentences . Here’s what they had to say:

I am always trying to turn my students into self-sufficient learners who use their resources to figure it out instead of resorting to just asking someone for the answers. —Amy J.

My philosophy is that all students can learn. Good educators meet all students’ differentiated learning needs to help all students meet their maximum learning potential. —Lisa B.

I believe that all students are unique and need a teacher that caters to their individual needs in a safe and stimulating environment. I want to create a classroom where students can flourish and explore to reach their full potential. My goal is also to create a warm, loving environment, so students feel safe to take risks and express themselves. —Valerie T.

In my classroom, I like to focus on the student-teacher relationships/one-on-one interactions. Flexibility is a must, and I’ve learned that you do the best you can with the students you have for however long you have them in your class. —Elizabeth Y

I want to prepare my students to be able to get along without me and take ownership of their learning. I have implemented a growth mindset. —Kirk H.

My teaching philosophy is centered around seeing the whole student and allowing the student to use their whole self to direct their own learning. As a secondary teacher, I also believe strongly in exposing all students to the same core content of my subject so that they have equal opportunities for careers and other experiences dependent upon that content in the future. —Jacky B.

All children learn best when learning is hands-on. This works for the high students and the low students too, even the ones in between. I teach by creating experiences, not giving information. —Jessica R.

As teachers, it’s our job to foster creativity. In order to do that, it’s important for me to embrace the mistakes of my students, create a learning environment that allows them to feel comfortable enough to take chances, and try new methods. —Chelsie L.

I believe that every child can learn and deserves the best, well-trained teacher possible who has high expectations for them. I differentiate all my lessons and include all learning modalities. —Amy S.

All students can learn and want to learn. It is my job to meet them where they are and move them forward. —Holli A.

I believe learning comes from making sense of chaos. My job is to design work that will allow students to process, explore, and discuss concepts to own the learning. I need to be part of the process to guide and challenge perceptions. —Shelly G.

I want my students to know that they are valued members of our classroom community, and I want to teach each of them what they need to continue to grow in my classroom. —Doreen G.

Teach to every child’s passion and encourage a joy for and love of education and school. —Iris B.

I believe in creating a classroom culture of learning through mistakes and overcoming obstacles through teamwork. —Jenn B.

It’s our job to introduce our kids to many, many different things and help them find what they excel in and what they don’t. Then nurture their excellence and help them figure out how to compensate for their problem areas. That way, they will become happy, successful adults. —Haley T.

Longer Philosophy of Education Examples

Looking for longer teaching philosophy examples? Check out these selections from experienced teachers of all ages and grades.

• Learning To Wear the Big Shoes: One Step at a Time
• Nellie Edge: My Kindergarten Teaching Philosophy
• Faculty Focus: My Philosophy of Teaching
• Robinson Elementary School: My Teaching Philosophy
• David Orace Kelly: Philosophy of Education
• Explorations in Higher Education: My Teaching Philosophy Statement
• University of Washington Medical School Faculty Teaching Philosophy Statements

Do you have any philosophy of education examples? Share them in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE Group on Facebook!

Want more articles and tips like this be sure to subscribe to our newsletters to find out when they’re posted..

You Might Also Like

15 Inspiring Teaching Portfolio Examples (Plus How To Create Your Own)

Show them what you've got. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

Philosophy of Education

All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession. While not all societies channel sufficient resources into support for educational activities and institutions, all at the very least acknowledge their centrality—and for good reasons. For one thing, it is obvious that children are born illiterate and innumerate, and ignorant of the norms and cultural achievements of the community or society into which they have been thrust; but with the help of professional teachers and the dedicated amateurs in their families and immediate environs (and with the aid, too, of educational resources made available through the media and nowadays the internet), within a few years they can read, write, calculate, and act (at least often) in culturally-appropriate ways. Some learn these skills with more facility than others, and so education also serves as a social-sorting mechanism and undoubtedly has enormous impact on the economic fate of the individual. Put more abstractly, at its best education equips individuals with the skills and substantive knowledge that allows them to define and to pursue their own goals, and also allows them to participate in the life of their community as full-fledged, autonomous citizens.

But this is to cast matters in very individualistic terms, and it is fruitful also to take a societal perspective, where the picture changes somewhat. It emerges that in pluralistic societies such as the Western democracies there are some groups that do not wholeheartedly support the development of autonomous individuals, for such folk can weaken a group from within by thinking for themselves and challenging communal norms and beliefs; from the point of view of groups whose survival is thus threatened, formal, state-provided education is not necessarily a good thing. But in other ways even these groups depend for their continuing survival on educational processes, as do the larger societies and nation-states of which they are part; for as John Dewey put it in the opening chapter of his classic work Democracy and Education (1916), in its broadest sense education is the means of the “social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916, 3). Dewey pointed out that the “primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group” make education a necessity, for despite this biological inevitability “the life of the group goes on” (Dewey, 3). The great social importance of education is underscored, too, by the fact that when a society is shaken by a crisis, this often is taken as a sign of educational breakdown; education, and educators, become scapegoats.

It is not surprising that such an important social domain has attracted the attention of philosophers for thousands of years, especially as there are complex issues aplenty that have great philosophical interest. Even a cursory reading of these opening paragraphs reveals that they touch on, in nascent form, some but by no means all of the issues that have spawned vigorous debate down the ages; restated more explicitly in terms familiar to philosophers of education, the issues the discussion above flitted over were: education as transmission of knowledge versus education as the fostering of inquiry and reasoning skills that are conducive to the development of autonomy (which, roughly, is the tension between education as conservative and education as progressive, and also is closely related to differing views about human “perfectibility”—issues that historically have been raised in the debate over the aims of education); the question of what this knowledge, and what these skills, ought to be—part of the domain of philosophy of the curriculum; the questions of how learning is possible, and what is it to have learned something—two sets of issues that relate to the question of the capacities and potentialities that are present at birth, and also to the process (and stages) of human development and to what degree this process is flexible and hence can be influenced or manipulated; the tension between liberal education and vocational education, and the overlapping issue of which should be given priority—education for personal development or education for citizenship (and the issue of whether or not this is a false dichotomy); the differences (if any) between education and enculturation; the distinction between educating versus teaching versus training versus indoctrination; the relation between education and maintenance of the class structure of society, and the issue of whether different classes or cultural groups can—justly—be given educational programs that differ in content or in aims; the issue of whether the rights of children, parents, and socio-cultural or ethnic groups, conflict—and if they do, the question of whose rights should be dominant; the question as to whether or not all children have a right to state-provided education, and if so, should this education respect the beliefs and customs of all groups and how on earth would this be accomplished; and a set of complex issues about the relation between education and social reform, centering upon whether education is essentially conservative, or whether it can be an (or, the ) agent of social change.

It is impressive that most of the philosophically-interesting issues touched upon above, plus additional ones not alluded to here, were addressed in one of the early masterpieces of the Western intellectual tradition—Plato's Republic . A.N. Whitehead somewhere remarked that the history of Western philosophy is nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato, and if the Meno and the Laws are added to the Republic , the same is true of the history of educational thought and of philosophy of education in particular. At various points throughout this essay the discussion shall return to Plato, and at the end there shall be a brief discussion of the two other great figures in the field—Rousseau and Dewey. But the account of the field needs to start with some features of it that are apt to cause puzzlement, or that make describing its topography difficult. These include, but are not limited to, the interactions between philosophy of education and its parent discipline.

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

1.2 the different bodies of work traditionally included in the field, 1.3 paradigm wars the diversity of, and clashes between, philosophical approaches, 2.1 the early work: c.d. hardie, 2.2 the dominant years: language, and clarification of key concepts, 2.3 countervailing forces, 2.4 a new guise contemporary social, political and moral philosophy, 3.1 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 3.2 the content of the curriculum, and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.3 rousseau, dewey, and the progressive movement, 4. concluding remarks, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries, 1. problems in delineating the field.

There is a large—and ever expanding—number of works designed to give guidance to the novice setting out to explore the domain of philosophy of education; most if not all of the academic publishing houses have at least one representative of this genre on their list, and the titles are mostly variants of the following archetypes: The History and Philosophy of Education , The Philosophical Foundations of Education , Philosophers on Education , Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , A Guide to the Philosophy of Education , and Readings in Philosophy of Education . The overall picture that emerges from even a sampling of this collective is not pretty; the field lacks intellectual cohesion, and (from the perspective taken in this essay) there is a widespread problem concerning the rigor of the work and the depth of scholarship—although undoubtedly there are islands, but not continents, of competent philosophical discussion of difficult and socially-important issues of the kind listed earlier. On the positive side—the obverse of the lack of cohesion—there is, in the field as a whole, a degree of adventurousness in the form of openness to ideas and radical approaches, a trait that is sometimes lacking in other academic fields. This is not to claim, of course, that taken individually philosophers of education are more open-minded than their philosophical cousins!

Part of the explanation for this diffuse state-of-affairs is that, quite reasonably, most philosophers of education have the goal (reinforced by their institutional affiliation with Schools of Education and their involvement in the initial training of teachers) of contributing not to philosophy but to educational policy and practice. This shapes not only their selection of topics, but also the manner in which the discussion is pursued; and this orientation also explains why philosophers of education—to a far greater degree, it is to be suspected, than their “pure” cousins—publish not in philosophy journals but in a wide range of professionally-oriented journals (such as Educational Researcher , Harvard Educational Review , Teachers College Record , Cambridge Journal of Education, Journal of Curriculum Studies , and the like). Some individuals work directly on issues of classroom practice, others identify as much with fields such as educational policy analysis, curriculum theory, teacher education, or some particular subject-matter domain such as math or science education, as they do with philosophy of education. It is still fashionable in some quarters to decry having one's intellectual agenda shaped so strongly as this by concerns emanating from a field of practice; but as Stokes (1997) has made clear, many of the great, theoretically-fruitful research programs in natural science had their beginnings in such practical concerns—as Pasteur's grounbreaking work illustrates. It is dangerous to take the theory versus practice dichotomy too seriously.

However, there is another consequence of this institutional housing of the vast majority of philosphers of education that is worth noting—one that is not found in a comparable way in philosophers of science, for example, who almost always are located in departments of philosophy—namely, that experience as a teacher, or in some other education-related role, is a qualification to become a philosopher of education that in many cases is valued at least as much as depth of philosophical training. (The issue is not that educational experience is irrelevant—clearly it can be highly pertinent—but it is that in the tradeoff with philosophical training, philosophy often loses.) But there are still other factors at work that contribute to the field's diffuseness, that all relate in some way to the nature of the discipline of philosophy itself.

In describing the field of philosophy, and in particular the sub-field that has come to be identified as philosophy of education, one quickly runs into a difficulty not found to anything like the same degree in other disciplines. For example, although there are some internal differences in opinion, nevertheless there seems to be quite a high degree of consensus within the domain of quantum physics about which researchers are competent members of the field and which ones are not, and what work is a strong contribution (or potential contribution). The very nature of philosophy, on the other hand, is “essentially contested”; what counts as a sound philosophical work within one school of thought, or socio-cultural or academic setting, may not be so-regarded (and may even be the focus of derision) in a different one. Coupled with this is the fact that the borders of the field are not policed, so that the philosophically-untrained can cross into it freely—indeed, over the past century or more a great many individuals from across the spectrum of real and pseudo disciplines have for whatever reason exercised their right to self-identify as members of this broad and loosely defined category of “philosophers” (as a few minutes spent browsing in the relevant section of a bookstore will verify).

In essence, then, there are two senses of the term “philosopher” and its cognates: a loose but common sense in which any individual who cogitates in any manner about such issues as the meaning of life, the nature of social justice, the essence of sportsmanship, the aims of education, the foundations of the school curriculum, or relationship with the Divine, is thereby a philosopher; and there is a more technical sense referring to those who have been formally trained or have acquired competence in one or more areas such as epistemology, metaphysics, moral philosophy, logic, philosophy of science, and the like. If this bifurcation presents a problem for adequately delineating the field of philosophy, the difficulties grow tenfold or more with respect to philosophy of education.

This essay offers a description and assessment of the field as seen by a scholar rooted firmly in the formal branch of “philosophy of education”, and moreover this branch as it has developed in the English-speaking world (some of which, of course, has been inspired by Continental philosophy); but first it is necessary to say a little more about the difficulties that confront the individual who sets out, without presuppositions, to understand the topography of “philosophy of education”.

It will not take long for a person who consults several of the introductory texts alluded to earlier to encounter a number of different bodies of work (loosely bounded to be sure) that have by one source or another been regarded as part of the domain of philosophy of education; the inclusion of some of these as part of the field is largely responsible for the diffuse topography described earlier. What follows is an informal and incomplete accounting.

First, there are works of advocacy produced by those non-technical, self-identified “philosophers” described above, who often have an axe to grind; they may wish to destroy (or to save) common schooling, support or attack some innovation or reform, shore-up or destroy the capitalist mode of production, see their own religion (or none at all) gain a foothold in the public schools, strengthen the place of “the basics” in the school curriculum, and so forth. While these topics certainly can be, and have been, discussed with due care, often they have been pursued in loose but impressive language where exhortation substitutes for argumentation—and hence sometimes they are mistaken for works of philosophy of education! In the following discussion this genre shall be passed over in silence.

Second, there is a corpus of work somewhat resembling the first, but where the arguments are tighter, and where the authors usually are individuals of some distinction whose insights are thought-provoking—possibly because they have a degree of familiarity with some branch of educational activity, having been teachers (or former teachers), school principals, religious leaders, politicians, journalists, and the like. While these works frequently touch on philosophical issues, they are not pursued to any philosophical depth and can hardly be considered as contributions to the scholarship of the discipline. However, some works in this genre are among the classics of “educational thought”—a more felicitous label than “philosophy of education”; cases in point would be the essays, pamphlets and letters of Thomas Arnold (headmaster of Rugby school), John Wesley (the founder of Methodism), J.H. (Cardinal) Newman, T.H. Huxley, and the writings on progressive schooling by A.S. Neill (of Summerhill school). Some textbooks even include extracts from the writings or recorded sayings of such figures as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Jesus of Nazareth (for the latter three, in works spanning more than half a century, see Ulich, 1950, and Murphy, 2006). Books and extracts in this genre—which elsewhere I have called “cultured reflection on education”—are often used in teacher-training courses that march under the banner of “educational foundations”, “introduction to educational thought”, or “introduction to philosophy of education”.

Third, there are a number of educational theorists and researchers, whose field of activity is not philosophy but—for example—might be human development or learning theory, who in their technical work and sometimes in their non-technical books and reflective essays explicitly raise philosophical issues or adopt philosophical modes of argumentation—and do so in ways worthy of careful study. If philosophy (including philosophy of education) is defined so as to include analysis and reflection at an abstract or “meta-level”, which undoubtedly is a domain where many philosophers labor, then these individuals should have a place in the annals of philosophy or philosophy of education; but too often, although not always, accounts of the field ignore them. Their work might be subjected to scrutiny for being educationally important, but their conceptual or philosophical contributions are rarely focused upon. (Philosophers of the physical and biological sciences are far less prone to make this mistake about the meta-level work of reflective scientists in these domains.)

The educational theorists and researchers I have in mind as exemplars here are the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner (who among other things wrote about the fate of the notions of human freedom and dignity in the light of the development of a “science of behavior”, and who developed a model of human action and also of learning that eschewed the influence of mental entities such as motives, interests, and ideas and placed the emphasis instead upon “schedules of reinforcement”); the foundational figure in modern developmental psychology with its near-fixation on stage theories, Jean Piaget (who developed in an abstract and detailed manner a “genetic epistemology” that was related to his developmental research); and the social psychologist Lev Vygotsky (who argued that the development of the human youngster was indelibly shaped by social forces, so much so that approaches which focused on the lone individual and that were biologically-oriented—he had Piaget in mind here—were quite inadequate).

Fourth, and in contrast to the group above, there is a type of work that is traditionally but undeservedly given a prominent place in the annals of philosophy of education, and which thereby generates a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the field. These are the books and reflective essays on educational topics that were written by mainstream philosophers, a number of whom are counted among the greatest in the history of the discipline. The catch is this: Even great philosophers do not always write philosophy! The reflections being referred-to contain little if any philosophical argumentation, and usually they were not intended to be contributions to the literature on any of the great philosophical questions. Rather, they expressed the author's views (or even prejudices) on educational rather than philosophical problems, and sometimes—as in the case of Bertrand Russell's rollicking pieces defending progressive educational practices—they explicitly were “potboilers” written to make money. (In Russell's case the royalties were used to support a progressive school he was running with his current wife.) Locke, Kant, and Hegel also are among those who produced work of this genre.

John Locke is an interesting case in point. He had been requested by a cousin and her husband—possibly in part because of his medical training—to give advice on the upbringing of their son and heir; the youngster seems to have troubled his parents, most likely because he had learning difficulties. Locke, then in exile in Europe, wrote the parents a series of letters in which alongside sensible advice about such matters as the priorities in the education of a landed gentleman, and about making learning fun for the boy, there were a few strange items such as the advice that the boy should wear leaky shoes in winter so that he would be toughened-up! The letters eventually were printed in book form under the title Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), and seem to have had enormous influence down the ages upon educational practice; after two centuries the book had run through some 35 English editions and well over thirty foreign editions, and it is still in print and is frequently excerpted in books of readings in philosophy of education. In stark contrast, several of Locke's major philosophical writings—the Essay Concerning Human Understanding , and the Letter on Toleration —have been overlooked by most educational theorists over the centuries, even though they have enormous relevance for educational philosophy, theory, policy, and practice. It is especially noteworthy that the former of these books was the foundation for an approach to psychology—associationism—that thrived during the nineteenth century. In addition it stimulated interest in the processes of child development and human learning; Locke's model of the way in which the “blank tablet” of the human mind became “furnished” with simple ideas that were eventually combined or abstracted in various ways to form complex ideas, suggested to some that it might be fruitful to study this process in the course of development of a young child (Cleverley and Phillips, 1986).

Fifth, and finally, there is a large body of work that clearly falls within the more technically-defined domain of philosophy of education. Three historical giants of the field are Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey, and there are a dozen or more who would be in competition for inclusion along with them; the short-list of leading authors from the second-half of the 20 th century would include Richard Peters, Paul Hirst, and Israel Scheffler, with many jostling for the next places—but the choices become cloudy as we approach the present-day, for schisms between philosophical schools have to be negotiated.

It is important to note, too, that there is a sub-category within this domain of literature that is made-up of work by philosophers who are not primarily identified as philosophers of education, and who might or might not have had much to say directly about education, but whose philosophical work has been drawn upon by others and applied very fruitfully to educational issues. (A volume edited by Amelie Rorty contains essays on the education-related thought, or relevance, of many historically-important philosophers; significantly the essays are almost entirely written by philosophers rather than by members of the philosophy of education community. This is both their strength and weakness. See Rorty, 1998.)

The discussion will turn briefly to the difficulty in picturing the topography of the field that is presented by the influence of these philosophers.

As sketched earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, criteria for selecting evidence that has relevance for the problems that they consider central, and the like. No wonder educational discourse has occasionally been likened to Babel, for the differences in backgrounds and assumptions means that there is much mutual incomprehension. In the midst of the melee sit the philosophers of education.

It is no surprise, then, to find that the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content and methods of argument in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg. It is revealing to note some of the names that were heavily-cited in a pair of recent authoritative handbooks in the field (according to the indices of the two volumes, and in alphabetical order): Adorno, Aristotle, Derrida, Descartes, Dewey, Habermas, Hegel, Horkheimer, Kant, Locke, Lyotard, Marx, Mill, Nietzsche, Plato, Rawls, Richard Rorty, Rousseau, and Wittgenstein (Curren 2003; Blake, Smeyers, Smith, and Standish 2003). Although this list conveys something of the diversity of the field, it fails to do it complete justice, for the influence of feminist philosophers is not adequately represented.

No one individual can have mastered work done by such a range of figures, representing as they do a number of quite different frameworks or approaches; and relatedly no one person stands as emblematic of the entire field of philosophy of education, and no one type of philosophical writing serves as the norm, either. At professional meetings, peace often reigns because the adherents of the different schools go their separate ways; but occasionally there are (intellectually) violent clashes, rivaling the tumult that greeted Derrida's nomination for an honorary degree at Cambridge in 1992. It is sobering to reflect that only a few decades have passed since practitioners of analytic philosophy of education had to meet in individual hotel rooms, late at night, at annual meetings of the Philosophy of Education Society in the USA, because phenomenologists and others barred their access to the conference programs; their path to liberation was marked by discord until, eventually, the compromise of “live and let live” was worked out (Kaminsky, 1996). Of course, the situation has hardly been better in the home discipline; an essay in Time magazine in 1966 on the state of the discipline of philosophy reported that adherents of the major philosophical schools “don't even understand one another”, and added that as a result “philosophy today is bitterly segregated. Most of the major philosophy departments and scholarly journals are the exclusive property of one sect or another” ( Time , reprinted in Lucas, 1969, 32). Traditionally there has been a time-lag for developments in philosophy to migrate over into philosophy of education, but in this respect at least the two fields have been on a par.

Inevitably, however, traces of discord remain, and some groups still feel disenfranchised, but they are not quite the same groups as a few decades ago—for new intellectual paradigms have come into existence, and their adherents are struggling to have their voices heard; and clearly it is the case that—reflecting the situation in 1966—many analytically-trained philosophers of education find postmodern writings incomprehensible while scholars in the latter tradition are frequently dismissive if not contemptuous of work done by the former group. In effect, then, the passage of time has made the field more—and not less—diffuse. All this is evident in a volume published in 1995 in which the editor attempted to break-down borders by initiating dialogue between scholars with different approaches to philosophy of education; her introductory remarks are revealing:

Philosophers of education reflecting on the parameters of our field are faced not only with such perplexing and disruptive questions as: What counts as Philosophy of Education and why?; but also Who counts as a philosopher of education and why?; and What need is there for Philosophy of Education in a postmodern context? Embedded in these queries we find no less provocative ones: What knowledge, if any, can or should be privileged and why?; and Who is in a position to privilege particular discursive practices over others and why? Although such questions are disruptive, they offer the opportunity to take a fresh look at the nature and purposes of our work and, as we do, to expand the number and kinds of voices participating in the conversation. (Kohli, 1995, xiv).

There is an inward-looking tone to the questions posed here: Philosophy of education should focus upon itself, upon its own contents, methods, and practitioners. And of course there is nothing new about this; for one thing, almost forty years ago a collection of readings—with several score of entries—was published under the title What is Philosophy of Education? (Lucas, 1969). It is worth noting, too, that the same attitude is not unknown in philosophy; Simmel is reputed to have said a century or so ago that philosophy is its own first problem.

Having described the general topography of the field of philosophy of education, the focus can change to pockets of activity where from the perspective of this author interesting philosophical work is being, or has been, done—and sometimes this work has been influential in the worlds of educational policy or practice. It is appropriate to start with a discussion of the rise and partial decline—but lasting influence of—analytic philosophy of education This approach (often called “APE” by both admirers and detractors) dominated the field in the English-speaking world for several decades after the second world war, and its eventual fate throws light on the current intellectual climate.

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—which make up part at least of the philosophical analysis package—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. But traditionally they stood alongside other philosophical activities; in the Republic , for example, Plato was sometimes analytic, at other times normative, and on occasion speculative/metaphysical. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity (for metaphysics was judged to be literally vacuous, and normative philosophy was viewed as being unable to provide compelling warrants for whatever moral and ethical positions were being advocated).

So, although analytic elements in philosophy of education can be located throughout intellectual history back to the ancient world, the pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

The Cambridge analytical school, led by Moore, Broad and Wittgenstein, has attempted so to analyse propositions that it will always be apparent whether the disagreement between philosophers is one concerning matters of fact, or is one concerning the use of words, or is, as is frequently the case, a purely emotive one. It is time, I think, that a similar attitude became common in the field of educational theory. (Hardie, 1962, xix)

The first object of his analytic scrutiny in the book was the view that “a child should be educated according to Nature”; he teased apart and critiqued various things that writers through the ages could possibly have meant by this, and very little remained standing by the end of the chapter. Then some basic ideas of Herbart and Dewey were subjected to similar treatment. Hardie's hard-nosed approach can be illustrated by the following: One thing that educationists mean by “education according to Nature” (later he turns to other things they might mean) is that “the teacher should thus act like a gardener” who fosters natural growth of his plants and avoids doing anything “unnatural”(Hardie, 1962, 3). He continues:

The crucial question for such a view of education is how far does this analogy hold? There is no doubt that there is some analogy between the laws governing the physical development of the child and the laws governing the development of a plant, and hence there is some justification for the view if applied to physical education. But the educationists who hold this view are not generally very much concerned with physical education, and the view is certainly false if applied to mental education. For some of the laws that govern the mental changes which take place in a child are the laws of learning …. [which] have no analogy at all with the laws which govern the interaction between a seed and its environment. (Hardie, 1962, 4)

About a decade after the end of the Second World War the floodgates opened and a stream of work in the analytic mode appeared; the following is merely a sample. D.J. O'Connor published An Introduction to Philosophy of Education (1957) in which, among other things, he argued that the word “theory” as it is used in educational contexts is merely a courtesy title, for educational theories are nothing like what bear this title in the natural sciences; Israel Scheffler, who became the paramount philosopher of education in North America, produced a number of important works including The Language of Education (1960), that contained clarifying and influential analyses of definitions (he distinguished reportive, stipulative, and programmatic types) and the logic of slogans (often these are literally meaningless, and should be seen as truncated arguments); Smith and Ennis edited the volume Language and Concepts in Education (1961); and R.D. Archambault edited Philosophical Analysis and Education (1965), consisting of essays by a number of British writers who were becoming prominent—most notably R.S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the USA), Paul Hirst, and John Wilson. Topics covered in the Archambault volume were typical of those that became the “bread and butter” of analytic philosophy of education throughout the English-speaking world—education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination.

Among the most influential products of APE was the analysis developed by Hirst and Peters (1970), and Peters (1973), of the concept of education itself. Using as a touchstone “normal English usage”, it was concluded that a person who has been educated (rather than instructed or indoctrinated) has been (i) changed for the better; (ii) this change has involved the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills, and the development of understanding; and (iii) the person has come to care for, or be committed to, the domains of knowledge and skill into which he or she has been initiated. The method used by Hirst and Peters comes across clearly in their handling of the analogy with the concept of “reform”, one they sometimes drew upon for expository purposes. A criminal who has been reformed has changed for the better, and has developed a commitment to the new mode of life (if one or other of these conditions does not hold, a speaker of standard English would not say the criminal has been reformed). Clearly the analogy with reform breaks down with respect to the knowledge and understanding conditions. Elsewhere Peters developed the fruitful notion of “education as initiation”.

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for—it was argued—getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook, 1972). Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by: the content that had been taught; or by the intention of the instructor; or by the methods of instruction that had been used; or by the outcomes of the instruction; or, of course, by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Two examples will be sufficient to make the point: (i) The first criterion mentioned above—the nature of the content being imparted—was supported by an argument that ran roughly as follows: “If some students have learned, as factual, some material that is patently incorrect (like ‘The capital city of Canada is Washington D.C.’), then they must have been indoctrinated. This conclusion is reinforced by the consideration that we would never say students must have been indoctrinated if they believe an item that is correct!” However, both portions of this argument have been challenged. (ii) The method criterion—how the knowledge was imparted to the students—usually was supported by an argument that, while different, clearly paralleled the previous one in its logic. It ran roughly like this: “We never would say that students had been indoctrinated by their teacher if he or she had fostered open inquiry and discussion, encouraged exploration in the library and on the net, allowed students to work in collaborative groups, and so on. However, if the teacher did not allow independent inquiry, quashed classroom questions, suppressed dissenting opinions, relied heavily on rewards and punishments, used repetition and fostered rote memorization, and so on, then it is likely we would say the students were being indoctrinated”. (The deeper issue in this second example is that the first method of teaching allows room for the operation of the learners' rationality, while the second method does not. Siegel, 1988, stresses this in his discussion of indoctrination.)

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import; I can offer as illustration a presidential address at a US Philosophy of Education Society annual meeting that was an hour-long discourse on the various meanings of the expression “I have a toothache”. (It is worth noting that the 1966 article in Time , cited earlier, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970's radical students in Britain accused the brand of linguistic analysis practiced by R.S. Peters of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

Third, criticisms of language analysis in mainstream philosophy had been mounting for some time, and finally after a lag of many years were reaching the attention of philosophers of education. There even had been a surprising degree of interest in this arcane topic on the part of the general reading public in the UK as early as 1959, when Gilbert Ryle, editor of the journal Mind , refused to commission a review of Ernest Gellner's Words and Things (1959)—a detailed and quite acerbic critique of Wittgenstein's philosophy and its espousal of ordinary language analysis. (Ryle argued that Gellner's book was too insulting, a view that drew Bertrand Russell into the fray on Gellner's side—in the daily press, no less; Russell produced examples of insulting remarks drawn from the work of great philosophers of the past. See Mehta, 1963)

Richard Peters had been given warning that all was not well with APE at a conference in Canada in 1966; after delivering a paper on “The aims of education: A conceptual inquiry” that was based on ordinary language analysis, a philosopher in the audience (William Dray) asked Peters “ whose concepts do we analyze?” Dray went on to suggest that different people, and different groups within society, have different concepts of education. Five years before the radical students raised the same issue, Dray pointed to the possibility that what Peters had presented under the guise of a “logical analysis” was nothing but the favored usage of a certain class of persons—a class that Peters happened to identify with. (See Peters, 1973, where to the editor's credit the interaction with Dray is reprinted.)

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault, and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard's foundational work on The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s; the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin's Reclaiming a Conversation . APE was no longer the center of interest.

By the 1980s, the rather simple if not simplistic ordinary language analysis practiced in philosophy of education, was reeling under the attack from the combination of forces sketched above, but the analytic spirit lived on in the form of rigorous work done in other specialist areas of philosophy—work that trickled out and took philosophy of education in rich new directions. Technically-oriented epistemology, philosophy of science, and even metaphysics, flourished; as did the interrelated fields of social, political and moral philosophy. John Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1971; a decade later MacIntyre's After Virtue appeared; and in another decade or so there was a flood of work on individualism, communitarianism, democratic citizenship, inclusion, exclusion, rights of children versus rights of parents, rights of groups (such as the Amish) versus rights of the larger polity. From the early 1990s philosophers of education have contributed significantly to the debates on these and related topics—indeed, this corpus of work illustrates that good philosophy of education flows seamlessly into work being done in mainstream areas of philosophy. Illustrative examples are Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Callan (1997); The Demands of Liberal Education , Levinson (1999); Social Justice and School Choice , Brighouse (2000); and Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Reich (2002). These works stand shoulder-to-shoulder with semi-classics on the same range of topics by Gutmann, Kymlicka, Macedo, and others. An excerpt from the book by Callan nicely illustrates that the analytic spirit lives on in this body of work; the broader topic being pursued is the status of the aims of education in a pluralistic society where there can be deep fundamental disagreements:

… the distinction must be underlined between the ends that properly inform political education and the extent to which we should tolerate deviations from those ends in a world where reasonable and unreasonable pluralism are entangled and the moral costs of coercion against the unreasonable variety are often prohibitive. Our theoretical as well as our commonsense discourse do not always respect the distinction…. If some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church conflict with our best theory of the ends of civic education, it does not follow that we have any reason to revise our theory; but neither does it mean we have any reason to impose these ends on Catholic schools and the families that they serve. (Callan, 1997, 44)

Callan and White (2003) have given an analysis of why the topics described above have become such a focus of attention. “What has been happening in philosophy of education in recent years”, they argue, mirrors “a wider self-examination in liberal societies themselves”. World events, from the fall of communism to the spread of ethnic conflicts “have all heightened consciousness of the contingency of liberal politics”. A body of work in philosophy, from the early Rawls on, has systematically examined (and critiqued) the foundations of liberalism, and philosophy of education has been drawn into the debates. Callan and White mention communitarianism as offering perhaps “the most influential challenge” to liberalism, and they write:

The debate between liberals and communitarians is far more than a theoretical diversion for philosophers and political scientists. At stake are rival understandings of what makes human lives and the societies in which they unfold both good and just, and derivatively, competing conceptions of the education needed for individual and social betterment. (Callan and White, 2003, 95-96)

It should be appended here that it is not only “external” world events that have stimulated this body of work; events internal to a number of democratic societies also have been significant. To cite one example that is prominent in the literature in North America at least, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling ( Wisconsin v. Yoder ) in which members of the Amish sect were allowed to withdraw their children from public schools before they had reached the age of sixteen—for, it had been argued, any deeper education would endanger the existence of the group and its culture. In assessing this decision—as of course philosophers have frequently done (see, for example, Kymlicka, 1995)—a balance has to be achieved between (i) the interest of civic society in having an informed, well-educated, participatory citizenry; (ii) the interest of the Amish as a group in preserving their own culture; and (iii) the interests of the Amish children, who have a right to develop into autonomous individuals who can make reflective decisions for themselves about the nature of the life they wish to lead. These are issues that fall squarely in the domain covered by the works mentioned above.

So much work is being produced on the complex and interrelated issues just outlined, that in a different context it seemed fair for me to remark (descriptively, and not judgmentally) that a veritable cottage industry had sprung up in post-Rawlsian philosophy of education. There are, of course, other areas of activity, where interesting contributions are being made, and the discusion will next turn to a sampling of these.

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

As was stressed at the outset, and illustrated with a cursory listing of examples, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume, and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in the recent A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren, 2003), which contained more than six-hundred pages divided into fourty-five chapters each of which surveyed a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge and truth in learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, purposes of universities in a fluid age, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education.

There is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to filling out—and deepening—the topographical account of the field that was presented in the preceding sections. The discussion will open with a topic that was not included in the Companion , despite it being one that is of great concern across the academic educational community, and despite it being one where adherents of some of the rival schools of philosophy (and philosophy of education) have had lively exchanges.

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but particularly since publication of the book by Stokes mentioned earlier, and also in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one.

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is its not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn's ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred-to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemolgical: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they only were used sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe, 2003, and Phillips, 2008.)

The most lively contemporary debates about education research, however, were set in motion around the turn of the millenium when the US Federal Government moved in the direction of funding only rigorously scientific educational research—the kind that could establish causal factors which could then guide the development of practically effective policies. (It was held that such a causal knowledge base was available for medical decisionmaking.) The definition of “rigorously scientific”, however, was decided by politicans and not by the research community, and it was given in terms of the use of a specific research method—the net effect being that the only research projects to receive Federal funding were those that carried out randomized controlled experiments or field trials (RFTs). It has beome common over the last decade to refer to the RFT as the “gold standard” methodology.

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the U.S. National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC, 2002), that argued this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work.

Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value-neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, they were guilty of advocating “your father's paradigm”(clearly this was not intended as a compliment). One critic with postmodernist leanings asserted that educational research should move “toward a Nietzschean sort of ‘unnatural science’ that leads to greater health by fostering ways of knowing that escape normativity”—a suggestion that evokes the reaction discussed in Section 1.3 above, namely, one of incomprehension on the part of most researchers and those philosophers of education who work within a different tradition where a “way of knowing”, in order to be a “way”, must inevitably be normative.

The final complexity in the debates over the nature of educational research is that there are some respected members of the philosophy of education community who claim, along with Carr, that “the forms of human association characteristic of educational engagement are not really apt for scientific or empirical study at all” (Carr, 2003, 54-5). His reasoning is that educational processes cannot be studied empirically because they are processes of “normative initiation”—a position that as it stands begs the question by not making clear why such processes cannot be studied empirically.

The issue of what should be taught to students at all levels of education—the issue of curriculum content—obviously is a fundamental one, and it is an extraordinarily difficult one with which to grapple. In tackling it, care needs to be taken to distinguish between education and schooling—for although education can occur in schools, so can mis-education (as Dewey pointed out), and many other things can take place there that are educationally orthogonal (such as the provision of free or subsidized lunches, or the development of social networks); and it also must be recognized that education can occur in the home, in libraries and museums, in churches and clubs, in solitary interaction with the public media, and the like.

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or in a system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why is evolution included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Why is Driver Education part of the high school curriculum, and methods of birth control usually not—even though sex has an impact on the life of teenagers that at least is comparable to the impact of car-driving? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Does the justification for not including the Holocaust or the phenomenon of wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some countries stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato's brilliant pioneering efforts all draw upon, explicitly or implicitly, the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues. First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same), or alternatively, what constitutes the good life and human flourishing. These two formulations are related, for presumably our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to act rationally and/or autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. How this is to be done, of course, is not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the matter. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing a conception of the good life, and then for pursuing it; and because logical analysis shows—he argued—that there are seven basic forms of knowledge, the case can be made that the function of the curriculum is to introduce students to each of these forms. Luckily for Hirst, the typical British high school day was made up of seven instructional periods. (Hirst, 1965; for a critique see Phillips, 1987, ch.11.)

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a ruler or ruling class; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as a medium of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect, and serve, the interests of the ruling class. Michael Apple is typical:

… the knowledge that now gets into schools is already a choice from a much larger universe of possible social knowledge and principles. It is a form of cultural capital that comes from somewhere, that often reflects the perspectives and beliefs of powerful segments of our social collectivity. In its very production and dissemination as a public and economic commodity—as books, films, materials, and so forth—it is repeatedly filtered through ideological and economic commitments. Social and economic values, hence, are already embedded in the design of the institutions we work in, in the ‘formal corpus of school knowledge’ we preserve in our curricula….(Apple, 1990, 8-9)

Third, should educational programs at the elementary and secondary levels be made up of a number of disparate offerings, so that individuals with different interests and abilities and affinities for learning can pursue curricula that are suitable? Or should every student pursue the same curriculum as far as each is able—a curriculum, it should be noted, that in past cases nearly always was based on the needs or interests of those students who were academically inclined or were destined for elite social roles. Mortimer Adler and others in the late twentieth century (who arguably were following Plato's lead in the Republic ), sometimes used the aphorism “the best education for the best is the best education for all”.

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all! Medically, this probably is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings, 2007.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato's system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually be able to contemplate the metaphysical realm of the “forms”, thanks to their advanced training in mathematics and philosophy. Having seen the form of the Good, they would be eligible after a period of practical experience to become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

Plato's educational scheme was guided, presumably, by the understanding he thought he had achieved of the transcendental realm of fixed “forms”. John Dewey, ever a strong critic of positions that were not naturalistic, or that incorporated a priori premises, commented as follows:

Plato's starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence. If we do not know its end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice…. And only those who have rightly trained minds will be able to recognize the end, and ordering principle of things. (Dewey, 1916, 102-3)

Furthermore, as Dewey again put it, Plato “had no perception of the uniqueness of individuals…. they fall by nature into classes”, which masks the “infinite diversity of active tendencies” which individuals harbor (104). In addition, Plato tended to talk of learning using the passive language of seeing, which has shaped our discourse down to the present (witness “Now I see it!” when a difficult point has become clear).

In contrast, for Dewey each individual was an organism situated in a biological and social environment in which problems were constantly emerging, forcing the individual to reflect and act, and learn. Dewey, following William James, held that knowledge arises from reflection upon our actions; and the worth of a putative item of knowledge is directly correlated with the problem-solving success of the actions performed under its guidance. Thus Dewey, sharply disagreeing with Plato, regarded knowing as an active rather than a passive affair—a strong theme in his writings is his opposition to what is sometimes called “the spectator theory of knowledge”. All this is made clear enough in a passage containing only a thinly-veiled allusion to Plato's famous analogy of the prisoners in the cave whose eyes are turned to the light by education:

In schools, those under instruction are too customarily looked upon as acquiring knowledge as theoretical spectators, minds which appropriate knowledge by direct energy of intellect. The very word pupil has almost come to mean one who is engaged not in having fruitful experiences but in absorbing knowledge directly. Something which is called mind or consciousness is severed from the physical organs of activity. (164)

This passage also illuminates a passage that many have found puzzling: “philosophy is the theory of education” (387). For in the sentences above it is easy to see the tight link between Dewey's epistemology and his views on education—his anti-spectator epistemology morphs directly into advocacy for anti-spectator learning by students in school—students learn by being active inquirers. Over the past few decades this view of learning has inspired a major tradition of research by educational psychologists, and related theory-development (the “situated cognition” framework); and these bodies of work have in turn led to innovative efforts in curriculum development. (For a discussion of these, see Phillips, 2003.)

The final important difference with Plato is that, for Dewey, each student is an individual who blazes his or her unique trail of growth; the teacher has the task of guiding and facilitating this growth, without imposing a fixed end upon the process. Dewey sometimes uses the term “curriculum” to mean “the funded wisdom of the human race”, the point being that over the course of human history an enormous stock of knowledge and skills has accumulated and the teacher has the task of helping the student to make contact with this repertoire—but helping by facilitating rather than by imposing. (All this, of course, has been the subject of intense discussion among philosophers of education: Does growth imply a direction? Is growth always good—can't a plant end up misshapen, and can't a child develop to become bad? Is Dewey some type of perfectionist? Is his philosophy too vague to offer worthwhile educational guidance? Isn't it possible for a “Deweyan” student to end up without enough relevant knowledge and skills to be able to make a living in the modern world?)

Dewey's work was of central importance for the American progressive education movement in its formative years, although there was a fair degree of misunderstanding of his ideas as progressives interpreted his often extremely dense prose to be saying what they personally happened to believe. Nevertheless, Dewey became the “poster child” or the “house philosopher” of progressive education, and if he didn't make it onto many actual posters he certainly made it onto a postage stamp.

His popularity, however, sharply declined after the Soviets launched Sputnik, for Dewey and progressive education were blamed for the USA losing the race into space (illustrating the point about scapegoating made at the start of this essay). But he did not remain in disgrace for long; and for some time has been the focus of renewed interest—although it is still noticeable that commentators interpret Dewey to be holding views that mirror their own positions or interests. And interestingly, there now is slightly more interest in Dewey on the part of philosophers of education in the UK than there was in earlier years, and there is growing interest by philosophers from the Continent (see, for example, Biesta and Burbules, 2003).

To be a poster child for progressivism, however, is not to be the parent. Rather than to Dewey, that honor must go to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to his educational novel written in soaring prose, Emile (1762). Starting with the premise that “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil” (Rousseau, 1955, 5), Rousseau held that contemporary man has been misshapen by his education; the “crushing force” of social conventions has stifled the “Nature within him”. The remedy adopted in the novel is for the young Emile to be taken to his family estate in the country where, away from the corrupting influence of society, and under the watchful eye of his tutor, “everything should … be brought into harmony with these natural tendencies”. (This idea of education according to nature, it will be recalled, was the object of Hardie's analytic attention almost two centuries later.)

Out in the countryside, rather than having a set curriculum that he is forced to follow, Emile learns when some natural stimulus or innate interest motivates him—and under these conditions learning comes easily. He is allowed to suffer the natural consequences of his actions (if he breaks a window, he gets cold; if he takes the gardener's property, the gardener will no longer do him favors), and experiences such as these lead to the development of his moral system. Although Rousseau never intended these educational details to be taken literally as a blueprint (he saw himself as developing and illustrating the basic principles), over the ages there have been attempts to implement them, one being the famous British “free school”, A.S. Neill's Summerhill. (It is worth noting that Neill claimed not to have read Rousseau; but he was working in a milieu in which Rousseau's ideas were well-known—intellectual influence can follow a less than direct path.) Furthermore, over the ages these principles also have proven to be fertile soil for philosophers of education to till.

Even more fertile ground for comment, in recent years, has been Rousseau's proposal for the education of girls, developed in a section of the novel (Book V) that bears the name of the young woman who is destined to be Emile's soul-mate, Sophy. The puzzle has been why Rousseau—who had been so far-sighted in his discussion of Emile's education—was so hide-bound if not retrograde in his thinking about her education. One short quotation is sufficient to illustrate the problem: “If woman is made to please and to be in subjection to man, she ought to make herself pleasing in his eyes and not provoke him …her strength is in her charms” (324).

The educational principles developed by Rousseau and Dewey, and numerous educational theorists and philosophers in the interregnum, are alive and well in the twenty-first century. Of particular contemporary interest is the evolution that has occurred of the progressive idea that each student is an active learner who is pursuing his or her own individual educational path. By incorporating elements of the classical empiricist epistemology of John Locke, this progressive principle has become transformed into the extremely popular position known as constructivism, according to which each student in a classroom constructs his or her own individual body of understandings even when all in the group are given what appears to be the same stimulus or educational experience. (A consequence of this is that a classroom of thirty students will have thirty individually-constructed, and possibly different, bodies of “knowledge”, in addition to that of the teacher!) There is also a solipsistic element here, for constructivists also believe that none of us—teachers included—can directly access the bodies of understandings of anyone else; each of us is imprisoned in a world of our own making. It is an understatement to say that this poses great difficulties for the teacher. The education journals of the past two decades contain many thousands of references to discussions of this position, which elsewhere I claimed has become a type of educational “secular religion”; for reasons that are hard to discern it is particularly influential in mathematics and science education. (For a discussion of the underlying philosophical ideas in constructivism, and for an account of some of its varieties, see the essays in Phillips, ed., 2000.)

As stressed earlier, it is impossible to do justice the whole field of philosophy of education in a single encyclopedia entry. Different countries around the world—France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, to mention only a few—have their own intellectual traditions, and their own ways of institutionalizing philosophy of education into the academic universe, and no discussion of any of this appears in the present essay. But even in the Anglo-American world, there is such a diversity of approaches to the discipline that any author attempting to produce a synoptic account will quickly run into the borders of his or her areas of competence. Clearly this has happened in the present case.

Fortunately, in the last twenty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, commenting on the field as a whole or on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules, 1994; Chambliss, 1996; Phillips, 1985; Siegel, 2007; Smeyers, 1994); two large volumes—a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith and Standish, 2003) and a “Companion” (Curren, 2003)—have been produced by Blackwell in their well-known philosophy series; and the same publisher recently released an anthology, with 60 papers considered to be important in the field, and which also are representative of the range of work that is being done (Curren, 2007). Several encyclopedias of philosophy of education have been published or are in the works (for example, Chambliss, 1996; Siegel, 2008); there is a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch and Gingell, 1999), and a good textbook or two (see Noddings, 2007); in addition there are numerous volumes both of reprinted selections and of specially commissioned essays on specific topics, some of which were given short shrift in the present work (for another sampling see A. Rorty, 1998; Smeyers and Marshall, 1995; Stone, 1994); and several international journals appear to be flourishing— Educational Philosophy and Theory , Educational Theory , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Studies in Philosophy and Education , Theory and Research in Education . Thus there is enough material available to keep the interested reader busy, and to provide alternative assessments to the ones presented in this present essay.

• Apple, M., 1990, Ideology and Curriculum , New York: Routledge, 2 nd . Editon.
• Archambault, R., (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
• Biesta, G., and Burbules, N., 2003, Pragmatism and Educational Research , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., and Standish, P., (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Brighouse, H., 2000, Social Justice and School Choice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burbules, N., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 3617-22.
• Callan, E., 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Callan, E., and White, J., 2003, “Liberalism and Communitarianism”, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith and P. Standish (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp.95-109.
• Carr, D., 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Chambliss, J., 1996, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss (ed.), New York: Garland, pp.461-72.
• Cleverley, J., and Phillips, D.C., 1986, Visions of Childhood , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Curren, R., (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Curren, R., (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• Gellner, E., 1959, Words and Things , London: Gollancz.
• Hardie, C., 1962, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
• Hirst, P., 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , R. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113-138.
• Hirst, P., and Peters, R., 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
• Howe, K., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Kaminsky, J., 1996, “Philosophy of Education: Professional Organizations In”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss, (ed.), New York: Garland, pp. 475-79.
• Kohli, W., (ed.), 1995, Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education , New York: Routledge.
• Kymlicka, W., 1995, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Levinson, M., 1999, The Demands of Liberal Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lucas, C., (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? London: Macmillan.
• Martin, J., 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation , New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
• Mehta, V., 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle : London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
• Murphy, M., (ed.), 2006, The History and Philosophy of Education: Voices of Educational Pioneers , New Jersey: Pearson.
• Noddings, N., 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• –––, 2007, Philosophy of Education , Boulder, CO: Westview, 2 nd . Edition.
• National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• O'Connor, D., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
• Peters, R., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education, T. Husen and N. Postletwaite, (eds.), pp.3859-3877.
• –––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry , Oxford: Pergamon.
• –––, (ed.), 2000, Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues , (Series: 99 th . Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2003, “Theories of Teaching and Learning”, in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , R. Curren, (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 232-245.
• –––, 2008, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , H. Siegel (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
• Reich, R., 2002, Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Rorty, A., (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
• Rousseau, J-J., 1955, Emile , B. Foxley, (tr.), London: Dent/Everyman.
• Scheffler, I., 1960, The Language of Education , Illinois: Thomas.
• Siegel, H., 1988, Educating Reason: rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , [ Available online ].
• –––, (ed.), 2008, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
• Smeyers, P., 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 4456-61.
• Smeyers, P., and Marshall, J., (eds.), 1995, Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein's Challenge , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Smith, B., and Ennis, R., (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Snook, I., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge.
• Stokes, D., 1997, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , Washington, DC: Brookings.
• Stone, L., (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
• Ulich, R., 1954, Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Revised Ed.
• Winch, C., and Gingell, J., 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
• PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
• PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
• PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
• INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)
• UNESCO/International Bureau of Education: Thinkers on Education

autonomy: personal | -->Dewey, John --> | feminist (interventions): ethics | feminist (interventions): liberal feminism | feminist (interventions): political philosophy | -->feminist (topics): perspectives on autonomy --> | feminist (topics): perspectives on disability | Foucault, Michel | Gadamer, Hans-Georg | liberalism | Locke, John | -->Lyotard, Jean François --> | -->ordinary language --> | Plato | postmodernism | Rawls, John | rights: of children | -->Rousseau, Jean Jacques -->

What Is a Teaching Philosophy? Examples and Prompts

The life of a teacher is an extremely busy one. From early morning until long after dark, teachers dedicate the better part of their day to their students. Amid the lesson planning, the snack breaks, the recess duty, grading and the myriad other daily tasks, it can be easy to lose sight of the why of teaching. 

Why are you drawn to the classroom, and what is it about your love of teaching that makes it a fulfilling career? What’s the overarching philosophy that guides your teaching practice? Even on the busiest school days, every teacher should be able to explain their “why” by returning to their teaching philosophy.

What Is a Teaching Philosophy Statement?

Teaching philosophy prompts, components of a teaching philosophy statement, formatting your teaching philosophy statement [plus best practices], teaching philosophy examples , faqs about teaching philosophies, helpful resource links.

Simply put, a teaching philosophy is a written statement that includes: 

• Your core belief(s) about the purpose of teaching and learning 
• A high-level description of how you teach 
• An explanation of why you teach that way
• Any primary specializations 
• Examples of your teaching philosophy in practice in the classroom (if space allows)

A teaching philosophy statement should demonstrate that you are purposeful, reflective and goal-oriented each time you stand at the front of your class. Not only does committing this statement to writing help to solidify your own beliefs — it can help you collaborate with other teachers, apply for jobs and even write grant proposals. Ideally, evidence of your philosophy will be apparent in your resume and portfolio content. 

Depending on the context, a teaching philosophy statement can be several sentences or several pages long. You will occasionally be asked to provide some form of this statement when applying for certain academic or administrative positions. Versions of it may also appear as the introduction to your teaching portfolio, as your LinkedIn bio, your resume objective statement or your bio for any accreditations (such as for contributions to a publication, awards, volunteer work, etc.). 

You will likely never be asked to recite it. That said, when sitting for interviews, teaching applicants should demonstrate a clear teaching philosophy through their answers.

Think about your teaching philosophy as your teaching portrait. 

Portraits can look different depending on the subject’s age and life experiences, and a teaching philosophy is no different. Younger teachers may focus on their goals and any areas of interest they studied in college. More senior teachers may update their philosophy statements to reflect their lived experiences in the classroom and how those experiences informed (or resulted from) their teaching philosophy.  

The clearer and more crystallized your teaching philosophy is, the easier it will be to draw upon it in the classroom. Use any combination of the following prompts — organized from immediate to future-facing — to begin writing your own philosophy statement.  

The basics 

Why did you decide to become a teacher? 

What teaching methods do you use?

How do you assess your students’ learning and growth?

Do you follow certain standards?

What are your strongest qualities as a teacher?

Do you have an academic specialization?

Why do you like to teach certain subjects?

How do you use technology in the classroom ?

How do you incorporate new techniques, activities, curriculum and technology into your teaching?

Student advocacy  

How do you motivate your students?

How do you think students learn best? 

How do you approach learners who are struggling?

How do you promote and maintain educational equity ?

How would you describe your interactions with your students?

Preservation in the classroom

What’s your classroom management style ? 

How do you handle stress ?

Describe a time you handled a challenging situation.

The Big Questions 

How do you define learning? 

How do you define teaching? 

What is the purpose of education?

How does education improve society?

Do you believe all students can learn?

What does it take to be a good teacher?

Looking ahead

What goals do you have for your students?

What goals do you have for yourself?

What achievements do you like to see at the end of every school year? 

Why do you continue to want to teach?

How will you continue to grow professionally?

Just like leading students through an essay prompt, begin by creating an outline around a single thesis statement. Build a case for your core belief by giving specific examples and demonstrating an in-depth knowledge of pedagogy. Be sure to connect philosophical statements to practical outcomes or examples; otherwise, you risk the “word salad” problem, wherein the statement sounds nice but means very little to the average reader. (See Formatting Your Teaching Philosophy Statement [Plus Best Practices] below for more tips.)

>>Related Reading: 5 Reasons Why Continuing Education Matters for Educators

Be prepared for your philosophy to change over time — it’s not meant to live in stone! If you feel you need to re-write it, follow the prompts above to recrystallize your beliefs and objectives.

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT TEMPLATE [FREE TEACHING TOOL] 

Use our handy 3-page Classroom Management Template to create a plan for everything that goes into successfully operating a classroom.

In a one- or two-sentence teaching philosophy statement, you’ll likely touch on your experience, grade and subject specialization, preferred methods and high-level goals. When crafting a longer statement, it should contain some specific components that paint the clearest picture of your teaching style. 

According to the University of Minnesota , strong teaching philosophy statements share the following elements:

• Offer evidence of practice (specific examples)
• Are student-centered
• Demonstrate reflectiveness
• Demonstrate that the writer values teaching
• Are well written, clear and readable

Long-form teaching philosophy statements should follow the same tried-and-true format as a well-crafted student essay:

Introduction

This first section should include mention of: 

• Your teaching methods
• Any subject or pedagogical specialties
• Your preferred method of assessment
• Your high-level goals for all students

As you go into more detail about your experience and teaching practice, it’s a good idea to give examples that support your philosophy. If you choose to cite any educational researchers or studies, be sure you credit your sources. You may want to touch upon:

• A list of courses you have taught
• A list or short descriptions of effective learning engagements
• What you consider the ideal classroom environment
• Your personal approach to classroom management
• How you facilitate age-appropriate learning
• How you facilitate learning for students of differing abilities
• How you involve students in their own learning and assessment
• An example of a challenge you solved in the classroom 

Conclusion 

A good teacher is never done growing and learning. Wrap up your philosophy statement by describing your objectives, which should include student-oriented academic goals, professional development goals and the ideal outcomes of your teaching career. Your conclusion could include: 

• content mastery
• discovery and knowledge generation
• critical thinking
• problem solving
• individual fulfillment
• self-directed learning
• experiential learning
• engaged citizenship
• …or something else?
• The goals you’ve already achieved as a teacher, as well as those in progress
• What makes you unique as an educator

If you are asked for supplemental materials as part of a teaching job application, you can provide: 

• Peer reviews
• Letters of recommendation
• Students’ comments
• Performance ratings
• Lesson plans
• Teaching activities

Your teaching philosophy is unique to you, so there is no right or wrong way to go about it. That said, there are some best practices to follow when it comes to formatting and readability to make it easy for potential employers and others to read. 

Write in the first person: You’re writing about your own goals, vision and philosophy — it’s okay to use “I” statements! 

Write in the present tense: Your philosophy statement should reflect your current views and experience level, not those you hope to have someday.

Avoid wordiness: Your teaching philosophy should be easy enough for an eighth-grade reader to understand, barring any pedagogical terminology. Making simple concepts more complicated for show is an easy way to lose your reader. Unless you’re going for a university lecturer position, avoid the AP-level vocabulary words on principle. 

Use specific examples: Potential employers — or readers of your academic papers — want to know how your philosophy plays out in the classroom. Your expertise in project-based learning (PBL) will carry more weight if you can describe a specific assignment you designed around PBL, and what the outcome was. 

Skip the clichés: If you say you want to teach to “change the world,” or that you believe “children are our future,” be prepared to give concrete examples of what you mean. Teaching philosophies are not meant to be abstract or even overly aspirational — leave this to motivational posters. 

If you find you are struggling to craft your ideal philosophy statement, ask a colleague to review and highlight possible areas for expansion or clarification. You can even ask this colleague to note any recurring themes they notice, so you can mention them briefly in your introduction. Compare your draft to others in your field with similar specialities or levels of experience and make changes as necessary.

The easiest way to maintain and share your philosophy statement and portfolio is to keep everything in a digital format. Whether that’s an editable PDF you can make small changes or updates to, or a cloud-based folder you can invite others to view, digital is the safest and most portable format.  

Here are some examples of teaching philosophy statements from real teachers. Note that each statement will not follow all of the prompts above, but this is because each statement should be unique and personal to each educator. 

“My philosophy of education is that all children are unique and must have a stimulating educational environment where they can grow mentally, emotionally, and socially. It is my desire to create this type of atmosphere where students can meet their full potential. I will provide a safe environment where students are invited to share their ideas and take risks. They should be able to have choices and let their curiosity direct their learning as I operate as a facilitator.” Mr. B., Language Arts, 5th & 6th grade

Do I need a teaching philosophy to get a teaching job?

Most teachers who earn master’s degrees are asked to write a philosophy statement as part of their program. Whether or not you have a master’s degree in education, you may be asked to provide some form of a teaching philosophy statement when applying for certain academic or administrative positions. You may also want to craft a version of this statement as the introduction to your teaching portfolio, as your LinkedIn bio, your resume objective statement or your bio for any accreditations (such as for contributions to a publication, awards, volunteer work, etc.).

You will likely never be asked to recite your teaching philosophy, and a lack of a formal written philosophy should not bar you from consideration for teaching jobs. That said, when sitting for interviews, teaching applicants should demonstrate a clear teaching philosophy through their answers.

Can I change my teaching philosophy?

Yes! In fact, teachers should expect their philosophy to change with time, experience, and professional and personal development. If at any point you feel you need to re-write your philosophy statement, follow the prompts in this article to recrystallize your beliefs and objectives.

Effective Classroom Management Solutions Certificate

Addressing topics like teaching positive social skills, diverse learners and restorative justice, this certificate helps current educators strengthen their overall classroom management approach. 

Professional Teachers Program Series

A series of self-paced courses covering remote teaching, student anxiety, educational equity and homeschooling, all designed for the mid-career to veteran teacher. 

Using Inquiry, Discussion, and Experience to Develop Critical Thinkers and Inspire Lifelong Learning 

How can you authentically engage students while ensuring they receive the education they require? This course presents new ways to approach tired subjects, and capture students’ interest along the way. 

Curriculum covered in this article

Be sure to share this article.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Your Salary

Browse over 500+ educator courses and numerous certificates to enhance your curriculum and earn credit toward salary advancement.

82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Need to write a philosophy of education essay? Looking for philosophy of education research topics or essay ideas? Read this article, and you will surely ace your paper!

🏆 Best Philosophy of Education Topic Ideas & Essay Examples

📌 interesting philosophy of education essay topics, 👍 philosophy of education research topics, ❓ essay questions on philosophy of education.

A philosophy of education essay is focused on the nature of education and philosophical issued related to it. In your paper, you can write about philosophy’s contribution to education. Or, you can study its history starting from ancient times.

In this article, you will find excellent philosophy of education essay examples and topic ideas for various assignments. Feel free to use them for inspiration!

• Radical Philosophy of Adult Education A major focus of the radical educational philosophy is to equip learners with skills that are vital for dealing with social, political, and economic changes in society.
• Philosophy of Multicultural Education The amalgamation of cultures is both a benediction and blasphemy of the K-12 teaching space. It is safe to say that the majority of schools in richer districts are mostly white scholars and recognized teachers.
• Personal Philosophy of Education The philosophy embraces the use of intrinsic competencies and skills that have the potential to produce the most desirable results. In order to achieve the best results, a personalized model should be developed to address […]
• Philosophy of Education by Nel Noddings One of the most important and frequently addressed concepts of educational philosophy of the present days is the concept of the relationship between social and cultural diversity in the contemporary world and the changes it […]
• Thoughts on Educational Philosophy It is against this scope that this paper intends to explore the meaning of truth, how it is taught and the theoretical basis of learning and teaching.
• The Role of Globalization in Education and Knowledge The article is focused on the problem of the failure to distinguish between the notions globalization, globalism and cosmopolitanism that leads to the failure to consider the place of the current education in the modern […]
• Plato’s Philosophy on Exposure to Education Plato establishes what education is worth for both the individual and the state in The Republic, emphasizing the crucial function of those who select the materials to educate the state’s future guardians.
• Philosophy of Education: Key Points An important argument of many philosophers and thinkers is that arts and liberal education adds another very important component to the mindset and understanding of a person.
• Doctor of Philosophy in Education Leadership Additionally, education leaders have also been charged with the responsibility of enhancing the understanding of global issues in various disciplines, which calls for the regular changing of the focus in concepts in the associated disciplines […]
• Philosophy of Facilitation. Adult Education A normative contract from the group members empowers the professional facilitator to take responsibility for the processes that guide group members in discussing the content of their tasks.
• Author’s Philosophy of Education I believe that the purpose of education is to help students discover their strong characteristics and potential and employ those to become the best version of themselves and achieve future social and financial well-being.
• Philosophy Role in Education Another definition of philosophy is ‘the world view.’ The main definition for a philosophy that will be considered in this article is that which defines it as a conceptual framework that is vital in the […]
• Al-Ghazali Philosophy: Principles of Education The future of the Arab and Islamic world is dependent on the results of the battle between the teachings of al-Maududi and those of al-Ghazali.
• Teaching Philosophy in the Scope of Education Therefore, discussing the teaching philosophy, it is possible to state that a teacher is a person who assists in developing the personal potential of an individual, and teaching is a process of adopting an individual […]
• Philosophy of Education Within this system, the teacher assumes the role of a leader to give direction and guidelines to students in addition to supporting the substance of a school.
• Teaching Philosophy and the Use of Technology Teachers have diverse abilities on the use technology and application of technology in teaching. In some instances, teachers had conflicting beliefs about the use of technology in teaching and learning.
• The Notion of Educational Philosophy This enables an individual to understand properly, the formula that is the ultimate goal in the never ending pursuit of edification.
• Creating a Theoretical Framework for the Teacher’s Philosophy of Education Considering the variety of philosophical approaches to the primary goals, content, structure and methods of the educational programs, a young teacher is not obliged to decide on only one of them and can blend the […]
• The Philosophy of Education Is an Important Pedestal for a Preparing Tea
• Personal Philosophy of Education – Jerome Bruner: Concept of Discovery Learning
• History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education
• The Psychology and Philosophy of Education in Ayn Rand’s The Comprachicos
• Progressivism: The Philosophy of Education That Best Suits Me as Teacher
• The Philosophy of Education With Regard to African Americans
• Philosophy of Education, Teaching and Learning Statement
• The Philosophy of Education and Motivational Theory
• Developing the Right Philosophy of Education
• Rethinking the Philosophy of Education
• Developing a Personal Philosophy of Education
• The Philosophy of Education Is Closely Modeled by Jerome
• Types of Teachers: Classification, Philosophy of Education
• Understanding the Philosophy of Education According to a Nation at Risk
• The Foundations of Whitehead’s Philosophy of Education
• The Impact of Philosophy of Education on the Changing
• National Philosophy of Education
• The Philosophy of Education Is Its Differing Aims
• Philosophy of Education Based on Curriculum Perspectives
• The Philosophy of Education and How a Philosophical Education
• History and Philosophy of Education
• The Philosophy of Education and my Goals as a Future Teacher
• Why Is The Philosophy of Education Important
• The Philosophy of Education Is the Key Component for Education
• The Development of a Personal Philosophy of Education
• The Theory of the Philosophy of Education
• The Ancient Greek Iconoclast’s Philosophy of Education
• When It Comes to One’s Philosophy of Education Each Person
• Learning About the Philosophy of Education and Its Use
• The Philosophy of Education and Basic Values of Expeditionary
• Philosophy of Education, Worldview, and Educational Leadership
• The Importance of Educators’ Philosophy of Education in Preparing Their Students for Their Lives After School
• The Role of Albery Camus in the Philosophy of Education
• A Future Teachers Philosophy of Education
• Essentialism, a Conservative Philosophy of Education
• Christian Philosophy of Education: The Fear of the Lord
• Islamic Philosophy of Education Theory Theology Religion
• What A Philosophy of Education Is Used for A Classroom
• The Role of Relationship Building in My Philosophy of Education
• What Is the Scope of the Philosophy of Education?
• Why Do We Study the Philosophy of Education?
• How Does Philosophy Influence Education?
• Why Is the Philosophy of Education Critical?
• Why Does Philosophy of Education Play an Important Role in the Development of Young’s Abilities?
• What Are the Aims of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Main Idea of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Content of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Are the Merits and Demerits of Each Philosophy of Education?
• What Is a Statement of Philosophy of Education?
• What Are the Main Features of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Philosophy of Education in Simple Words?
• How Is the Philosophy of Education Impacted?
• What Is the Importance of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Modern Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Most Common Educational Philosophy?
• What Is the Importance of the Philosophy of Education and Curriculum?
• What Are the Examples of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Philosophy of Education for Teachers?
• Who Are the Great Philosophers of Education?
• What Is Modern Educational Philosophy?
• Which Are the Characteristics of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Are the Aims of Educational Philosophy?
• What Is a Philosophy of Education, and Why Is It Important?
• What Is a Philosophy of Education Statement?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/

"82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

• College Education Essay Ideas
• Teaching Philosophy Research Topics
• Literacy Development Titles
• Teamwork Research Ideas
• Cognitive Development Essay Ideas
• Developmental Psychology Essay Ideas
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Human Development Research Ideas
• Teaching Questions
• Leadership Development Essay Titles
• Emotional Development Questions
• Moral Development Essay Topics
• Classroom Management Essay Topics
• Personality Development Ideas
• Social Development Essay Topics

What Is “Philosophy of Education”?

• Open Access
• First Online: 26 October 2021

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Barry Chazan 2  

12k Accesses

1 Citations

Philosophy of education refers to the systematic process of understanding and explicating key concepts related to educational practice. Analytic philosophy of education is a contemporary approach to this task and is the technique used in this book to explain key educational concepts.

• Prescriptive
• Descriptive
• Analytic Philosophy of Education

Adapted from Barry Chazan. The Language of Jewish Education (Hartmore House) 1978.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Over the years, many have been the committed educators and teachers I have met on the long highway of education who have said to me, “I am a practical person, I simply don’t have a philosophical mind.” The word “philosophy” frightens many people who believe that it requires special knowledge, it is ethereal and incomprehensible, and it focuses on the most abstract ideas and concepts of classical theories and thinkers.

In fact, “philosophy” and “the philosophy of education” refer to one of the oldest and most basic of human endeavors—thinking and pondering about basic and core ideas of life such as “How was life created?”?; “What is the right thing to do?”; “What does it mean to think about thinking?”; “How do we learn?”; and “What is death, why does it happen and what happens?”

From the earliest of human narratives, fables, and stories until the most recent of video games, children’s books, and graphic novels, thinking about “big issues” is at the heart of the human condition. Indeed, it is not by accident that twentieth-century philosopher Gareth Mathews wrote books entitled Philosophy and the Young Child (Matthews 1980 ) and The Philosophy of Childhood (Matthews 1994 ) and that cognitive neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga published a book entitled, The Ethical Brain . (Gazzaniga 2009 ), and contemporary child psychologist Allison Gopnik wrote The Philosophical Baby (Gopnik 2009 ).

The term “philosophy” refers both to the categorial organization of the many diverse types of questions that we human beings ask and to the process of reflecting on these issues in organized and systematic ways. Thus, the term metaphysics is used to describe questions about the nature of being; epistemology refers to questions about how we know; ethics ( or axiology) focuses on questions about what is right or wrong or good or bad; logi c is the study of patterns and methodologies of rules of inference; and aesthetics reflects on the nature of beauty. There is also an organizational structure within philosophy, which utilizes the philosophic method to help us deal with professions or spheres of activity which are practical in nature such as medicine, law, or architecture. One of the most prominent forms of this category of philosophical method focused on practical activities is philosophy of education, which is the subject of this book.

One may well ask, “Why study philosophy?” One answer is that we brought this upon ourselves—as described in the philosophical book of Genesis—when the human obsession to eat from the forbidden tree of knowledge resulted in our being sentenced to exile (“east of Eden”) and to wander forever seeking “to know”. Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes said in answer to the question “Why study philosophy?” that it was rooted in the nature of being human—we are  homo sapien s—which he succinctly summarized as cogito ergo sum , I think therefore I am.

A different answer suggests that thinking and philosophic reflection are connected to the idea of “wonder” or “radical amazement” (Heschel 1976 )—the amazement that greets us when we wake up in the morning and see a sunny day or a smiling face or a child’s query about how airplanes stay in the sky or why seesaws go up and down. Nineteenth-century English poet William Wordsworth suggested that philosophy begins with children and that “the child is the father of man” (Wordsworth 2018 ) and twentieth-century Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai mused that “God has mercy on kindergarten children/but less and less as they grow/and on adults He has no mercy at all”! (Alter 2015 ).

Philosophy of Education in the Twentieth Century

The dominant practice to pursuing and teaching philosophy of education in twentieth-century American academic departments or schools of education typically fell into two categories. One category focused on the presentation and comparisons of diverse philosophies of education that developed over the ages. This category concentrated on specific theorists—Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, William James, John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Nel Noddings (Reed and Jackson 2000 )—and/or it organized diverse educational philosophies into distinctive categories (e.g., perennialism, essentialism; utilitarianism; constructivism; progressivism; existentialism). The purpose of these historical and comparative overviews was to help prospective educators understand diverse viewpoints about the theory and practice of teaching.

A second practice in teaching philosophy of education focused on instructors presenting an integrated normative philosophy which they regarded as reasonable, intelligent, and worthwhile for the practice of education. Perhaps the best examples of this practice were the remarkable courses on philosophy of education presented by John Dewey in the first half of the twentieth century at Teachers College, Columbia University, which were ultimately collected, transcribed, and edited by his students and emerged as a profound book on democracy and education (Dewey 1997 ). Dewey utilized the tools of philosophy to weave together and present an integrated convincing educational philosophy to guide young, and not-so-young, educators through their work in schools. I was to discover a third approach to philosophy of education—the analytic approach—by traveling on highways between New York-Boston-New York!

A Road Taken

Many decades ago, as I began to pursue travels on the road to a career in philosophy of education, my journey took me on New York to Cambridge, Massachusetts. to meet with a shaping figure of twentieth-century philosophy of education, Israel Scheffler of The Harvard Graduate School of Education. Scheffler, along with British colleague R. S. Peters, had become the central figures in shaping a new and different approach to the study and teaching of philosophy of education called “the analytic” or “linguistic” philosophy of education (Scheffler 1960 ; Jonas Soltis 1978 ). They did not aim to preach what the goals of education should be, what we should teach, or advocate or how we should teach, but instead they focused on the way we talk about education.

The assumptions of analytic philosophy of education are: (1) words matter and precision in the use of words in educational discourse matters a lot; (2) much of the discussion of “education” is confused and unclear because there is no consensus or agreement on such core educational terms as “teaching”, “learning”, and “knowing. If educators could arrive at some shared agreement and clarity about such words, it would greatly facilitate discussion and minimize confusion. (3) It is necessary to clarify and analyze diverse types of educational terms which include stipulative, programmatic, and descriptive definitions in order to understand what the speaker’s intention is in using the words he or she uses. The analytic philosopher of education wants to understand the distinctions between such phrases as “knowing how”, “knowing that”, “thinking that”, and “thinking about”. What is the difference between knowing that there are 50 states of the United States as compared to knowing how to swim? What is the difference between teaching that George Washington was the first President of the United States and teaching someone how to think? The assumption of this approach is that words often express diverse meanings, and through an analysis of common language we might be able to understand diverse usages, meanings, and ultimately practices in teaching, learning, and education.

Therefore, rather than focusing on the promulgation of normative or ideological theories of education, the analytic philosopher of education clarifies the way words are used in education, based on the belief that many of the confusions about education are linguistic rather than ideological. The intention of this approach is not to preach a particular or personal vision, but rather to improve the clarity and mutual agreement of core terms in educational discussion.

I Came for a Visit and Stayed for a Lifetime

That visit at Longfellow Hall in Cambridge was to lead me to Dodge Hall at Teachers College, Columbia University in New York where I become a disciple of one of Israel Scheffler’s prime students, named Jonas Soltis. The methodology of Scheffler and Soltis seemed to me to make a lot of sense and to be extremely useful in practice. I cared deeply about education, I wanted to make a difference, and I wanted to know what I could do to make a difference. My teachers taught me that I could potentially make a contribution to education by improving the way we talk about it. What was needed was not more sermons from on high, but clear, understandable, and agreed-upon language so as to enable reflective practitioners to shape the course of their practice.

So off I went to be an analytic philosopher of education—and indeed much of my work discussed in the coming chapters reflects this approach to clearer talking and thinking. This method was to guide my work in the world of education at diverse universities, in a variety of countries, and in multiple roles. I came to realize that a certain percentage (sometimes a great percentage) of the confusion about education was not about intrinsic issues but of a linguistic nature. This approach to educational language coalesced with my ongoing engagement with and love of words in poetry and literature (Oz & Oz-Salzberger 2014 ). My academic roots in Cambridge, Massachusetts and in the Upper West Side of New York led me to many venues, from New York to Jerusalem to Caracas to Melbourne to London, and to other stops in between, where my concern was to try to facilitate clear discussions of the language of education.

Applying the Method

This book comes to apply the linguistic methodology to issues dealing with the meaning of the word “education” in general education and Jewish education. The assumption explicit in my approach is the belief that one can only understand the specific term “Jewish education” within the broader context of the general term “education”. At the same time, we must take into account that the term “Jewish education” refers to a specific and sometimes quite different kind of education, which has a long and laudatory tradition of its own.

Chapters 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 of this book deal with the analysis of general educational concepts, while Chaps. 6 , 7 , 8 , and 9 focus on educational concepts specific to Jewish education. My intent is not to present a history of philosophy of Jewish education nor of general education but to help us understand how to talk about and, hopefully, implement education in a clear and cogent manner.

The Road Not Taken

Has the twentieth-century linguistic analytic approach played a role in contemporary Jewish education? The answer is short and—for those who see value in the analytical approach—not sweet. I believe it is fair to say that the analytic approach has had little influence on contemporary Jewish education. Footnote 1 This is not to say that twentieth-century Jewish education was neglectful of the philosophy of Jewish education nor that distinguished philosophers did not make use of aspects of analytical thinking. Indeed, twentieth-century American Jewish education has been enriched by the writings of a group of significant normative philosophers of Judaism who in various ways referred to Jewish education. German-Israeli philosopher Martin Buber wrote a series of significant essays on education and national education (Buber 1947 ). While Abraham Joshua Heschel’s writings focused mainly on Jewish theology, he did, in various contexts, comment on issues related to Jewish education (Heschel 1966 ). Mordechai Kaplan devoted two chapters of his magnum opus, Judaism as a Civilization , to theoretical and practical issues related to Jewish education (Kaplan 2010 ). One of the most prominent voices of contemporary Jewish thinking, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (“The Lubavitcher Rebbe”) is perhaps the most prolific writer on the role of education in life, in general, and in Jewish life in particular in his many decades of teaching, speeches, and writings (Solomon 2000 ; Wexler et al. 2019 ; Solomon 2020 ). It should also be noted that contemporary Jewish academics rooted in philosophy of education such as Hanan Alexander (Alexander 2001 , 2012 , 2015 ), Jon Levisohn ( 2005 , 2009 , 2013 ), and Michael Rosenak ( 1987 , 1995 ) have made important contributions to the field.

On the Road

Now that I have framed an approach that I believe has much to contribute to Jewish education, in the next chapters I will apply this approach to a series of core questions I have heard in many places and in many venues on this exciting highway.

B Chazan “Analytic Philosophy of Education; the road not taken” in. H. Miller, L. Grant and A. Pomson, editors. International; Handbook of Jewish Education . (Springer) 11–28.

Bibliography

Alexander, Hanan. with Ayman Agboria. 2001. Reclaiming Goodness: Education and the Spiritual Quest . (University of Notre Dame Press).

Google Scholar  

Alexander, Hanan. 2012. Commitment, Character and Citizenship; Schooling in Liberal Democracy . (Routledge).

Alexander, Hanan. 2015. Reimagining Liberal Education; Affiliation and Inquiry in Democratic Schooling. (Bloomsbury).

Alter, Robert, editor. 2015. The Poetry of Yehuda Amichai . (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux).

Buber, M. 1947. “Education” and “The Education of Character”: in Between Man and Man. (Routledge Paul).

Dewey, John. 1997. Democracy and Education. (Free Press).

Gazzaniga, Michael. 2009. The Ethical Brain . (Dana Press).

Gopnik, Alison 2009. The Philosophical Baby . (Farrer, Straus and Giroux).

Heschel, A. J. 1966. “Jewish Education” in Heschel, A. J. The Insecurity and Freedom: Essays on Human Existence. (Jewish Publication Society).

Heschel, A. J. 1976. “Jewish Education” in Heschel, A. J. The Insecurity of Freedom: Essays on Human Existence . (Jewish Publication Society).

Kaplan, M. (2010). Judaism as a Civilization . (Jewish Publication Society).

Levisohn, Jon. 2005. “How to do Philosophy of Religious Education” Religious Education , 90–101.

Levisohn, Jon. 2009. “From the Integration of Curricula to the Pedagogy of Inquiry: Journal of Jewish Education.

Levisohn, Jon with Susan Fendick. 2013. Turn It Over and Turn It Again.: Studies in the Teaching and Learning of Classical Jewish Texts. (Academic Studies Text).

Matthews, Gareth. 1980. Philosophy and the Young Child . (Harvard University Press).

Matthews, Gareth. 1994. The Philosophy of Childhood . (Harvard University Press).

Oz, A. and Oz-Salzberger, F. 2014. Jews and Words. (Yale University Press).

Reed, R. and Jackson, T., editors. 2000. Philosophical Documents in Education . (Longman).

Rosenak, N. 1987. Commandments and Concerns: Jewish Education in Secular Society . (Jewish Publication Society).

Rosenak, M. 1995. Roads to the Palace: Jewish Texts and Teaching. (Berghahn Books).

Scheffler, I. (1960). Language of Education. (Charles Thomas Publishers).

Solomon, A. 2000. The Educational Teachings of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson. (Jason Aronson).

Solomon, A. 2020. Spiritual Education: The Educational Theory and Practice of the Lubavitcher Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson . (Herder and Herder).

Soltis, Jonas. 1978. An Introduction to the Analysis of Educational Concepts. (Addison-Wesley).

Wexler, H. et al. 2019. Social Vision: The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Transformative Paradigm for the World. (Herber and Herder).

Wordsworth, William. 2018. The Collected Poems of William Wordsworth . ( Digireads.com Publishing).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., WA, USA

Barry Chazan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Chazan, B. (2022). What Is “Philosophy of Education”?. In: Principles and Pedagogies in Jewish Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_2

Published : 26 October 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-83924-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-83925-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Teaching Philosophy — My Teaching Philosophy: Beliefs and Personal Experience

My Teaching Philosophy: Beliefs and Personal Experience

• Categories: Personal Philosophy Philosophy of Education Teaching Philosophy

About this sample

Words: 547 |

Updated: 6 December, 2023

Words: 547 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

The essay explores the author's teaching philosophy and their beliefs about education. The author highlights the significance of teachers in shaping the future generations and emphasizes the importance of effective teaching.

They discuss their alignment with Romanticism philosophies, which prioritize focusing on students and creating a positive learning environment. The author believes that students should develop a love for learning and good morals to achieve success. Additionally, they express agreement with Essentialism philosophies, emphasizing the importance of teaching essential content knowledge and using proven teaching strategies. Progressivism and Constructivism philosophies also resonate with the author, promoting experiential learning and encouraging students to build their knowledge.

The author's teaching philosophy is influenced by personal experiences, including positive interactions with teachers and an internship with an efficient kindergarten teacher. They intend to put their beliefs into action by fostering positive relationships with students, maintaining a positive learning environment, teaching good morals, and using effective teaching strategies. Group work and experiential learning will be incorporated to help students understand the value of collaboration and independent discovery.

Works Cited

• Dewey, J. (2014). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. The Floating Press.
• Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard University Press.
• Nel Noddings. (2012). Philosophy of Education. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from [URL]
• Palmer, P. J. (2007). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Kumashiro, K. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning toward Social Justice. Routledge.
• Apple, M. W. (2000). Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age. Routledge.
• Eisner, E. W. (2002). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Shor, I. (1996). When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy. University of Chicago Press.
• Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2018). Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. Routledge.

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 807 words

4 pages / 1847 words

2 pages / 747 words

2 pages / 994 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Teaching Philosophy

Alarm, M. & Farid, S. (2011). 'Effect of Teacher Motivation on Students' Learning Experience in Pakistan.' International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(19), 150-156.Akanbi, A. (1982). 'Teacher Education in Ghana: [...]

In today's rapidly changing world, the role of education has become more important than ever. As an educator, my teaching philosophy is centered around the belief that education is not just about imparting knowledge, but about [...]

In the realm of education, fostering a strong and collaborative working relationship between teachers and parents is paramount to the holistic development of students. This essay explores various strategies that educators can [...]

Teaching with Love and Logic is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of building positive relationships with students and empowering them to make responsible choices. This approach to teaching was developed by educational [...]

There is a new crisis in modern society that has endured from skepticism about the legitimacy and importance of the discipline of philosophy itself when science can provide all the answers. Why should people even care about [...]

Teachers reflect on the year and often redesign and perfect their teaching strategies and plans. In essence, they get back to the basics of what they believe is the best way to inspire learning in their students. In other words, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Importance of Philosophy in Teacher Education: Mapping the Decline and its Consequences

2019, Routledge

Related Papers

In: Peters M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore.

Bruce Maxwell

Philosophy of Education and the Work of Teachers

David Waddington

In this chapter, I argue that the status of Dewey scholarship in schools of education is likely to decline. To advance this hypothesis, I begin with an account of the factors behind Dewey’s ascent in North American schools of education. I then proceed to review some existing critiques of Dewey, and I explain how they do not capture the key problem with Dewey's philosophy, which is its strong commitment to modernity. Once this core argument is laid out, I explain how this commitment to modernity, along with the progressive movement’s current difficulties, indicate some difficult times ahead for Dewey scholarship.

James Scott Johnston

Examination of leading problems and issues in the discipline of philosophy of education, together with suggestions for moving forward and a model/methodology for doing so. Note, this copy is a pre-print.

Canadian Association for Teacher Education Polygraph Series

David J . Elliott

This book chapter introduces the field called “the philosophy of music education,” or music education philosophy (MEP). The philosophy of music education is a relatively young field, with many music educators unaware of its existence, not to mention its nature and values. Indeed, specialized courses in MEP are still infrequent in undergraduate and graduate music education curricula in North America and most other nations. Nevertheless, there is a fairly sizeable and rapidly expanding international literature intended to (1) analyze, synthesize, debate, or “problematize” and “worry” all theoretical and practical aspects of music education and, thereby, to (2) inform teachers, university music education students, and scholars about fundamental concepts, conceptions, controversies, principles, and practices in school and community music education. Keywords: music education, philosophy

All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession. While not all societies channel sufficient resources into support for educational activities and institutions, all at the very least acknowledge their centrality— and for good reasons. For one thing, it is obvious that children are born illiterate and innumerate, and ignorant of the norms and cultural achievements of the community or society into which they have been thrust; but with the help of professional teachers and the dedicated amateurs in their families and immediate environs (and with the aid, too, of educational resources made available through the media and nowadays the internet), within a few years they can read, write, calculate, and act (at least often) in culturally-appropriate ways. Some learn these skills with more facility than others, and so education also serves as a social-sorting mechanism and undoubtedly has enormous impact on the economic fate of the individual. Put more abstractly, at its best education equips individuals with the skills and substantive knowledge that allows them to define and to pursue their own goals, and also allows them to participate in the life of their community as full-fledged, autonomous citizens. But this is to cast matters in very individualistic terms, and it is fruitful also to take a societal perspective, where the picture changes somewhat. It emerges that in pluralistic societies such as the Western democracies there are some groups that do not wholeheartedly support the development of autonomous individuals, for such folk can weaken a group from within by thinking for themselves and challenging communal norms and beliefs; from the point of view of groups whose survival is thus threatened, formal, state-provided education is not necessarily a good thing. But in other ways even these groups depend for their continuing survival on educational processes, as do the larger societies and nation-states of which they are part; for as John Dewey put it in the opening chapter of his classic work Democracy and Education (1916), in its broadest sense education is the means of the " social continuity of life " (Dewey 1916, 3). Dewey pointed out that the " primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group " make education a necessity, for despite this biological inevitability " the life of the group goes on " (Dewey, 3). The great social importance of education is underscored, too, by the fact that when a society is shaken by a crisis, this often is taken as a sign of educational breakdown; education, and educators, become scapegoats.

Theory and Research in Education

Bruce Maxwell , David Waddington , Kevin McDonough

Why do society and the courts so readily recognize university and college teachers’ academic freedom but just as readily deny primary and secondary school teachers the same right? To investigate this question, this paper considers teachers’ work in light of the standard justifications for granting academic freedom in higher education: that academic freedom is essential to promoting the capacity for critical reflection and the transfer of disciplinary knowledge. Considering the key role that society calls upon teachers to play in advancing both of these educational and social goods, the paper argues that granting academic freedom in higher education, while denying it for primary and secondary teachers, appears to be a double standard. The claims to academic freedom typically reserved for university professors, we show, also apply to the work of primary and secondary teachers. There are significant differences between teaching in the higher education sector as opposed to the compulsory education sector. School teachers work with a conscripted clientele of minors and are therefore rightly subject to more stringent norms of public accountability. These differences notwithstanding, the concept of academic freedom, the paper concludes, is a potentially powerful source of leverage for addressing concerns about the erosion of teachers’ professional autonomy and for increased teacher involvement in the elaboration and management of the regulatory framework that governs their work.

Dr. Andrew Kemp

Ethics & Education

Nuraan Davids , Janet Orchard

Conventional teacher education programmes do not equip practitioners adequately to navigate ethically complex situations that arise in teaching (Maxwell et al 2016). One initiative responding to this deficit is ‘Philosophy for Teachers’ (‘P4T’), a 24 hour residential approach to community philosophy. Piloted originally in England (Orchard et al 2016), a further workshop took place in South Africa in October 2017, comprising student teachers, teacher educators and philosophers from three historically different universities in the Western Cape . Significant new insights to emerge included greater clarity on the respective contributions of P4T and other initiatives already applying ‘P4C’ to address professional ethics (e.g. Murris 2016) within teacher education. In particular, P4T re-framed within this new context can be seen to create shared space for reflection on teacher identity and the complexity of difference and ‘otherness’ in classroom practice.

REALITIES, poSSIbILITIES, AND pRobLEMS

Kevin McDonough

RELATED PAPERS

John P. Portelli

FLORENTINO T DOQUEÑA, JR , Julius John L Palacpac

BARRON OKUMU

Teacher Learning and Professional Development

Sabre Cherkowski

Gregory T Papanikos

Darren Garside

Schools in Transition: Linking Past, Present, and Future in Educational Practice

Eetu Pikkarainen , Pauli Siljander

Int. J. Education Economics and Development

Adeeb Jarrah

kristina basic

Educational Theory

Kathleen Knight-Abowitz

Harry C Boyte

sdsaf ewdfasd

The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of …

David Blacker

Handbook of child psychology

Dhyaz SparKyu

Barbara Stengel

Jerry Kirkpatrick

Encounters on Education

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Liz Jackson , Rachel Buchanan , Christoph Teschers

Interchange

Ann Chinnery

Lesley Bartlett , Matthew A.M. Thomas

Academia.edu

Khaled Sellami

Philosophical Inquiry in Education, Volume 23, No. 2, pp. 212-221

Matthew A.M. Thomas , Frances Vavrus

Journal of Philosophy in Schools

Gilbert Burgh

Bertram C Bruce

European Education

Will Brehm , Iveta Silova

Professor Terry Hyland

E. Wayne Ross

… research and educational reform

Susan Lytle

… of Education/Revue canadienne de l' …

Linda Laidlaw , Brent Davis

Aqeel younas

Junaid Abbasi

John Guenther

Malcolm Thorburn , Pete Allison

Donald Kerr

Matt Henderson

Nassim Noroozi

Simone Thornton , Gilbert Burgh

Journal of Philosophy of Education

Lauren Bialystok

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Nicholas Kristof

The Case for Saying ‘I Do’

By Nicholas Kristof

Opinion Columnist

With little notice, the United States may be crossing a historic milestone in family structure, one that may shape our health, wealth and happiness.

Historically, most American adults were married — more than two-thirds as recently as 1970. But the married share has crept downward , and today only about half of adults are married. Depending on the data source, we may already have entered an epoch in which a majority are not married.

“Our civilization is in the midst of an epochal shift, a shift away from marriage,” Brad Wilcox, a sociologist who directs the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, writes in his new book, “ Get Married .” “In place of marriage, many Americans are remaining single or simply living together without wedding rings. And to be clear, it’s more of the former than the latter.”

Wilcox believes that perhaps a third of today’s young Americans will never marry. As a long-married romantic myself, I find that troubling, but it’s not just soggy sentimentality. Survey data indicates that married couples on average report more happiness, build more wealth, live longer and raise more successful children than single parents or cohabiting couples, though there are plenty of exceptions.

“Fixing what ails America starts with renewing marriage and family life, especially in poor and working-class communities where the fabric of family life is weakest,” Wilcox argues.

He’s up against a counter view that one should dodge family responsibilities, relish freedom and play hard. Many boys and men flock to the online rantings of Andrew Tate , the misogynistic influencer facing human trafficking charges, who has argued, “There is zero advantage to marriage in the Western world for a man.”

Some women have likewise celebrated freeing themselves from an institution that often shackled them to cooking, laundry and second-class status at a cost to their careers. As women have enjoyed more economic opportunities, they’re less often forced to marry some oaf who gets violent after a few drinks — and, anyway, what self-respecting woman with independent means would want to marry, say, a fan of Andrew Tate?

Yet even as marriage has receded, the evidence has grown that while it isn’t for everyone, in many cases it can improve our lives more than we may appreciate.

“Marriage predicts happiness better than education, work and money,” Wilcox writes. For example, survey data indicates that getting a college degree increases the odds of describing oneself as “very happy” by 64 percent. Earning a solid income lifts the odds by 88 percent. Being “very satisfied” with one’s job raises them by 145 percent. And marriage increases the odds of being very happy by 151 percent — while a “very happy” marriage boosts the odds by 545 percent.

I’ve long been interested in family structure for two reasons. First, I believe the left made a historic mistake by demonizing the Moynihan Report, which 59 years ago this month warned about the consequences of family breakdown. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was prescient, for we now know that households headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as those with married couples.

Second, loneliness and social isolation are growing problems. One poignant example: Perhaps 100,000 or more dead bodies in America go unclaimed each year, often because there are no loved ones to say farewell. It’s a topic explored in another recent book, “The Unclaimed,” by sociologists Pamela Prickett and Stefan Timmermans.

Marriage doesn’t solve loneliness and social isolation, but it helps. And there is good news on the family front: The divorce rate has dropped to a 50-year low , and the share of children raised in an intact family with married parents has increased slightly in recent years. Today about 51 percent of American kids reach adulthood with the same two parents they started out with.

But it’s also true that the marriage rate has collapsed, particularly for working-class Americans. Of those without a high school diploma, more than two-thirds are unmarried.

Wilcox writes that “the American heart is closing,” but I wouldn’t put it that way. I think many Americans want to marry but don’t feel sufficiently financially stable, or they can’t find the right person.

I’m staggered by the interest in virtual boyfriends and virtual girlfriends. One virtual boyfriend app offers an assortment of possibilities such as “polite and intelligent Edward” or “romantic and cute Daniel.”

“Don’t be shy, he’ll definitely like you,” the app advises. “He knows how to cheer you up, so you won’t feel sad or lonely.”

Just reading that makes me achingly sad. Virtual mates feel like an elegy for civilization.

One reason for the decline in marriage in working-class communities may be a lack of economic opportunity, particularly for men, and another may be culture and changing norms. That’s worth pondering. In polls, majorities of college-educated liberals seem diffident about marriage, unwilling to criticize infidelity and disagreeing with the idea that children do better with two married parents. Perhaps this liberal lack of enthusiasm for marriage also accounts for the marriage penalties built into benefit programs like Medicaid, in turn disincentivizing marriage for low-income Americans.

Wilcox scolds elites for clinging to traditional values themselves — in the sense that they get married and have kids for the most part — even as they are reluctant to endorse marriage for fear of seeming judgmental or intolerant. Elites “talk left but walk right,” he says.

We are social animals, Aristotle noted more than two millenniums ago, and it’s still true. Spouses can be exasperating (as my wife can attest), but they also can cuddle, fill us with love and connect us to a purpose beyond ourselves. They are infinitely better, for us and for society, than virtual lovers on an app, and that seems worth celebrating openly.

Update: I have the final figures for my 2023 holiday giving guide , so I owe readers a follow-up and a “thank you.” More than 5,400 readers contributed a total of $7.2 million to the three nonprofits I recommended , and here’s what the donations will mean in practical terms: 12,150 girls in rural Africa will be supported for a year of high school through Camfed ; 1,645 young people in the United States will be supported for a year of instruction and mentoring to succeed in college or technical school through OneGoal ; and 4,218 low-income Americans will get free training in information technology through Per Scholas so that they can start better-paying careers in the tech world. All three organizations do excellent work. In addition, 671 readers volunteered to help refugees settle in the United States through my recommended volunteer opportunity, Welcome.US . Thanks so much to all who donated and volunteered: People are benefiting here and abroad from your generosity.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Nicholas Kristof became a columnist for The Times Opinion desk in 2001. He has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for his coverage of China and of the genocide in Darfur. @ NickKristof