PHILOSOPHY AND TEACHER EDUCATION

Philip L. Smith

The Ohio State University

“Is there a place for philosophy in the accreditation and certification ofeducational programs for teachers?” Yes, of course there is. Philosophy relates to educational programs for teachers in roughly the same way liberal education relates to the practical problems of life. And it is popular for the same reasons. Whether or not liberal education is popular is a function of what the word ‘practical’ means, that is to say, how it is understood. It is also a function of where we place the responsibility for judgment in the learning process. If it has its locus in the student, than liberal education becomes practical, and so does philosophy.

But liberal education is not popular, and neither is philosophy. Why not? My theory is that we fail to notice the natural tension between the need to act, which is apparent in professional work, and the need to know, which is apparent in academic work. We either deny that any tension exists, or we portray the tension in downright unhealthy ways. About the tension between professional education and academic study, I want to make my point with a story. After World War II, and well into the 1960’s, every area of university study was expected to defend itself as an academic discipline, or at least to show how it rested on academic knowledge. Israel Scheffler at Harvard, who was a teacher of mine, wrote articles on the criteria that defined an academic discipline, and Elizabeth Macia, who had an academic philosophy Ph.D. from the University of Southern California and who spent most of her career in education at Indiana University, espoused an idea while she was a Ohio State University called “Educology”, which she insisted would assure the academic respectability of the field.