This paper focuses on an especially urgent challenge to the legitimacy of the common school ideal—a challenge that has hardly been addressed within contemporary debates within liberal philosophy of education. The challenge arises from claims to accommodation by queer people and queer communities—claims that are based on notions of queerness and queer identity that are seriously underrepresented within contemporary liberal political and educational theory. The paper articulates a liberal view of personal autonomy that is constituted by a conception of practical (...) reasoning rooted in thick communal experiences. It is argued that common schools concerned with equal concern for the autonomy of all children must attend to the specific communal requirements needed to developing the autonomous practical reasoning of queer children—requirements for what is termed a sense of ‘futurity’. Five practical recommendations for common schools are briefly outlined. The paper concludes with some reflections on the divergent and convergent interests of queer theory and liberalism, and considers some possibilities for a partial reconciliation of the two theoretical perspectives. (shrink)

The common school ideal is the source of one of the oldest educational debates in liberal democratic societies. The movement in favour of greater educational choice is the source of one of the most recent. Each has been the cause of major and enduring controversy, not only within philosophical thought but also within political, legal and social arenas. Echoing conclusions reached by Terry McLaughlin, but taking the historical and legal context of the United States as my backdrop, I argue that (...) the ideal of common schooling and the existence of separate schools, which is to say, the existence of educational choice, are not merely compatible but necessarily co-exist in a liberal democratic society. In other words, we need both common schooling and educational choice. The essay proceeds in four parts. First, I explain why we need to understand something about pluralism in order to understand common schooling and school choice. In the second and third parts, I explore the normative significance of pluralism for common schooling and educational choice, respectively. In the fourth part, I show how the two can be reconciled, given a certain understanding of what pluralism demands. (shrink)

The common school ideal is the source of one of the oldest educational debates in liberal democratic societies. The movement in favour of greater educational choice is the source of one of the most recent. Each has been the cause of major and enduring controversy, not only within philosophical thought but also within political, legal and social arenas. Echoing conclusions reached by Terry McLaughlin, but taking the historical and legal context of the United States as my backdrop, I argue that (...) the ideal of common schooling and the existence of separate schools, which is to say, the existence of educational choice, are not merely compatible but necessarily co-exist in a liberal democratic society. In other words, we need both common schooling and educational choice. The essay proceeds in four parts. First, I explain why we need to understand something about pluralism in order to understand common schooling and school choice. In the second and third parts, I explore the normative significance of pluralism for common schooling and educational choice, respectively. In the fourth part, I show how the two can be reconciled, given a certain understanding of what pluralism demands. (shrink)

This paper focuses on an especially urgent challenge to the legitimacy of the common school ideal—a challenge that has hardly been addressed within contemporary debates within liberal philosophy of education. The challenge arises from claims to accommodation by queer people and queer communities—claims that are based on notions of queerness and queer identity that are seriously underrepresented within contemporary liberal political and educational theory. The paper articulates a liberal view of personal autonomy that is constituted by a conception of practical (...) reasoning rooted in thick communal experiences. It is argued that common schools concerned with equal concern for the autonomy of all children must attend to the specific communal requirements needed to developing the autonomous practical reasoning of queer children—requirements for what is termed a sense of ‘futurity’. Five practical recommendations for common schools are briefly outlined. The paper concludes with some reflections on the divergent and convergent interests of queer theory and liberalism, and considers some possibilities for a partial reconciliation of the two theoretical perspectives. (shrink)

Common schooling and multicultural education intuitively seem to be mutually reinforcing and possibly even mutually necessary: each is motivated by and/or serves the aims of promoting social justice and equality, common civic membership, and mutual respect and understanding, among other goals. An examination of the practical relationship between the two, however, reveals that neither one is a necessary or sufficient condition for achieving the other; in fact, each may in fairly common circumstances make the other harder to achieve. In other (...) words, there is no direct instrumental relationship between multicultural education and common schools. Nor is there a clear expressive relationship between the two. Although common schools may serve as explicit, public symbols of our multicultural civic commitment to diversity, mutual respect and egalitarian inclusiveness, many demographically common schools neglect or even betray multicultural ideals, while many restricted entry and even segregated schools may express these ideals better than most comprehensive and integrated schools. Hence, while multicultural education and common schooling do intuitively stand for similar, mutually reinforcing ideals, in practice they may be linked more closely in the confusions and dilemmas of implementation they both raise than in their mutual realisation. (shrink)

Common schooling and multicultural education intuitively seem to be mutually reinforcing and possibly even mutually necessary: each is motivated by and/or serves the aims of promoting social justice and equality, common civic membership, and mutual respect and understanding, among other goals. An examination of the practical relationship between the two, however, reveals that neither one is a necessary or sufficient condition for achieving the other; in fact, each may in fairly common circumstances make the other harder to achieve. In other (...) words, there is no direct instrumental relationship between multicultural education and common schools. Nor is there a clear expressive relationship between the two. Although common schools may serve as explicit, public symbols of our multicultural civic commitment to diversity, mutual respect and egalitarian inclusiveness, many demographically common schools neglect or even betray multicultural ideals, while many restricted entry and even segregated schools may express these ideals better than most comprehensive and integrated schools. Hence, while multicultural education and common schooling do intuitively stand for similar, mutually reinforcing ideals, in practice they may be linked more closely in the confusions and dilemmas of implementation they both raise than in their mutual realisation. (shrink)

The Common School should promote a sense of the distinctive worth of all human beings. How is the respect thus owed to every individual to be properly understood? This familiar question is explored by discussing ‘lookism’, a form of discrimination on the grounds of appearance. The treatment is located within a wider analysis of stereotyping. Ultimately stereotyping overlooks persons as sources of actions with moral significance and as potential owners of moral virtues. The Common School could profitably approach traditionally emotive (...) issues such as racism indirectly by helping students to understand in some depth how ‘lookist’ attitudes deny agency. It could then encourage students to apply these insights to traditional forms of discrimination. (shrink)

Concerned with interreligious conflict in Indonesia, this study seeks to describe and evaluate the current citizenship education that has been designed and implemented for a democratic multireligious Indonesia. The context for the study, outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, is contemporary Indonesian society. Three features of this society are highlighted as especially significant. First, it is characterized by a wide diversity of religious groups. Second, it is governed by the state which acknowledges religious diversity with an official stance of interreligious (...) tolerance. Third, since 1998 it has adopted a democratic political system. The study begins by outlining how the state and national education has tried to meet demands of national unity and those of religious acknowledgment. The remainder of the study combines philosophical and qualitative empirical methods. In Chapter 3, I critically examine three contemporary liberal theories of citizenship education models. I suggest that these theories contain important insights relevant to a forward looking assessment of Indonesian citizenship educational policy and practice even though Indonesia is not a secular liberal democracy in the 'Western' mould. Specifically, I argue that what is critical to cultivate in multireligious Indonesia is the core idea of political liberalism – that is, the capacity for "public reasonableness" which involves the attitude and capacity to think, to judge and to behave in a way reasonable to pluralist societies. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on two case studies of public senior high schools in Jakarta and provide examples of citizenship education taking place in the education system. Overall, I found that although educational policy and the public schools I studied did indeed focus on civic knowledge transmission, the specific practices indicated mixed results for achieving the desired aims of citizenship education for a multireligious Indonesia. On the positive side, school settings were relatively diverse and facilitated a good deal of social interaction and created the potential for shared civic knowledge across religious differences. In some cases, friendships and cooperative relationships among religiously diverse students seemed to occur. On the negative side, there were cases of interreligious discrimination, misunderstanding, tension and conflict and these seemed to originate from a lack of open communication, and interreligious misunderstanding and ignorance. Furthermore, when it came to the official curriculum and classroom practice, both schools emphasized confessional religious education, ignored the internal diversity of religion, lacked exposure to religious diversity, deemphasized democratic deliberation and opposed interreligious dialogue. As such, I argue that the schools are missing a crucial element of citizenship education for "public reasonableness" as proposed by the political liberalism model studied in Chapter 3. I conclude that in order to meet the demands of creating a citizenry prepared to address the challenges of religious diversity, disagreement, and respectful interaction, Indonesian citizenship education should seek to encourage the following characteristics: 1) maintain and increase, where possible, religiously diverse school settings, 2) ensure fairness in accommodation of diversity, 3) intensify social interaction and practice of democracy and dialogue, 4) focus on the development of deep shared civic knowledge, and 5) develop interreligious conversation and knowledge of religious diversity. It is important to start talking about these issues or otherwise as Indonesians we will continue to combat one another, with all Indonesian citizens being the losers in the end. (shrink)