Philosopher and educator : dichotomy, duality and the search for the missing synthesis

Abstract

This inquiry explores the debate on the purported split between theory (philosophy of education) and practice (educational practice), which started in the early 1980s (Cohen, 1982), is still provoking vigorous debate, and generating an unprecedented pluralism of views and literature. Pluralists preach the relevance and impact of modem social sciences, such as psychology and educational research upon the challenges facing both the philosopher of education and the educator (Griffiths, 1997; Arcilla, 2002), argue that it is essential for philosophy of education to collaborate closely with the Applied Sciences. The purists, then, believe that philosophy of education should remain essentially academic, offering normative but not prescriptive contributions to institutional educational practice. (Amstine, 2002; Fenstermacher, 2002). My central argument focuses on the relationship between the philosopher and the educator, elucidating points of convergence and divergence between the two, with the intended aim of establishing valid reasons for reinstating a missing synthesis. Dewey may very well have rejected 'dualisms' but I shall still be looking into the relevance of the dualistic model for the philosopher of education and the educator. I conclude that educational philosophy and educational practice need to be complementary and synchronized. With education, in our Western society, located within a complex web of socio-political changes and challenges, I will be proposing that for it to retain and transmit values of what is 'good', 'moral' and 'democratic', we need a major revalorisation of Dewey's philosophy of education.