The integrity of education and the future of educational studies

In this paper, the author examines the integrity of educational studies, questioning whether the field can resist the instrumentalization of education and the dominance of empirical research focused solely on practical outcomes. By tracing the history of educational studies in the English-speaking world, the paper argues that the field is predominantly treated as an applied discipline, which limits its ability to generate genuine educational questions and perspectives. The author highlights the challenges this poses and suggests two approaches—focusing on educational concepts and the unique nature of education—to strengthen the identity of educational studies in the future.

I will first look at the history of educational studies in the UK and its connections with educational studies in the US. I will argue that in the very structure of its configuration educational studies in the English-speaking world still is what Herbart would see as a ‘colonised province.’ The missing element in this configuration, so I will suggest in the second step, is proper educational theory. I will show why such theory is needed, why its status is precarious and why, in contemporary educational research, there appears to be an ongoing misunderstanding of education. In the third step I will provide two building blocks for the development of educational theory, one which, in line with Herbart, focusses on key educational concepts and one which, contrary to Herbert, focuses on the unique and distinctive form of education. I conclude with a number of observations about the future of educational studies.

The development of educational studies in the UK evolved primarily within the context of teacher education. Initially practice-based, the field began incorporating more theoretical aspects around the late 19th century, including educational psychology, which gained prominence in the 1920s. Sociology and philosophy only became significant in the 1960s. Before World War II, there were two main routes into teaching: a university degree followed by a postgraduate certificate, or a three-year training at a College of Education. Post-war reforms, such as the McNair and Robbins Reports, integrated teacher education more closely with universities, leading to the introduction of Bachelor of Education degrees.

These changes led to debates about the academic status of teacher education. R.S. Peters played a crucial role in shaping the field by advocating for a balance among various disciplinary perspectives, particularly philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history. His influence, along with the support of educational officials, led to a structured multidisciplinary approach to educational studies in the UK. Peters’ work, while building on existing trends, was highly influential in defining the field’s direction, drawing inspiration partly from developments in the USA.

The evolution of teacher education in the USA parallels that in Britain, with significant shifts occurring in the mid-20th century. Initially, teacher training was conducted in normal schools or teacher colleges rather than universities. However, by the 1940s and 1960s, these institutions were upgraded to teachers’ colleges and later state universities, requiring schoolteachers to obtain a university education. James Conant of Harvard envisioned a new university-based education model that integrated scholars from traditional academic disciplines to train future teachers and conduct educational research. With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, Harvard began implementing these ideas, notably through the appointment of philosopher Israel Scheffler and historian Bernard Bailyn, who were not originally trained in education. Scheffler played a pivotal role in linking analytic philosophy with education, influencing figures like Richard Peters, whom he encouraged to embrace the identity of a philosopher of education. This multidisciplinary approach, rooted in academic disciplines, became influential in both the USA and the UK, as highlighted by Conant’s influential report, The Education of American Teachers, which emphasized the importance of grounding teacher education in well-established academic methods.

This passage reflects on the historical development of educational studies in the UK and the broader English-speaking world, highlighting influential events and figures. It speculates on alternative scenarios, such as the impact of the Rockefeller Foundation’s funding or the decisions of key scholars, which might have led to different outcomes. The text points out that the idea of education as an independent academic discipline was not only unrealized but also deliberately rejected, as evidenced by Paul Hirst’s 1966 argument against this concept in favor of the existing configuration of educational studies in Britain.

Hirst argues that educational theory has received insufficient attention, leading to a fragmented and confused state in the field. He advocates for a clear framework where educational theory is seen not as a scientific pursuit but as a guide for rational educational practice. Hirst distinguishes between educational theory, which underpins practical judgments, and scientific theory, which describes empirical facts. He emphasizes that educational theory should be informed by disciplines like psychology, history, and philosophy, each judged by its own standards. Hirst concludes that educational theory cannot be an autonomous discipline, as it relies on these fundamental disciplines.

This text explores the development of educational studies, emphasizing its establishment as an applied “field subject” rather than a “basic discipline.” Unlike Germany, where education became a fundamental discipline under the concept of “geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik,” educational studies in other contexts evolved by drawing from various disciplines like psychology, sociology, philosophy, and history. The author reflects on the idea that educational studies, as a multidisciplinary field, often lacks a focus on asking purely educational questions. A reviewer’s critique highlighted this, suggesting that asking educational questions within the field might be seen as unconventional or even nonsensical, underscoring the dominance of multidisciplinary approaches.

The educational question is vital for the integrity of both educational practice and studies, but the field has a notable blind spot: identifying its object of study. While various disciplines can explore aspects of education, they lack clear criteria for defining what education truly is. Without a proper conceptualization of education, the field risks relying on unreflective or even misleading ideas.

Historically, the struggle to establish education as an autonomous discipline has been evident. In Germany, for instance, the mid-20th century saw debates over whether educational scholarship should align with the humanities or evolve into an empirical social science. Figures like Klaus Mollenhauer and Wolfgang Brezinka played key roles in this discourse, with Mollenhauer advocating for a critical social science approach and Brezinka for an empirical science of education.

However, this shift toward scientific approaches has sparked criticism. Brezinka, in particular, later argued for a “de-scientisation” of education to prevent narrow rationalism and restore balance. The debate reflects broader tensions about whether education should be seen merely as a practical field studied from multiple perspectives or as a discipline with its own distinct theoretical foundation.

The text discusses the current aversion to theory in education and highlights three key misunderstandings. First, there is a tendency to see education as a simple process that should achieve a long list of outcomes—such as creating good citizens or preparing students for the workforce—without considering whether these goals are realistic or within the scope of education. This misunderstanding is linked to the concept of “educationalisation,” where societal problems are redefined as educational ones, placing unrealistic expectations on educators.

Second, there is a flawed emphasis on evidence and effectiveness in education, treating it as a quasi-causal process where teaching directly leads to learning outcomes. This perspective ignores the complexities of education, which is more about communication and interpretation between teachers and students, rather than straightforward cause and effect.

Third, the focus on learning and growth, often informed by psychological or biological perspectives, risks overlooking the fundamental educational questions of purpose and direction. Education is not just about promoting learning or development but must also consider what students will do with what they learn and how they will apply it in their lives. The text argues for a more nuanced understanding of education that respects its complexity and existential dimensions, rather than reducing it to simple, practical outcomes.

The text discusses two approaches to understanding education that aim to preserve its integrity. The first approach, conceptual, focuses on the question of education’s contribution to human development, particularly in the context of the “nature vs. nurture” debate. German scholar Dietrich Benner argues that education is not just about how individuals are shaped by nature and environment, but how they actively engage with their identity and existence, making personal choices and living authentically. Education, in this view, is about fostering an individual’s ability to exist as a subject of their own life, rather than being passively shaped by external forces.

The second approach, formal, is proposed by Klaus Prange and emphasizes the form of teaching, specifically the act of “pointing” or directing a student’s attention. Prange argues that teaching involves guiding students to focus on something important, but without controlling or enforcing their attention. The act of pointing is seen as a “double act,” where the teacher invites the student to engage with a particular theme. This form of teaching respects the student’s freedom to respond in their own way, aligning with Benner’s idea of education as a call to self-action, where students are encouraged to be responsible and active in their learning process.