Schools and the principle of non-intrusion into the private

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Tarna Kannisto
{"title":"Schools and the principle of non-intrusion into the private","authors":"Tarna Kannisto","doi":"10.1177/14778785231208057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I argue that parental privacy has often been given too much weight in theorising about justice at schools. Susan Okin famously stated that as the family serves as the children’s ‘first school of justice’, 1 it should also be internally just. However, she agreed with John Rawls on that interfering directly within the family life, even in the name of equality and justice, would risk causing injustice to those who do not share these liberal ideals. I ask in what sense this principle of non-intrusion into the private should be extended over the school institution. If the principles of public justice and private morality came into conflict in school education, which set of principles should be given priority? I pose Rawls’ suggestion concerning children’s schooling against his depiction of the family and claim that these two are normatively at odds with each other. Of the two, the latter seems paradoxically to allow for more extensive public regulation and therefore his view of the school must be modified accordingly. Moreover, I revisit one of Okin’s main arguments that countering injustices requires active and explicated countermeasures where education plays a key role. Therefore, it is justified to prioritise principles of public morality, and teach related substantial values at schools, given that they accord with the demands of justice. Parental privacy applies to schools only in a limited sense.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231208057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I argue that parental privacy has often been given too much weight in theorising about justice at schools. Susan Okin famously stated that as the family serves as the children’s ‘first school of justice’, 1 it should also be internally just. However, she agreed with John Rawls on that interfering directly within the family life, even in the name of equality and justice, would risk causing injustice to those who do not share these liberal ideals. I ask in what sense this principle of non-intrusion into the private should be extended over the school institution. If the principles of public justice and private morality came into conflict in school education, which set of principles should be given priority? I pose Rawls’ suggestion concerning children’s schooling against his depiction of the family and claim that these two are normatively at odds with each other. Of the two, the latter seems paradoxically to allow for more extensive public regulation and therefore his view of the school must be modified accordingly. Moreover, I revisit one of Okin’s main arguments that countering injustices requires active and explicated countermeasures where education plays a key role. Therefore, it is justified to prioritise principles of public morality, and teach related substantial values at schools, given that they accord with the demands of justice. Parental privacy applies to schools only in a limited sense.
学校和不干涉私人的原则
在这篇文章中,我认为父母的隐私在学校正义的理论化中往往被赋予了太多的权重。苏珊·奥金有句名言:家庭是孩子的“第一所正义学校”,它也应该在内心保持公正。然而,她同意约翰·罗尔斯的观点,即直接干涉家庭生活,即使是以平等和正义的名义,也会给那些不认同这些自由主义理想的人带来不公正的风险。我的问题是,在什么意义上,不侵犯私人隐私的原则应该扩展到学校机构。如果在学校教育中,公义原则和私德原则发生冲突,应该优先考虑哪一套原则?我将罗尔斯关于儿童教育的建议与他对家庭的描述对立起来,并声称这两者在规范上是相互矛盾的。在这两者中,后者似乎自相矛盾地允许更广泛的公共监管,因此他对学校的看法必须相应修改。此外,我回顾了奥金的一个主要论点,即反对不公正需要积极和明确的对策,其中教育起着关键作用。因此,有理由优先考虑公共道德原则,并在学校教授相关的实质性价值观,因为它们符合正义的要求。家长隐私只在有限的意义上适用于学校。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信