KAMINSKY'S ADDENDUM TO THE “FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY” MEMORANDUM: A PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATION IN A CONTEXTUAL VACUUM
| Published date | 01 January 1983 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009870 |
| Date | 01 January 1983 |
| Pages | 79-92 |
| Author | ALAN SMITHSON |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME
XXI,
NUMBER
1
WINTER, 1983
KAMINSKY'S ADDENDUM TO THE "FREEDOM AND
AUTHORITY" MEMORANDUM:
A PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATION IN A CONTEXTUAL
VACUUM
ALAN SMITHSON
This paper has five objectives. First, to draw attention to serious weaknesses in
Kaminsky's analysis of the South Australian "Freedom and Authority"
memorandum. Second, to sketch out how Kaminsky could have presented a more
realistic picture of A.W. Jones's position both with regard to the memo, and school
governance in general. Third, to show that had Kaminsky pursued this suggested
line of analysis he would have found that Jones confused ends-type policy-making
with technico-professional decision-making, which led Jones into error concerning
the respective roles of lay people and professionals in educational policy-making.
Fourth, to illustrate how Jones's radical indictment of the lack of "democracy" in
Australian schools in the mid 1970s was conjoined with conservative and
technocratic decisional proposals. Finally, to suggest that the issues raised in my
criticism of Kaminsky and Jones are of crucial importance to all those interested in
school governance.
KAMINSKY'S CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION AND FACTUAL ERROR
It is with regret that I take issue with Kaminsky regarding his recent
"philosophical investigation" of the "Freedom and Authority"
memorandum,1 but his argument must be countered since it contributes
little clarification of either the intent of the memo, or its effect on school
governance in South Australia. Indeed, Kaminsky's practice can do little to
advance his claims regarding the "contribution that philosophy can make
to the formulation of educational policy",2 because it is simply poor
philosophy.
Early in this paper Kaminsky slides from talk about the intent of the
memo being to "decentralize education in South Australia", to a claim that
its "effect" was to "accomplish a democratization of educational institutions
in South Australia, an accomplishment which is commendatory in
itself."3
He then adds to this confusing juxtaposition with: ". . . if the memo is
essentially democratic in its intent, and there is every reason to assume that
it is . . .".4 Now there is no necessary connection between
"decentralization" and "democratization"; clearly an autocrat could
decentralize an administration without democratizing it (though if the
ALAN SMITHSON is Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy and History of Education,
South Australia CAE, Magill Campus, S.A. 5072.
To continue reading
Request your trial