KAMINSKY'S REFLECTIONS ON THE FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY ADDENDUM; OR, RETURNING SMITHSON'S PHILOSOPHY FOR HIS OWN USE. A REJOINDER
| Pages | 93-97 |
| Date | 01 January 1983 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009871 |
| Published date | 01 January 1983 |
| Author | JAMES S. KAMINSKY |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME
XXI,
NUMBER 1 WINTER, 1983
KAMINSKY'S REFLECTIONS ON THE FREEDOM AND
AUTHORITY ADDENDUM; OR, RETURNING SMITHSON'S
PHILOSOPHY FOR HIS OWN USE.
A REJOINDER
JAMES S. KAMINSKY
The opportunity to return to some of my thoughts on the relationship of
philosophy to the practice of education and the evolution of educational
policy provided by Alan Smithson's1 paper is most appreciated. And, after
careful consideration of Smithson's remarks about conceptual confusions
and not unmindful of his remarks about factual errors, I believe things are
not as bad-off as he would fear. The Addendum2 is basically sound and so
is its philosophy.
Smithson's reaction to the Addendum is the result of two factors: 1) his
belief in a fundamental "fomi"; and 2) the fact that he missed the point of
the article as a whole.
First, his perception of the administration of schools is obscured by a
very fundamental educational "fomi". ("Foma are harmless untruths,
intended to comfort simple souls."3) In Smithsons's case the "fomi" goes
something like this:
School-based curriculum policy-making should be under the control of Taylor-
type governing bodies or school
councils,
comprising a
balance
between lay and
professional interests, and not under the control of principals and/or teachers.
Such policy making would certainly be more democratic in origin, that
is,
closer
to grass roots, than if it were under the control of principals and/or teachers. It
would also be likely to be more democratic in effect, since interested and
affected groups would be equally represented, and would operate on the basis
of
equal
power,
thus
encouraging governors/councillors
to
consider seriously the
arguments of co-participants, since no group could indulge
itself,
secure in the
knowledge that it "had the numbers".4
From the perspective Smithson offers us it would seem that the "laity"
always ride white horses and "schoolmen" always wear black hats. That is,
principals and teachers are always, always, bad (or at least not good) and
laymen are always, always, selfless; have a disinterested concern for the
well-being of education and would never form factions for the sake of a
private advantage. It is a tale almost too simple for the telling-let alone
believing.
JAMES S. KAMINSKY is Senior Lecturer, Social and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Education,
The University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351.
To continue reading
Request your trial