Authority and the Teacher

William H. Kitchen

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781472529800
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Authority and the Teacher seeks to overturn the notion that authority is a restrictive force within education, serving only to stifle creativity and drown out the voice of the student. William H. Kitchen argues that any education must have, as one of its cornerstones, a component which encourages the fullest development of knowledge, which serves as the great educational emancipator. In this version of knowledge-driven education, the teacher's authority should be absolute, so as to ensure that the teacher has the scope to liberate their pupils. The pupil, in the avoidance of ignorance, can thus embrace what is rightfully theirs; the inheritance of intellectual riches passed down through time. By invoking the work of three major philosophers – Polanyi, Oakeshott and Wittgenstein – as well as contributions from other key thinkers on authority, this book underpins previous claims for the need for authority in education with the philosophical clout necessary to ensure these arguments permeate modern mainstream educational thinking.

PART ONE

THE BACKGROUND

1 THE SOCIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

A sociological perspective

It seems pertinent at this stage to acknowledge that, despite the fact that this book is entirely philosophical in nature, there is a requirement to discuss, very briefly, similar arguments made from a sociological perspective. I should be clear, however, in acknowledging also that this book deliberately avoids further discussions from a sociological perspective later in the text, since it seems that all that can be said from a sociological perspective has been said already. The remit of this book, therefore, is to add philosophical clout to previous arguments that have been made from different perspectives.

This chapter will examine a recent sociological argument made by Furedi (2009) in his groundbreaking book Wasted: Why Education Isn’t Educating. In this book, Furedi offers insights into the sociological framework that the philosophical arguments in this book underpin. It is worthwhile to note now that Furedi’s text is respected and representative as a pro-authority argument within educational and sociological discourse. The reader should therefore consider it to be the sociological companion to this book.

Let us now examine which parts of Wasted are pertinent to the discussion that will take place within the bounds of this book. By unpacking some of the core strands of Furedi’s book, I hope to demonstrate that the debate for authority in education transcends the boundaries of discipline. Let the perspective put forward in this chapter serve, therefore, as a primer to what will follow in the core chapters of this book. When the reader examines the details of these preliminary arguments, I trust that he or she will recognize the need to substantiate the arguments with sound philosophical reasoning. In many ways, reading Furedi’s take on authority prompted me into action in writing this book. I trust that the reader will recognize the pragmatism in what Furedi contests – but also realize the need for the arguments to be underpinned in such a way as to demonstrate beyond any doubt that authoritative education is not only intuitive (as Furedi demonstrates), but also grounded in firm and coherent conceptual reasoning.

There are several important arguments made in Furedi that are relevant for the scope of this book. Wasted begins by outlining what Furedi calls the ‘paradox of education’ (Furedi, 2009: 1). It is interesting that, in making this point, Furedi draws on philosophical evidence from Hannah Arendt. Indeed, the Arendt passage quoted by Furedi on the first page of Wasted makes clear the striking similarities between what he is arguing for sociologically and what I am arguing for philosophically. Moreover, the fact that Arendt’s writings are invoked makes clear Furedi’s own acknowledgement that there is a requirement for a philosophical argument to what he puts forward from a sociological perspective.

So what is this ‘paradox of education’? According to Furedi, the more that we invest in education as a societal, political and social tool, the less demanding education becomes. Moreover, Furedi (2009: 1) argues that ‘education has become a battlefield on which often-pointless conflicts are fought’. This is indeed a precept to much of what I have written in this book. In fact, it is the fundamental reason why educational policy and practice has been so radically shifted over the last century: education is seen as the solution to societal problems, and it is used as such to cure society of its ailments. Such a view of education, Furedi contests, gives rise to the paradox; indeed, if education is the solution and the solution does not work, then education will be blamed and subsequently changed. In this way, education has fallen prey to an ‘anything goes’ culture, both academically and in terms of discipline and expectations. Consequently, in an attempt to address societal issues through educational intervention, the anti-knowledge and anti-authority campaigns have gone into overdrive. Indeed, ‘it is the reluctance of contemporary society to value and affirm the exercise of adult authority that undermines our capacity to develop the potential of the young people’ (Furedi, 2009: 7). This is the core underpinning sociological notion of this book, as well as of Furedi’s. The undermining of authority inevitably leads to the undermining of educational values. As I will argue in subsequent chapters, the demise of authority, in actual fact, leads to the demise of the fabric of teaching, of learning, of knowledge development and, consequently, of education also.

Furedi also offers five core preliminary arguments to outline areas of education that seem to have come under sustained attack in the anti-authority campaign. These five preliminaries once again serve as sociological precepts (and indeed sociological parallels) to much of what the reader will find in this book, written philosophically.

The first of these preliminaries outlines that the authority of adults is based on their status as the experienced section of society, whose task it is to transmit the ‘legacy of human knowledge and cultural achievements’ (Furedi, 2009: 7). This concept will be unpacked further later in this book, in relation to the writings of Michael Oakeshott, whose view of education was embedded in the belief that the adult (or, in his arguments, the teacher specifically) was responsible for the transmission, cultivation and development of the knowledge inheritance of human achievements. Furedi (2009: 7), however, outlines that the undermining of subject knowledge and the rejection of the ‘authority of academic subjects’ gives rise to an anti-knowledge and anti-authority approach to education. From a curriculum perspective, it seems as though knowledge is now undervalued in a world in which it is believed that what constitutes ‘knowledge’ has such a high turnaround that school curricula ought not to be knowledge-based. Furedi rejects such a view of things in Wasted, and I too reject it among the core arguments of this book.

Secondly, as Furedi outlines, there is another apparent ‘paradox’ in education (I would, in fact, simply call it a ‘contradiction’) – namely, the fact that we live in what is often celebrated as a ‘knowledge society’ or a ‘knowledge economy’, in which the value of knowledge is hyped, and yet we pursue educational agendas in which knowledge is consistently undermined (Furedi, 2009: 8). Despite the current obsession within education of so-called ‘lifelong learning’ models – now used in preference to so-called ‘front-end models’, which are about the here and now – there appears to be no place for knowledge in education that is expected to move beyond formal schooling. In fact, as Furedi contests, the concept of ‘formal schooling’ has been cast out as outdated and static. Lifelong learning models, in which inert knowledge is cast aside, are ‘presented … as a demonstration of the seriousness with which education should be taken’ (Furedi, 2009: 8). However, in pursuing lifelong learning models in which knowledge is of decreasing interest and value to the learner, ‘implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, the authority of formal education is called into question’ (Furedi, 2009: 8). There is no doubt that the undermining of the role of knowledge in education is synonymous with the undermining of authority, both of subject disciplines and of the teacher whose job it once was to develop such knowledge. Moreover, I agree with Furedi’s sociological pre-analysis suggesting that the undervaluation of knowledge is contradictory to a so-called ‘knowledge economy’, the idea of which shot to prominence under Tony Blair’s premiership, for instance. Where knowledge was once held as one of the cornerstones of education, such views of education are now regarded as inhibiting and restrictive to those who have it ‘imposed’ upon them. Along with such undermining of the role that knowledge plays within education goes the analogous undermining of authority within education. These concepts will be examined philosophically throughout this book, with particular interest in re-establishing that the anti-knowledge campaign is fraught with inherent and unavoidable blunders.

This realization of the attack on knowledge leads Furedi to his next preliminary sociological argument – namely, that the ‘erosion of adult authority in general has a direct impact on the status of the teacher’ (Furedi, 2009: 8). Once again, in a sociological context, there is no doubt that the authoritative role of the teacher as a master in his or her subject has come under a major degree of scrutiny. Indeed, if the knowledge-based curriculum comes under threat, the natural consequence is that the teacher who was once revered as a master of knowledge will also come under threat. Furedi contests that evidence of such an attack taking place can be found in the fact that teachers are being increasingly expected to regard themselves as ‘learners’ or ‘facilitators’ in their own classrooms. Such a notion, although romantic, is extremely irresponsible and serves only to erode the authority of the teacher in his or her own domain: the classroom. Some might contest that the classroom is not under the ownership of the teacher, but rather under the collective ownership of the pupils who inhabit it. However, a ship without a captain is destined for dangerous waters.

Let it be clear that the classroom is a place of learning, and that it is the pupil who learns and the teacher who teaches. These are the roles of the players in the classroom and no amount of tinkering with the rules of the game will ever change the scene. As I will argue later, in keeping with philosophers Polanyi, Oakeshott and Wittgenstein, the job of the teacher is to provide an expertly constrained framework within which the pupil will flourish. This framework is held together by the fabric of authority: both the authority of the subject that the teacher seeks to convey to his or her pupils; and the authority of the position of the teacher. Furedi’s acknowledgement that the demise of adult authority in general – and the undermining and erosion of teacher authority, in particular – has led to the undermining of education requires further examination. Furedi himself does this sociologically in Wasted; I will examine this view philosophically later in this book. Unless we cease to undermine teacher authority, we will continue to undermine one of the pillars of education, which makes for successful teaching and learning, and knowledge development and transmission between the generations:

The devaluation of the authority of the teacher is also reinforced through the loss of value accorded to subject-based knowledge. Many pedagogues regard the teaching of academic subjects in schools as irrelevant. Since the authority of teachers rests on their expertise in a subject, the current devaluation of academic subjects has a direct effect upon teachers’ professional status. The cumulative outcome of these developments is the decline of the status of the teaching profession.

(Furedi, 2009: 8–9)

The final preliminary arguments that Furedi makes are heavily focused on the sociology of this discussion. He contests that confusions surrounding adult authority in general have led to difficulties in socializing children and difficulties in disciplining children (Furedi, 2009: 9). The argument around socialization is of no consequence to what is put forward in this book and so will simply be noted at this stage; the concept of discipline is a potentially problematic discussion with reference to authority. Let it be clear now that, although Furedi puts forward a compelling case for the demise of authority and the demise of discipline being synonymous with one another throughout Wasted, it is not my focus in this book to develop these ideas in any real detail. Moreover, the confusion of authority and power as though they are one and the same concept is, in fact, critiqued in this book. Similar confusions are commonplace within educational discourse: about the concepts of discipline and punishment, for example. It must be understood that the authority for which this text argues so vehemently is not one that has confusions about authority and power. There is indeed a case to be made to suggest that the recent problems with school discipline are a consequence of the systematic undermining of the teacher’s authority within his or her own classroom – but this debate is for another place and Furedi makes a sound contribution to it. I am more focused, however, on the roles that the authority of the teacher and his or her knowledge of his or her subject play in teaching and learning. The fact that our schools are now full of children and young people who are unruly and teachers who are either not capable or not permitted to discipline such children is an argument steeped in sociology to such an extent that I dare not contribute.

However, for the moment, these five core preliminary arguments, together with what Furedi calls ‘the infantilization of education’ (Furedi, 2009: 13), serve as the crux of the ‘paradox of education’. These arguments culminate in the realization that ‘paradoxically, the more that we expect of education, the less we expect of children; and the more hope society invests in education, the less we value it as something important in its own right’ (Furedi, 2009: 16). From a sociological perspective, Furedi makes a compelling argument that this paradox is rife within educational discourse. This book therefore seeks to untangle the paradox and to place education back on safe ground. The anti-knowledge and anti-authority campaigns within education need to be halted before they do irreversible damage. Furedi argues that the intergenerational nature of education requires the authority of the teacher to be absolute, so that the development of knowledge can be successful. I will expand and develop this perspective on authority and knowledge. Furthermore, it is essential to stop the onslaught against the value of knowledge that is manifest in the modern day. By viewing knowledge as an inheritance of experiences and judgements, this book seeks to convey the notion that knowledge is indispensable in any understanding of education, and that the teacher is the one who enlightens his or her pupils and supports them in embracing their knowledge inheritance.

The core precepts of any education must therefore encompass, at least in part, knowledge development. Educated people must be knowledgeable people, equipped with a collection of historical intellectual wealth that has been transmitted to them through the actions of a distinguished master: the teacher. They must be equipped with a judgement that enables them to act, to create and to inspire others. The educated person, in his or her initial submission to the authority of the master, seeks to understand that master’s way of acting and, in following him or her, becomes valuable to others: ‘The principle achievement of education is an educated people and society’ (Furedi, 2009: 20). An educated people and society is, indeed, the sociological focus of education; what, precisely, constitutes an educated people is what requires definition. This book seeks to convey the message that the educated person is one who has a wealth of knowledge, founded in his or her training and housed inside the authority of the master. The educated person is liberated by attaining his or her master’s judgement and insights into ways of acting. The educated people is therefore a collection of educated persons – and their education is a process the genesis of which is founded in accepting the absolute authority of the teacher who seeks to train them.

Education for the future?

There is a current trend within education to obsess more over what education can prepare children for, rather than to focus on their development in the here and now. Make no mistake: in large part, this is a sensible notion. Education should, by its very nature, equip learners for future challenges. However, the manner in which this goal is strived for is less than sensible – perhaps not even honourable. In what Furedi (2009: 21) calls ‘throwaway pedagogy’, we now have an education system that is predicated on the belief that the best way in which to pursue an education for the future is to avoid knowledge development; the reason for this, it is often contested, is because knowledge quickly becomes obsolete, and so we ought to avoid its deliverance in the present moment, owing to its likely irrelevance in the not-too-distant future.

The general ‘throwaway’ and ‘change’ cultures that are in vogue within modern-day educational thinking have led to the demise of so-called traditional, academic education in a process that Furedi (2009: 23) calls the ‘fetishization of change’. Institutions are valued less, in favour of ‘personalized learning’ and ‘lifelong learning’. The constant changes in society have given rise to a demand that educational aims and educational focus must shift from an academic, knowledge-developing education towards a skills-based, lifelong-learning education. The so-called ‘front-end’ models of education that focus on the present moment are disregarded as static and stagnant, lacking vision and creativity, and are cast aside in favour of ‘lifelong learning’ models, which focus on how children and young people can face future challenges and changes in knowledge. It is therefore no longer acceptable to educate our children for the here and now, since the here and now changes so quickly that it will be gone before our knowledge of it is put to any use. Knowledge, therefore, is replaced by skills, with a focus on how these skills can help us to move forward with the times and to avoid remaining stuck in the past.

The focus of this movement within education is, according to Furedi, the result of a drive for change and a fear of remaining rooted in the past. This emanates from the carefully chosen rhetoric of governments and policymakers, who give the impression that ‘change’ is synonymous with ‘improvement’ (Furedi, 2009: 23): ‘Typically, change is presented in a dynamic and mechanistic manner that exaggerates the novelty of the present moment. Educationalists frequently adopt the rhetoric of breaks and ruptures and maintain that nothing is as it was and that the present has been decoupled from the past.’ However, such rationale for change and so-called ‘forward thinking’ within education is a far cry from the reality that, sociologically speaking, binds togeth...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: An Education for Which to be Fearful
• Part One The Background
• Part Two The Argument
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright