1

Millersville University Matthew J. Monahan

EDFN 603: Philosophy of Education July 10, 2017

SOCIAL JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE THE GOAL OF EDUCATION.

Social justice in education sounds wonderful. A definition of justice as fairness

implies that school systems can, and should, develop learning environments that serve all

children fairly. However, fairness is significantly more subjective than it may seem.

Justice, as a philosophical construct, is exceedingly complicated. When one considers

justice in education, much of which is publicly funded and decided upon by elected

officials, fidelity to a true concept of social justice is fleeting. As Nel Noddings states,

“liberals tend to put greater emphasis on equality and conservatives more on liberty.”

(Noddings, 2016, p. 171). Social justice has different meanings for different people, and

for different reasons. “Due to such widely varied meanings, it is possible for different

groups to act in opposition to one another, yet do so under the aegis of social justice.”

(Boyles, et. al., 2009, p. 37). Accepting this realization, I conclude that social justice

should not be the goal of education because claims to social justice may be logically

flawed or disingenuous. Instead of striving for a potentially problematic construct of

social justice, the purpose of education should be to provide appropriate learning

environments in which students learn to solve problems by developing transferrable

skills.

Since the time of Aristotle some thinkers have considered justice through a

distributive lens, which focuses on property and the allocation of resources. Iris Marion

Young’s “distributive paradigm” seeks equality of distribution as its end (Boyles, et. al.,

2009, p. 37). When resources are allocated equally, this constitutes justice. This concept
 2

of justice is problematic, however, for individuals or communities that begin from a

disadvantaged position. The circumstances of two individuals attempting to climb the

same eight-foot wall with identical ten-foot ladders cannot be considered equal if one

person begins his or her climb from the base of the wall while the other begins from a

hole four feet below the wall’s base. As Boyles, et. al. (2009) contend, “Even when

resources are distributed equally…oppression continues to flourish.” (p.39).

Attempts to prescribe a distributive model of education by Mortimer Adler and

E.D. Hirsch are problematic. Adler’s Paideia Proposal advocates an identical curriculum

for all students through twelfth grade. This model does not account for students who may

struggle or excel within that prescribed curriculum. Hirsch’s concept of a “cultural

literacy” program, in which all students are responsible for learning a predetermined set

of information, claims justice because all students have access to the same materials.

Critics of these distributive models, like Michael Apple and Kenneth Howe, argue that

these programs are problematic because they assume that the knowledge and skills valued

by some groups are considered legitimate, while those of other groups are considered

illegitimate or less important (Noddings, 2016, p. 188, Boyles, et. al., 2009, p.38).

Giving students equal access to resources or information does not necessarily lead to

justice. I believe that seeking to make social justice the goal of education in this way is

misguided and unlikely to result in real justice.

For Nel Noddings, the relationship between educators and students is paramount

in the purpose of education. Through my work in Millersville University’s Leadership

for Teaching and Learning graduate program I have come to agree with her assessment.

In reference to Martin Buber’s focus on relationships, she states, “Children need to know
 3

that someone will listen to them and care what happens to them.” and “In a society like

ours where so much depends on success in school, children not only need continuous

love and warm companionship from adults; they also need adults who can present the

world effectively.” (Noddings, 2016, p.184-185). Students require a strong and caring

adult presence, along with a safe environment to learn effectively. Perhaps that presence

and environment hits closer to what justice is than some distributive construct because it

gives students fair access to the relationships, and meaning in education, that matters

most.

This approach seems most human, especially when contrasted with a prescriptive

approach to learning facts that may or may not bear relevance or value to individual

students or groups. Students will likely not retain much of what they learn in school if

their learning is a teacher-focused summary of information deemed to be facts. This

retention may be even less effective if learning takes place in an environment in an

unsafe or decrepit environment, or without a caring adult presence.

Inquiry and democracy are key themes in John Dewey’s philosophy of education.

Dewey’s ideas about education, none of which are distributive, speak to what the goals of

education should be. His model for gaining knowledge places the learner at the center of

the learning process, thereby removing some undue outside influence. Boyles, et. al.

(2009) indicate that, for Dewey, schools are responsible “for developing young people

into active social beings who would work to ameliorate social injustices.” And that

“social justice would be realized when individuals were free to participate in occupations

of their choice, while also contributing to the welfare of their fellow citizens and society

in general. (p.35). The potential for students to conceive of, and retain, transferrable
 4

skills in Dewey’s conception of education seems much greater than a model focused on

social justice. If students are able to learn through inquiry in the context of genuine

learning opportunities, they will be more likely to discover the problems of society and

conceive of ways in which they may solve these problems. The most valuable aspects of

Dewey’s philosophy of education are the agency that it affords to students, the

collaborative nature between students and teachers, and the ways in which learning is

relevant to all participants. This sort of learning, along with healthy and appropriate

relationships, must be the goal of education.

Rather than pursuing a distributive, top-down prescription of social justice, schools

should provide positive learning environments through which students use inquiry to

solve problems. Instead of following some sort of “cultural literacy” model, like that of

Hirsch, schools should embrace a democratic approach in which the educational program

reflects the values of the community. Mary Parker Follett (2003) implores, “Everyone

has a stake in the decision. When the group fails, the leader and the whole group feel the

failure, or share in the learning or success.” (p. 112). Rather than striving for social

justice, schools should strive to empower the freedom of students, that is, their ability to

choose in society. Boyles, et. al., (2009) illustrate that there has been a “link between

education and freedom” since the time of ancient Greece (p.31). Students must be

allowed to discover the power of their choice through learning experiences that are

relevant to them. For Dewey, “an experience..is not a mere exposure or passive

undergoing; it has to mean something to the one undergoing it.” (Noddings, 2016, p.31).

Perhaps schools cannot achieve social justice given its various interpretations, as well

as the political implications of education. My contention is that this focus is misguided.

 5

I would agree with Noddings (2016) that schools should “provide adequate facilities for

all children, long-term caring relationships that support intellectual development, and

differentiated curriculum nonheirarchically designed.” (p.190). If schools can provide

those things, social justice may spring up more organically but certainly won’t be

artificially imposed by some distributive program claiming equality for all students when

such equality is fleeting. Whether I continue to serve the students in my community as a

teacher, or pursue a position as a school leader someday, I hope to make relationships and

inquiry cornerstones of my approach to education.

 6

REFERENCES

Boyles, D., et. al. (2009). Handbook of Social Justice in Education. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Follett, M.P. (2003). Prophet of Management. Washington, D.C.: Beard Books.

Noddings, N. (2016). Philosophy of Education, 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.