From the late 1950s to about 1970, philosophers of education began to adopt a mode of philosophizing characterized as "the linguistic turn," after a similar change in general philosophy. This involved a move away from the older "isms" approach rooted in metaphysics towards linguistic and conceptual analysis. The linguistic turn has been attributed to intellectual history--the influence of ideas on a field. The central argument of this study, however, is that during the 1950s, factors external to academia, but acting upon it, interacted with concerns by educational philosophers themselves to create the conditions for the linguistic turn. These factors included the attacks on public schooling and "educationists," the teacher education reform movement, the Ford Foundation funding of liberal arts oriented teacher preparation, and, within the academy, the concern on the part of educational philosophers for the academic legitimacy of their discipline. These factors led philosophers of education to model their discourse more closely on the reigning paradigm in general philosophy, linguistic analysis. The attacks on public schooling were centered on progressivism for its alleged anti-intellectualism and subversive character. Philosophers of education were the particular targets of these critics. Teacher preparation in education schools also came under scrutiny during this period. The Ford Foundation's Fund for the Advancement of Education underwrote major programs that centered teacher preparation in a liberal arts curriculum, with only minimal coursework devoted to professional training. In addition, the National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) supported such a reorientation, with a concomitant weakening of educational philosophy's place in teacher education programs. Philosophers of education responded by lobbying for the inclusion of their courses in certification requirements, forging an alliance with the American Philosophical Association, reducing the social activism that had characterized earlier educational philosophers' efforts, and adopting the more academically legitimate methods of general philosophy. In the short term these actions assured educational philosophy a place in teacher education programs. In the long run, however, the linguistic turn may have jeopardized the survival of educational philosophy as an academic field by creating a chasm between philosopher and practitioner.

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the purposes, plans, activities, and programs of the National Education Association that focused upon instruction. To carry out this purpose, guideline questions were developed. Answers to the questions were sought through leads obtained from a study of the volumes of Addresses and Proceedings for the years since the first NTA meeting in 1857 through the 1976 NEA Convention and editions of the NEA Handbook from the first in 1945 through the 1976 edition. Findings were presented in a six-chapter historical-descriptive narrative. Although interest in instruction is not an exclusive concern held only by professional associations, the findings of this study do suggest that instruction has been a fortunate focus for the NEA in two respects. First, the times of NEA's more obvious emphasis on instruction have been relatively free of criticism of Association activity. Secondly, emphasis on instruction has emerged as a thread to unify the National Education Association with diverse organizations and with classic human institutions--the home, the church, the school, and governmental agencies--throughout the world.

One of the most important administrative problems in education today is how equitably to finance the school system of a state, since frequently the question of insufficient revenue and disparity between school divisions and states reflects a larger societal problem of commitment to public education. The proposal to restructure, if not refound the present educational system as a quasi~ public marketing entity using educational vouchers now challenges the time- honored common school ideal. This study provides a philosophical rationale for the American common school to aid legislators, jurists, and policymakers in interpreting key terms in the educational provisions of state constitutions. It assumes that the school financing policies of a nation reflect the value choices of a people as well as their priorities in the allocation of resources. The terms selected for analysis: "common," "system," "uniform," and "efficient," are pregnant with meaning in the context of education. Defined etymologically and philosophically, they are "terms of art" because they suggest ethical standards for a common school system. In the process of defining each term, the study examines the intellectual roots of the American common school, an institution its founders believed could unite the nation and ensure the common good. The present movement to privatize public systems, however, reflects a paradigm of laissez-faire individualism that encourages private self interest and a divisive pluralism in contrast with an older, more egalitarian tradition of classical republicanism which has shaped the common school ideal. The phrase "common good," associated with the public interest, is a rubric used to define "common" and other related root terms such as "commonality," "commonwealth," and "virtue." It defines "system" as an aspect of polity and suggests that the terms "efficient" and "uniform" have moral implications for school systems that have a public purpose of effecting a virtuous and enlightened citizenry for the preservation of a republic. This multidisciplinary investigation emphasizes the duty of the state to educate in the republican, civic humanist tradition. It thus serves as a guide to policymakers required to make complex school finance decisions that will ensure equity and equality of educational opportunity for all citizens in every state throughout the commonwealth. / Ph. D.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This thesis is a critical literature review on the studies of social movements and contentious politics in the U.S. and China. Thanks to theories of contentious politics, we can analyze the studies of America’s social movements and China’s collective actions in the same “frame.” By making a comparison, this thesis tries to construct a theoretical dialogue between the studies across both countries. At the same time, it criticizes over-generalizing the mode “democratic-nondemocratic” in analysis of repertories of contentious politics and downplaying capitalism’s role in the social movements. From the various empirical studies in both countries, this thesis argues that a generalization should be based on the diversity of this realm, not just from the western perspective.