The Limits of the “Foundations”Metaphor in Education - Fall/Winter 2018

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dabgoudw

Examining the justification for humanistic disciplines in educator training, the article argues that the “foundations of education” metaphor has weakened, diminishing the academic home and influence of fields such as history and philosophy of education. It links the problem to both conceptual and theoretical issues and to institutional and political changes that make the metaphor less persuasive. The discussion traces this rationale through Teachers College’s required courses and considers debates about whether “social foundations” is a condition-focused inquiry or an umbrella for disciplinary beliefs and values.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

The Social Foundations of Education

The Limits of the “Foundations”Metaphor in Education Nicholas C . Burbules The Journal of Educational Foundations Vol. 31, No. 3 & 4 Fall/Winter 2018, pp. 63-73 Copyright 2018 by Caddo Gap Press Introduction For decades, the humanistic disciplines—particularly history and philosophy of education—have justified themselves as an essential part of professional training for educators by characterizing themselves asthe “foundations of education”(the psychological disciplines in education have often justified themselves in the same way, but that is not my focus here) . This justification, I will argue, has been weakened in recent years, and as a consequence the academic home and influence of these fields in education is disappearing. Over time, we could see the virtual end of these fields as subdisciplines in the academy. We need to find new ways of justifying them. In order to understand why the argument from “foundations” is increasingly problematic, we need to look at various intellectual and institutional changes in relation to eachother. The reasons why we ought to rethink the foundations metaphor have to do with conceptual and theoretical problems with that idea, as well as institutional and political changes that make that metaphor less salient as a justification for teaching certain disciplines and perspectives in professional programs in education. These two lines of questioning need to be understood in relation to each other. The Social Foundations of Education A reflection on how we got to this point should begin with George Counts’(1934) book, The Social Foundations of Education. For Counts, the “social foundations” were not a field of inquiry or coursework, but Nicholas C. Burbules is the Edward William and Jane Marr Gutgsell Professor in the Department of Educational Policy, Organization, and Leadership of the College of Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. His e-mail address is: [burbules@illinois.edu](burbules@illinois.edu) the actual social conditions that shape the ways we think about and go about educating people (see Tozer & Butts, 2011) . If there was a field of inquiry that mapped onto that subject, it would of necessity be interdisciplinary and focused on the question of how to situate our educational ideas and practices in a social context; recognizing that these ideas and practices are themselves the product of particular social and historical circumstances—for example, the conditions of education in, by, and fora democratic society. It was soon after (1934-1935) that Counts and his colleagues in the newly formed Foundations Division at Teachers College, Columbia, established a set of required foundations courses for their professional programs (see Tozer & McAninch, 1986, p. 11) . I emphasize that term because it bears examination.“Required” means ostensibly essential knowledge.“Required” means a guaranteed demand for courses (and hence a guaranteed demand for faculty trained to provide such courses) .“Required”also means thatthe students takingthese classes are notthere voluntarily; they are taking the classes because someone else decided that it would be good for their development. In these three premises we see the basic features of a “foundations” approach, with its benefits, and its limitations. In practice, the rationale for calling certain courses foundational is closely linked to the institutional custom of making them required. One might ask,“Are these courses required because we considerthemfoundational, or are they consideredfoundationalbecause we require them. Which comes first?”At Teachers College, the two happened more or less simultaneously. A further issue is whether “social foundations” is an area of inquiry itself or an umbrella term for a set of disciplinary fields (typically history of education and philosophy of education, though sometimes more interdisciplinary courses in society and culture)which examine our basic beliefs about the nat

FAQs

Why does the article claim the “foundations” metaphor has become problematic?

It argues that recent conceptual and theoretical concerns, combined with institutional and political changes, have weakened the metaphor’s usefulness as a justification for teaching certain educational disciplines.

How does the author describe “social foundations” in education?

The author contrasts Counts’ view of “social foundations” as actual social conditions shaping education with an alternative interpretation of “foundations” as bedrock beliefs, values, and purposes.

What role do required “foundations” courses play in the argument?

The article links the idea of courses being called “foundational” to the institutional practice of making them required, raising questions about whether they are required because they are foundational or foundational because they are required.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dabgoudw