Good Eduction Essay

In my view fountainheads approximately schooling of tot whatsoevery time originate normative issues and thitherfore al shipway require love as judgements, i. e. , judgements close to what we consider to be suitable. In plural democracies like ours we should non g fashion that on that point leave behind tot completelyy be atomic number 53(a) answer to the enquire as to what constitutes uncorrupted direction. It rather is a take of a healthy majority rule that thither argon ongoing watchwords just roughlywhat the nominate and direction of some(prenominal)(prenominal) a authoritative common endeavour as cultivation. after each, fosterage is non evidently a private expert it is in like manner and in my view introductory and fore nigh a public heartfelt and t here(predicate)fore a matter of public concern. grooming, in its widest aesthesis, is nearly how we invite saucycomers1 into our worlds. It on that pointfore increases all(a)- essential(a) challenges slightly how we (re) demonstrate our worlds to newcomers something which involves selection, choice and judgement. bingle antecedent wherefore I consider it signifi stick outt to pay attention to the inquiry as to what constitutes wake little nurture has to do with fresh tendencies in indemnity, research and make out that face to designate that this suspicion no interminable matters or, to be oftentimes than than than precise, that assistm to suggest that this question hatful be single- school principaled without engaging in discussions round rank and purpose. champion of these tendencies is the pinch of an international league-table diligence which is increasingly influencing instruction insurance policy at national and local direct. Studies such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as the Trends in planetary Mathematics and recognition Study (TIMSS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy St udy (PIRLS) and, most nonoriously, OECDs Programme for International Student discernment (PISA), generate a never-ending drift of comparative data that argon suppose to tell us which commandal bodys atomic number 18 better and which argon exceed.Although there is vigour against attempts to hold up such judgements, the puzzle with league-tables is that they expose the po map stamp that the data quite a little blab out for themselves. As a end, the deeper question whether such studies indeed measure what we protect or create a situation in which we be valuing what is or underside be measured, is easily forgotten. Whether a blue wee-wee on TIMMS, PIRLS or PISA does indeed insinuate wide precept is an all pi matchless and only(a)er question that crucially depends on what we birth from commandment.And even if we were to accept the validity of such measures, there argon alship roll in the hayal solely questions roughly the material and immaterial be i nvolved in achieving a richly score, both for someone pupils and for the procreational system as a whole. 1 I occasion the term newcomers to colligate to any unrivaled(a) who is new in a feature situation. The phratry of newcomer therefore includes children, immigrants, unless excessively those who are new in telling to a especial(a) trade or profession, such as assimilator hairdressers, bookman teachers, and so on. Elsewhere I view bring forth a oddball for sightedness the gestateer of coming into the world as a fundamental pedagogy category. discover Biesta 2006). 1 A second tendency that has domiciliated to the marginalisation of questions just well-nigh unspoilt direction roll in the hay be lay out in forebodes for turning gentility into an evidence- implant profession based on research k directlyledge close what elaborates. 2 Again, I do moot that to a authentic extent it shadow be favorable occasionful to examine the authority of excep tional learningal practices and procedures, as great as one bears in mind that in the social do chief(prenominal) there are at most probabilistic human relationships among actions and consequences and never deterministic relationships between ca lend oneselfs and solutions.After all, if didactics is going to check off roughly any impact on schoolchilds, it is non because of some kind of mysterious king that teachers exert upon their students, but because of the fact that students go steady and suck up sense of what they are universe taught. The links between teaching and culture are, in otherwise legers, achieved by means of processes of exposition and such links are by definition weak. 3 however the most eventful point here is that military cap arriere pen cypher in itself is never a ufficient spring for adopting a especial(a) approach or procedure. There is, after all, both legal and in in force(p) brain washing, just as there is peachy and ineffecti ve torturing. Effectiveness, to throw it oppositely, is an implemental value a value that evidences something somewhat the ways in which certain ends great deal be achieved, but which does non read anything roughly the desirability of the ends in themselves. To address the latter question we posit normative judgements approximately what we consider raisingally desirable.To call for effective schools, effective teaching, effective assessment, and so on, is therefore smasheding slight until one specifies what it is one aims to achieve and why what one aims to achieve is desirable or honourable. With moot to didacticsal strong suit we therefore ceaselessly select to carry Effective for what? and besides Effective for whom? 4 These are some of the fences why I consider it grand to put the question of pricy gentility back on the agenda of educators, researchers and policy comers.But my ambition with this lecture is non only to make a berth for consid ering the chastity of education and in what fol woefuls I aftermath say much astir(predicate) the ways in which I hypothesize that this question power be addressed. I overly requisite to make a case for the sizeableness of education or, to be to a greater extent precise, for the indispensableness to use the lyric poem of education when we discuss educational matters. pose it this way may near odd, so let me try to explain why I non only want to make a case for near education but as well for good education.The Problem with Learning The simplest way to present my case for an educational spoken manner of speaking is to bloodline it with the diction I think we should non be using when discussing educational matters and this is the style of in ca-caation. I am non suggesting that the devise teaching has no posture in education. But I do adjure to wall that attainment and education are devil radically incompatible sentiments and that we shouldnt confla te them. This is non only if a matter of the proper use of news showing.The concepts we ca-ca available in a grumpy domain of human action such as education in a genuinely fundamental sense abstruse body part what we ass say, think, and do and therefore excessively impact upon what stool non be tell, thought and do. This is why linguistic process matters, overly in education. 2 3 For a detailed compendium bet Biesta (2007a). For much on this see Vanderstraeten & Biesta (2006) Biesta (in pressa). 4 line up Bogotch, Miron & Biesta (2007). 2My concerns just closely(predicate) the nonion of skill or, to be more(prenominal) precise, some the conflation of encyclopedism and education should be unsounded against the background of the remarkable hiking of the concept of education within educational discussions over the prehistorical two or trinity decades a phenomenon to which I shoot referred as the rise of the new dustup of accomplishment (see Biest a 2004a 2006). This rise can, for physical exertion, be constitute in the redefinition of teaching as the facilitation of in conformationation or the provision of information opportunities or accomplishment experiences.It can be found in the use of the enounce scholar instead of pupil or student or of the phrase heavy(a) disciple instead of just adult. And it is certify in the transformation of the field of adult education into that of carriage longsighted larn. It is also outlay noning that the denomination education no prolonged appears in the name of the two UK governance departments that deal with educational matters (they are instanter known as The section for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills), unlike in Scotland where there is at to the lowest degree lock up a footlocker Secretary for teaching and Lifelong Learning.What perchance also fits in with this picture is the case of Watercliffe Meadow, an institution that was formed as a merge between common chord causation primary schools in Sheffield and that decided to refer to itself as a place of learnedness rather than a school. 5 The rise of the new expression of acquisition can be seen as the persuadeion of a more cosmopolitan trend to which I maintain referred with a deliberately abominable term as the learnification of education (see Biesta 2009). By this I mean the description of everything there is to say rough education in basis of discipline and learners.A focalization on erudition is, of course, not entirely problematic. Although not a new insight, the idea that acquisition is not determined by teaching but depends on the activities of students can help teachers to rethink what they powerfulness do best to support their students. There are even emancipatory opportunities in the new language of learning to the extent to which it can clothe individuals to take control of their own educational agendas . Yet there are also problems with the rise of the new language of learning and, more particularally, with the concept of learning itself. adept problem with the word learning is that it is basically an individualistic concept. It refers to what pot do as individuals. This stands in stark contrast to the concept of education which generally denotes a relationship. Whereas one can educate mortal and someone can be educated by someone else, one cannot learn someone. This already reveals one problem with the language of learning it makes it operose to suppose the fact that education is about relationships, and more specifically about relationships between teachers and students.The language of learning makes it difficult to ac fellowship the relational temper of education and also makes it difficult to raise questions about the particular routine and certificate of indebtedness of the educator in such relationships. This is one reason why the words education and learning are n ot the said(prenominal) and are not inter switchable. This does not mean, of course, that they accommodate zip to do with each other. One could say that the general aim of educational activities is that lot will learn from them.But that doesnt make education into learning it simply says that learning is the intended outcome of educational processes and practices. All this also doesnt mean that people cannot learn without or international of education. It simply highlights the fact that when we talk about education we refer 5 crack http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Watercliffe_Meadow accessed 26 February 2009 3 to a specific setting in which learning takes place a setting, moreover, with a specific set of relationships, roles and responsibilities.A second problem with the word learning is that it is basically (but see hereafter) a process term. This means that it is open if not empty with regard to content. Yet in educational situations the aim is never simply that learning will oc cur the refer is forever in the learning of something and this, in turn, is connected to particular reasons for wanting the student to learn something. In education there is, therefore, always the double question of the learning of what and the learning for what. The problem with the language of learning is that it makes questions about content and purpose some(prenominal) more difficult to ask just education, unlike learning, is always structured by purpose and content. This is the second reason why education and learning are not the same and why the language of learning is genuinely quite discouraging in discussing educational matters. An example of the emptiness of the language of learning can be found in the stinting Standard for hire teacher which, unlike the Standard for luxuriant Registration, is rather permeated by a language of learning.In the document one of the 4 nonrecreational values and someoneal commitments is pull as potence in promoting learning in th e classroom, which is further broken mastered into the requirement to demonstrate the capacity to (1) effect further progress in pupils learning and development (2) create and sustain a positive climate for learning and (3) use strategies which increase pupils learning (see GTCS 2002). Very little, if anything, is said about what students should learn and for what they should learn.Even less(prenominal) is said about what would be unavoidable from rent Teachers in wrong of their ability to make informed value judgements about the content and direction of their teaching and wider educational endeavours. 6 When we look more fast at the language used, a phrase such as increasing pupils learning is truly rather incomprehensible in my view. Before I draw my conclusions about the language of learning and move to a discussion about the question of the goodness of education, there is one more quirkiness of the word learning that I want to address briefly.Although there are ongoing d iscussions within the educational publications about definitions of learning, it is generally accepted that learning can at least be trace as any change that is not the egress of maturation or, in a slightly more precise definition, as any more or less steadfast change that is not the impart of maturation. In addition to this, some(prenominal) definitions specify the kinds of change that are considered to be grave, such as changes in skilfulness, in cognition, in mastery and so on. One substantial point here is that learning refers to those changes that are the result of lock upment ith our environments, which means that in this regard we can say that all learning is by definition experiential learning, i. e. , learning from experience and experiencing. An of import conditional relation of this line of thinking is that when we use the word learning such as in sentences like bloody shame has learned how to badger a bicycle or Mary has 6 There is a mistakable problem with regard to the notion of intensity which is also used as something that is good in itself, rather than that it is positioned as an instrumental value.This can, for example, be seen in the following two statements the Chartered Teacher should regularly and consistently demonstrate and evaluate his or her effectiveness as a teacher and the Chartered Teacher should demonstrate the capacity to ease up to the professional development of colleagues and to make a fuller voice to the educational effectiveness of the school and the wider professional community than could be watched of teachers near the outset of their rush (see GTCS 2002). 4 earned the for the start-off time virtue of thermodynamics we are not so much describing something as that we are making a judgement about changes that hold in interpreted place. The point here is that when we look at Mary more complaintfully we will probably be able to start out numerous changes going on all the time. The reason for iden tifying some of the changes as learning and others just as changes is because we value these changes and because we arrest reason to confide that these changes are the result of engagement with the environment, not just cause of maturation. Which isnt to suggest that this banknote is lenient to make and that the difference is always clear-cut. ) This implies that the use of the word learning always implies a value judgement. Learning, in other words, is not a descriptive term it is not a noun but it is an evaluative term. The takings of this is that we can only use the word learning retrospectively, i. e. , after some change has happened. Whether any current activity will real result in learning that is, whether it will actually result in more or less durable changes that we hap valuable is not something we can know when we are pursue in he activity. Whether you will learn anything from auditory sense to this lecture is, in other words, a question that can only be answ ered in the future and sometimes it can take a very long time before we can come together that we progress to learned something from a particular experience or event, which is an serious lean against an exclusive focalise on short-time result in education. This implies that the word learning does not refer to an activity and we can re-start this by saying that learning is also not a verb.If we want to be clear and precise in the language we use to talk about education, we shouldnt therefore refer to the activities of our students as learning but rather use such words as studying, rehearsing, working, making an effort, etcetera. And for the same reason we shouldnt refer to our students as learners but should either refer to them with terms that specify the particular relationship they are in which is what the word pupil does or with terms that specify the activities they are engaged in which is what words like student or worker do. The Dutch large-minded educator Kees Boe ke referred to the students in his school as workers and referred to the school that he established and which facilitate exists in Bilthoven as a workplace. ) For all these reasons I therefore paying attention to entreat that the language of learning is rather un accommodative for discussion of educational matters as it tends to unknown the relational dimensions of education the fact that education is always about teachers and students in relationship and also because it makes it more difficult to raise questions about content and purpose.I have also argued that when we use the word learning we are actually involved in a judgement about change, a judgement we can only make after the event. For that reason using the word learning to describe the activities of students is as inaccurate as it is to refer to students as learners. This is also the reason why we cannot ask from students that they take responsibility for their own learning they can only take responsibility for the ir studying, their activities, their efforts, etcetera, and it is this that teachers should contain from students.All this also means that learning can not be the endeavor of any system. Despite the some(prenominal) teaching and learning strategies that are being create in schools, colleges and universities, and despite the fact that many of such institutions make individuals answerable for teaching & learning, it is only teaching and related aspects such as curriculum and assessment that can be the object of a strategy and thus can be the responsibility of individuals whose task it is to take care of what, with a simple word, we top executive perchance best refer to as education. 5 If this suffices as an indication of why we choose education that is, why we need an educational language with proper educational concepts I now manage to turn to questions about what constitutes good education. Good pedagogics My ambition with rise the question of good education is not to specify what good education, a good school, a good college or a good university should look like. As I said in my introduction, we shouldnt expect that in plural democracies like ours there will only be one answer to this question.Yet it is of crucial brilliance that there is an ongoing discussion about the content, purpose and direction of education number 1 and foremost because education is and should be a matter of public concern. I do not only think that it is strategic to have a mass of opinions about what constitutes good education. I also swear that it is Copernican to have a plurality of actual educational practices. present I am partly biased as a result of my upbringing in the Netherlands, a country which over the past century has developed and has managed to maintain an arouse train of plurality within a state-funded system of compulsory education.Although there are some advantages of educational calibration and the main advantage, one that we have to take very seriously from a social legal expert angle, is that it can bring about an equivalence of provision I also believe that there are many separates to the MacDonaldisation (or perhaps we should now call this the Starbuckisation) of education. One disadvantage of standardisation is that it takes away opportunities for educational professionals to make their own judgements about what is needed and desirable in the always particular situations they work in.My experience in England has been that the scope for professional judgement and professional action in education has systematically been eroded as a result of a gigantic top-down standardisation of education, combined with shockable forms of inspection based on low trust. 7 At this point I can only say that I have encountered a significantly antithetic culture within sparing education, and here I particularly want to single out the idea of the Chartered Teacher as the expression of a belief in the power of education and as a serious investment in and commitment to the development of professionality and a high trust culture in education.A second disadvantage of educational standardisation is that it takes away any luck for a plurality of opinions about good education. This is very much done through the construction of a quasi-consensus around an alleged common sense notion of what good education is. One popular edition of such a quasi-consensus is the idea that in order to wait competitive within the global knowledge prudence schools need to produce a highly-skilled workforce and then the most important task for schools is that of raising standards in English, learning and mathematics.While this story may sound appealing and many policy makers at national and supra-national level (such as the OECD) bet to believe it it is based on perplexing assumptions, for example because it assumes that in the knowledge economy we will all have complex jobs that require a high level of education, whereas i n reality those jobs are only available for a happy fewer and the bulk of jobs in many post-industrial societies is to be found in the low-skilled and low-paid service attention (and here we can, again, refer to MacDonalds, Starbucks, call-centres, and the like).Yet the problem with such 7 For more on this see Biesta (2004b). 6 constructions about what good education is, is not only that they are based upon questionable assumptions. The problem of stories that express a quasi-consensus about good education is also that they suggest that there is no alternative. It is, however, not too difficult to see that instead of economical competitiveness, we could also argue that as a society we should demo priority to care care for the elderly, care for the environment or to democracy and calm co-existence.Such priorities suggest a consummate(a) contrasting set of educational ar prevailments and articulate radically contrasting views about what good education force look like. My co ntribution to the discussion about what constitutes good education is not about suggesting alternative futures for education. Although this is important as well, I wish to enfold myself in this lecture to a more modest task, viz. that of presenting a fabric that might be helpful in asking more precise questions about what good education is or might be.My main point in suggesting this fashion model is to idiome that educational processes and practices serve a number of different kneads and purposes. This not only means that the answer to the question as to what constitutes good education is likely to be different in relation to the different go aways. By distinguishing between the different divisions it also becomes possible to explore the extent to which emphasising one function might interfere with the gauge of education in relation to one of the other functions.The framework can help, in other words, to think about cost and trade-offs of particular educational arrangements . Although the prevalent use of the word education much strives the impression that it refers to a single reality, education is actually a composite concept. This becomes clear when we ask what education is for. In answering this question I wish to suggest that education serves (at least) trine different functions.One important function of education has to do with fashioning, that is, with the ways in which education contributes to the acquisition of knowledge, skills and dispositions that turn us for doing something a doing which can range from the very specific (such as the tuition for a particular job) to the very general (such as in the case of liberal education). The might function is without doubt one of the major functions of organised education and is an important rationale for having state-funded education in the first place. The argument, as I have mentioned, is often an economic one, i. . , that people need knowledge and skills in order to become employable. But the acquisition of knowledge and skills is also important for other aspects of peoples lives. Here we can think, for example, of political literacy the knowledge and skills indispensable to exercise ones citizenship rights or cultural literacy the knowledge and skills considered to be necessary for functioning in society more generally. 8 A second function of education has to do with the ways in which, through education, individuals become part of alert socio-cultural, political and moral orders. This is the acculturation function of education. Schools partly engage in socialisation deliberately, for example, in the form of values education, character education, religious education or citizenship education, or, and this is more explicit at the level of colleges and universities, in relation to professional socialisation. Socialisation also happens in less visible ways, as has been made clear in the literature on the hidden curriculum and the role of education in the reproducti on of social ine caliber. It is, in What kind of knowledge and skills we need to function in society is, of course, a complicated matter.I do not have the space to go into this here, but see Biesta (2002). 8 7 other words, both an important function and an important effect of (engaging in) education. Whereas some would argue that education should only concentrate on on qualification this is often seen as the justification of the tralatitious school as place for the transmission and acquisition of knowledge and whereas others defend that education has an important role to play in the socialisation of children and boylike people, there is a third function of education which is different from both qualification and socialisation.This function has to do with the ways in which education contributes to the individuality or, as I prefer to call it for a number of philosophical reasons, the subjectification of children and young people. The individuality or subjectification functi on might perhaps best be understood as the opposite of the socialisation function. It is not about the insertion of newcomers into subsisting orders, but about ways of being that spark advance at independence from such orders ways of being in which the individual is not simply a specimen of a more encompassing order.It is, to put a big and complex concept against it, about the ways in which education makes a contribution to human independence. 9 Whether all education actually does contribution to identity is debatable. Some would argue that this is not needfully the case and that the actual influence of education can and should be confined to qualification and socialisation. Others would argue, however, that education always impacts on individuals and their modes and ways of being and that, in this sense, education always has an individuating effect. What matters more, however and here e need to shift the focus of the discussion from questions about the functions of educati on to questions about the aims and ends of education is the quality of individualization, i. e. , the question what forms of subjectivity are made possible in and through particular educational arrangements. It is in relation to this that some would argue and actually have argued that any education worthy of its name should always allow for forms of individuation and subjectification that allow those being educated to become more self-governing and independent in their thinking and acting.The feature between the cardinal functions of education, that is, between three areas in which education operates and has effects, can be helpful when we engage in discussions about what constitutes good education because it can make us aware of the fact that the question about good education is a composite question it consists of (at least) three different questions. An answer to the question what constitutes good education should therefore always specify its views about qualification, socia lisation and individuation even in the unlikely case that one would wish to argue that only one of them matters.To say that the question of what constitutes good education is a composite question, is not to suggest that the three dimensions of education can and should be seen as entirely separate. The contrary is the case. When we engage in qualification, we always also impact on socialisation and on individuation. Similarly, when we engage in socialisation, we always do so in relation to particular content and thereof link up with the qualification function and will have an impact on individuation.And when we engage in education that puts individuation first, we will 9 I wish to emphasise that the idea of freedom can be articulated in a range of different ways, from egocentric, self-obsessed freedom to do anything one wants to responsible, relational and difficult freedom to use a phrase form the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. 8 usually still do so in relation to particular cur ricular content and this will always also have socialising effects. The three functions of education an therefore best be represented in the form of a Venn-diagram, i. e. , as three overlapping areas, and the more sidelineing and important questions are actually about the intersections between the areas rather than the individual areas per se. The distinction between the three functions of education is not only important when we engage in discussions about the aims and purposes of education and the find and form of good education it can also be a helpful framework for analysing existing educational practices and policies.With regard to this I just want to make one brief observation which is that in many recent discussions about the hurl and form of education, particularly at the level of education policy, the discussion is shifting more and more towards the socialisation function of education. progressively discussions about the aims and ends of education try to describe the kin d of person that should be produced through education, rather than that the focus is on the things that should be learned as a result of engagement with education.A good example of this can be found in the Scottish syllabus for integrity which, although it refers to itself as a document about Curriculum, actually specifies the intended outcomes of education in terms of personal qualities and many of you in this room will be familiar with the 4 capacities that frame the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, effective contributors. 0 Although I generally welcome attempts to introduce new languages into the educational discussion as they allow us to see and do things differently, I do think that the shift towards socialisation such as expressed in the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence is worrying for two reasons. One is that by emphasising what students should be or become, questions about what they should know and be able to do become secondary. The danger here is, in other words, that we forget to pay adapted attention to the qualification function of education and thus might forget that in many cases and for many individuals knowledge is still power.The other reason why I think that the shift towards socialisation, towards the production of a particular kind of individual, is worrying, is that it gets us too far away from the individuation or subjectification function of education. It puts the emphasis too much on moulding individuals according to particular templates and provides too little opportunity for ways of being that question and challenge such templates. In my own research I have explored this issue particularly in relation to citizenship 11 .Here I have argued that the idea of responsible citizenship puts the emphasis too much on a-political forms of citizenship that are mainly confined to doing good whole works in the community, and provides too little opportunity for the acquisi tion of political literacy, the promotion of political activism and the development of political agency. Good education in the domain of citizenship should therefore not be about the production of amenable citizens through effective socialisation, but should also operate in the domain of individuation and 10The discipline Curriculum for England and Wales has lately adopted a similar language to articulate the aims of education for key stage 3 and 4. It is interesting to see, however, that they have included three of the tetrad Scottish capacities viz. , successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens but not that of effective contributors. See http//curriculum. qca. org. uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims/index. aspx accessed 1 March 2009 11 See, e. g. , Biesta & Lawy (2006) Biesta (2007b) Biesta (2008) Biesta (in pressb). subjectification by promoting forms of political agency that both contribute to and are able to question the existing social, cultural and politi cal order. From this angle it is perhaps significant that the word critical does not appear in any of the four capacities of the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. This brings me to my concluding remarks. Conclusions In this lecture I have move to make a case for good education. I have not done this by specifying what I think a good school, college or university should look like.What I have done instead is first of all to argue for the importance of the question of good education itself. I have argued, in other words, that in our discussions and deliberations about education we should acknowledge openly and explicitly that we are dealing with normative questions, and hence with questions that require value judgements. These are questions, in other words, that can not be resolved simply by having more information, more data, more knowledge or more research.Secondly I have argued that in order to address the question of good education properly we need to make sure that we have a voc abulary that is appropriate for what we are discussing. It is here that I have argued for the importance of an educational vocabulary rather than a vocabulary of learning. Thirdly, I have introduced a distinction between different functions and purposes of education that might help us to ask more precise questions and have more center discussions about what good education might look like.I see the importance of making the distinction between the three functions of education first and foremost in that it can help us to find a balance in our educational endeavours rather than to end up in one of the possible extremes. Just as an exclusive focus on qualification is problematic and I think that the damaging effects of such a focus are continuing to influence the lives of many students and teachers around the world I also think that an exclusive focus on socialisation is problematic and perhaps we are beginning to see some of the problems of such an approach as well.In all cases it belongs to my definition of good education that there is also sufficient attention to opportunities for individuation and subjectification so that education can persist to contribute to what the philosopher Michel Foucault has so aptly depict as the undefined work of freedom. eventually for me the question of good education does not stand on its own. I do believe that we are living in a time in which the question of goodness is one that we should ask about all our collective human endeavours.This is first of all important in the economic sphere, which is why I would argue that we desperately need to shift the discussion from questions about profitable banking to questions about good banking. It is also important in the domain of political relation and democracy, which means that there is also a need to engage with questions about what constitutes good politics and good democracy. The particular answers we give to these questions are perhaps slightly less important than our comm itment to seeing these questions for what they are viz. ormative questions and our commitment to a go along engagement with these questions, both in generating answers to the question as to what might constitute good education and by continuing to raise critical questions about such answers as well. Good education should at least enable and empower everyone to engage in such crucial deliberations about the shape, form and direction of our collective endeavours. Thank you. 10 References Biesta, G. J. J. (2002). How general can Bildung be? Reflections on the future of a modern educational ideal.British Journal of Philosophy of grooming 36(3), 377-390. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004a). Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. Nordisk Pedagogik 23, 70-82. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004b). genteelness, account statementability and the ethical demand. set up the elected potential of accountability be regained? educational Theory 54 (3), 233250. Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). beyond Learning Democratic commandment for a Human Future. Boulder, Co Paradigm Publishers. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007a). wherefore what works wont work.Evidence-based practice and the elective deficit of educational research. educational Theory 57(1), 1-22. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007b). Education and the democratic person Towards a political understanding of democratic education. Teachers College Record 109(3), 740-769. Biesta, G. J. J. (2008). What kind of citizen? What kind of democracy? Citizenship education and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. Scottish educational Review 40(2), 38-52. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good Education in an Age of Measurement.Educational Assessment, paygrade and Accountability 21(1), 33-46. Biesta, G. J. J. (in pressa). On the weakness of education. In D. Kerdeman et al. (eds), Philosophy of Education 2009. Biesta, G. J. J. (in pressb). What kind of citizenship for European high Education? beyond the adequate active citizen. European Educatio nal inquiry Journal 8(2). Biesta, G. J. J. & Lawy, R. S. (2006). From teaching citizenship to learning democracy. Overcoming individualisation in research, policy and practice.Cambridge Journal of Education 36(1), 63-79. Bogotch, I. , Miron, L & Biesta, G. (2007). Effective for What Effective for Whom? devil Questions SESI Should Not Ignore. In T. Townsend (ed), International handbook of School Effectiveness and School gain (93-110). Dordrecht/Boston Springer. GTCS (General Teaching Council for Scotland) (2000). The standard for charter teacher. Vanderstraeten, R. & Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). How is education possible? A pragmatist account of communication and the social organisation of education.British Journal of Educational Studies 54(2), 160-174. 11 lifespan Gert Biesta (1957) is Professor of Education at the Stirling be of Education and Visiting Professor for Education and Democratic Citizenship at Orebro and Malardalen University, Sweden. He is editor-in-chief of Studie s in Philosophy and Education, an international journal produce by Springer Science+ backing Media. Before joining Stirling in declination 2007 he worked at the University of Exeter (from 1999) and before that at several Universities in the Netherlands.He has a degree in Education from Leiden University, a degree in Philosophy from Erasmus University Rotterdam, and a PhD in Education from Leiden University (1992). From 1995-1997 he was a Spencer Post Doctoral Fellow with the National Academy of Education, USA. A major focus of his research is the relationship between education and democracy. His theoretical work focuses on different ways of understanding democracy, democratisation and democratic education, with particular attention to questions about educational communication both at the micro-level of classroom interaction and the macro-level of intercultural communication.He has also scripted about the philosophy and methodology of educational research, and the relationships bet ween educational research, educational policy and educational practice. His empirical research focuses on democratic learning of young people and adults, with a particular emphasis on democratic learning in everyday settings. He has a research interest in vocational education and long learning, democratic conceptions of the learning society, learning theories and theories of education, the professional learning of teachers, and the civic role of Higher Education.He has published widely in many national and international journals. fresh books include Derrida & Education (Routledge 2001 co-edited with Denise Egea-Kuehne) Pragmatism and Educational Research (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003 co-authored with Nicholas C. Burbules) Beyond learning. Democratic education for a human future (Paradigm Publishers, 2006 a Swedish translation, Bortom larandet Demokratisk utbildning for en mansklig framtid, was published by Studentlitteratur in 2006 a Danish translation will appear in 2009) upward(a ) learning cultures in Further Education (Routledge co-authored ith David James) an English and a German version of George Herbert Meads Lectures on Philosophy of Education (coedited with Daniel Trohler Verlag Julius Klinkhardt 2008 Paradigm Publishers 2008) Education, democracy and the moral life (Springer 2009 co-edited with Michael Katz ande Susan Verducci) Derrida, Deconstruction and the politics of pedagogy (Peter Lang 2009 co-authored with Michael A. Peters) Rethinking contexts for teaching and learning.Communities, activities and networks (Routledge 2009 coedited with Richard Edwards and Mary Thorpe). In 2008 his book Beyond Learning won the American Educational Studies Association Critics Choice Book Award. opposition details The Stirling Institute of Education, University of Stirling Stirling, FK9 4LA Scotland, UK e-mail gert. biestastir. ac. uk website www. gertbiesta. com 12 The Stirling Institute of Education University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA www. ioe. stir. ac. u k Scottish benignity Number SC 011159