| This study focuses attention on two related issues: (1) the incorrect application of Marxist philosophy by some contemporary neo-Marxist educational theorists, and (2) the impact of this incorrect application on the theoretical relationship between Marxist philosophy and education. In the investigation of these issues, the central point of interest is primarily on earlier Marxist philosophy and support of the claim of continuity between the early Marx and the later Marx.;Given a system of schooling, one can identify at least three constitutive elements: (1) the intended function and/or accepted justification for schooling, (2) the structure or form utilized in fulfilling that function, and (3) the curricular content taken to be compatible with and supportive of that function and justification. There is a complex relationship among the three and one cannot simply argue for changes in one without recognizing this relationship and also arguing for changes in the other two as well.;One implication of this study involves the "rising tide" of supposedly worthy educational reports, especially as they address the issue of curricular content. Such reports fail to recognize the complex interaction among the three constitutive elements of the system of schooling cited.;While claiming to offer new and innovative reforms, the reforms or changes suggested continue to support a primarily utilitarian, economic justification for schooling. The call for a return to basics, or in the case of A Nation at Risk the establishment of the "New Basics" and the implementation of competency testing, can be understood as an attempt to reinforce the traditional capitalist division of labor.;After extensive examination and interpretation of text material related to the first issue, a number of implications for schooling are drawn.;This dissertation suggests also the necessity for re-examination of the first element of schooling identified. The social organicism of Marxist philosophy, if taken to be desirable, indicates that the currently-dominant economic and utilitarian justification for compulsory schooling is, at best, inadequate.;Finally, it is suggested that very similar philosophical positions are to be found in comparing the work of Marx with that of John Dewey. |
