Volume 10, Number 1 (2015) 10th Year Anniversary Issue


Welcome to our 10th Year Anniversary Issue and the first issue to be published exclusively on our new website.  We have now completed the transfer of our nine earlier volumes to this site. 

For our anniversary issue, we invited authors to define their own controversy. We have divided the articles in this issue into two categories:

1. Articles that have continued a conversation that was first conducted in various past issues.
2. Articles that open up a new conversation.

One of our authors, Nel Noddings, published an article in our very first issue and has followed up with her most recent thinking in an article for our 10th Year Anniversary issue.  It represents the kind of continuing conversation we are seeking in this journal. 

We will continue to place accepted manuscripts to this site incrementally and delay closing the issue for now.  Watch for additional articles.


Continuing the Conversation


Critical Thinking
Nel Noddings
Vol. 10, Iss. 1


Grit: A Short History of a Useful Concept
Ethan W. Ris
Vol. 10, Iss. 1

Engaging a New Conversation



Crowding New Public Management Off the University’s Horizon of Expectations
Michael Schapira
Vol. 10, Iss. 1

Theme: Rejoinder to Asger Sorensen


In previous issues of the Journal of Educational Controversy, we have defined a contemporary controversy and asked our authors to examine the issue.   For our 10th year anniversary issue, we have decided to have an open issue where authors can define their own controversy.  We asked authors to use the following outline:

1.Define an educational controversy – formal or informal education, K-12, college or university, adult education, secular or religious education, or larger philosophical issues in the educational ethos of a society or a culture.  The issue can be a contemporary one or a perennial one that is revisited.
2.Explain the significance of the problem.
3.Provide an historical and philosophical framework for the controversy.
4.Lay out the different arguments surrounding the controversy.
5.Examine the underlying assumptions and resulting implications of the different positions.
6.Provide suggestions to resolve the issues raised and provide supporting arguments.

We remind authors that we publish controversies that are deeply embedded in our conceptual frameworks. The journal tries to distinguish between surface controversies and latent or depth controversies. For example, schools engage students in controversies all the time and are embedded themselves in controversies. Most of these controversies engage us in disagreements on a surface level. That is not to say that these discussions are unimportant – only that they take place with assumptions that remain unstated and beliefs that remain largely hidden or submerged. The journal tries to go deeper by examining the very frameworks in which all these surface controversies arose – to get at our underlying assumptions and beliefs.