In recent years, researchers in childhood studies have pushed forward a critical agenda of revising the founding concepts of the field, that is, voice, agency, and participation. This implies engaging in a dialogue with those theoretical strands which decenter the subject and dissect the production of knowledge. In line with these trends, in this article, I engage with the poststructuralist frame in order to highlight the notions of relationality and reflexivity. In particular, I speak in the first person in order to take the position of a ‘reflexive researcher’ who is open about her own positionality and for whom this openness is instrumental for reaching a better understanding of her own entanglements in the research encounters with childhoods (in plural). This article treats the question of power, and, simultaneously, it delves into the feeling of powerlessness and it ignites a discussion about the practicalities of ‘giving voice’ in research concerning children. Discussing my two diverse research experiences based on the participatory and collaborative approaches, both concerning my work with children and with adults, I speak about my critical engagements with knowledge production understood as a social practice from a standpoint of a field researcher.

This article examines participatory disability research through the lens of epistemic justice, drawing (among others) on Miranda Fricker’s concepts of testimonial and hermeneutic injustice. It highlights how participatory approaches empower marginalised groups, particularly people with disabilities, to overcome exclusion from knowledge production. The article emphasises the challenges of achieving epistemic justice, especially for individuals with cognitive impairments, and advocates for epistemic humility and collaborative, inclusive research practices. By addressing these issues, participatory disability research serves as both a critique and a corrective to traditional knowledge production, fostering more equitable and transformative outcomes.

Parental rights are the subject of heated deliberation and policy-making in local, state, and national governing bodies. These debates are characterized by powerful disagreements regarding the role of parents, schools, and the interests of children and adolescents. Parents’ rights conflicts, contributing to the polarization and mistrust of public schools more broadly, demand a more nuanced and complex rendering of parenting, particularly as it functions as an ethical domain. In this article, we seek to complicate understandings of parental rights by defining parenting as a practice – a socially recognized activity with normative standards and often associated with moral traditions. We describe parenting as a practice using the example of the education of LGBTQ+ students to explore justifications for, and limitations to parental rights claims. The practice of parenting establishes, and helps safeguard, the parental right to invite their children into their own cultural and religious ways of life. We argue that, while public schools in a liberal democracy should be largely neutral in regards to the varied parenting practices seen in US society, and honor the parental right to invite, these schools must simultaneously be preparing students with an education that enables them to exercise their rights to accept or decline their parents’ cultural norms and roles. Public schools thus should prepare students with an education that enables them, if needed, to exercise a corresponding right to decline the ways of life on offer by parents. While parents are key partners in the process, student’s educational interests are the ultimate focus of a public educational institution.

For decades, the term ‘school culture’ has been widely used in scholarly, policy, and popular discussions of education, school reform, and school leadership. Yet, school culture remains an abstract term, and different definitions abound. Moreover, important research on aspects of the school environment often does not fall under the purview of school culture research. Drawing from recent work in organizational sociology and cultural sociology, we develop a model that is both more expansive and more specified, accounting for different sources (formal, informal, environmental) and forms (meanings, practices) of school culture. This model views school culture as not only official and top-down but also as emergent and situated and highlights the role of alignment across key elements of a school’s culture. Examples from two very different schools – a ‘no excuses’ charter middle school and a ‘progressive’ high school – illustrate elements of the model and patterns of alignment/misalignment. This model can aid scholars, policymakers, and practitioners interested in understanding and, ultimately, improving school culture.

This article addresses the ethical dimensions of refugee education and the responsibilities of schools to more fully realize inclusive practices that respond meaningfully to the unique challenges posed by migration. Drawing on the Springfield City School District’s ongoing response to an influx of (im)migrant students, we develop two distinct analyses of the case to provide resources for educators and theorists alike to engage in informed ethical analysis that closely considers the realities of educational decision-making. In the first analysis, we argue that there are three duties incumbent upon school systems to fulfill with regard to newcomers: (1) to mitigate hierarchy for equal moral standing, (2) to provide quality education even at the cost of maximum achievement for all, and (3) to protect student physical and dignitary safety. Here we argue that on two accounts not all newcomers are owed the exact same – namely that the second duty of schools is specific to involuntary (im)migrants. Our second approach reveals further complexities in educational decision-making, identifying and evaluating three types of interventions implemented in the case in terms of their efficacy in promoting ‘educational goods’ as well as the extent to which they uphold the duties identified in our first analysis.

In this review I commend philosopher and author, Sarah Stitzlein, for forwarding her view of pragmatist inquiry – an honorable problem-solving pedagogical approach that requires a commitment to civic honesty and recognizes peoples’ lived experiences as valid sources of knowledge. The approach is timely and appealing because it facilitates the collaboration of citizens from across the political spectrum via the formation of publics within which members sincerely consider the lived experiences of diverse fellows in conjunction with relevant scientific findings to propose, enact, and evaluate solutions to societal problems. Although I believe the approach to be a promising one, within the review I advocate for the articulation of additional guidance for those who will facilitate students’ pragmatist inquiries. Specifically, I raise concern about the possibility that some facilitators’ long-held beliefs (e.g. individuals with a history of privileging scientifically unverifiable ‘truths’ over empirically supported ones) could shape students’ inquiries in ways counter to Stitzlein’s vision.

My book, Teaching Honesty in a Populist Era: Emphasizing Truth in the Education of Citizens (Oxford University Press, 2024), defines honesty and explains how it is both connected to truth and essential for a healthy democracy, especially during populist and polarized times. The book received the North American Association for Philosophy & Education Book Award. In my contribution to this symposium on the book, I respond to critics who celebrate and challenge how the book responds to current struggles in democracy and how my suggestions for improvement might be implemented in schools.

In her latest book, Deweyan scholar Sarah Stitzlein argues for a strong emphasis on honesty for a democracy to flourish. Writing for philosophers of education, schools, and educators, Stitzlein intersects honesty with pragmatic inquiry and then applies it as a democratic method to schools and schooling. As a seasoned practicing educator and a Deweyan philosopher of education, I read and analyzed the usefulness of Stitzlein’s text as an instrument , or tool, for improving contemporary education in the real world. While I raise several questions, I consider this book to be a wonderful instrument for assisting the development of more democratic classroom communities.

Teaching Honesty in a Populist Era argues for an education that emphasizes pragmatist inquiry and the habit of honesty, noting how such an education promotes a democratic way of life. I examine this argument through Byung-Chul Han’s lens of the ‘erosion of the other’. When viewed through Han’s lens, other-regarding honesty and pragmatist inquiry are difficult to get off the ground as the formation of publics is hindered by the erosion of the other. I conclude that place-based education may be a way of accounting for this to develop an education suited for our current times.

In Teaching Honesty in a Populist Era , Sarah Stitzlein identifies America’s recent ideological shift toward populism as the root of our crisis in truth and honesty. At the classroom level, Stitzlein proposes the pedagogical approach ‘pragmatist inquiry’, which she argues will resolve the contradictions between rational and emotional notions of truth and put Americans on a path toward authentic, collective truth-seeking. While we see value in pragmatist inquiry, we pose alternative approaches for teachers tackling populism in the post-truth epoch.