1、本科畢業設計（論文）外文翻譯原文：Education for social justice: provocations and challengesArguably one of the central purposes, if not the central purpose, of education in the United States is to help students develop the knowledge, habits, skills, anddispositions necessary for democratic citizenship. These include

2、 learning to thinkcritically, to participate in public dialogue, to consider the rights and needs ofothers, to live in harmony with diverse groups of people, to act on important social issues, to be accountable for ones choices and decisions, and to work to bring about the conditions in which all in

3、dividuals can develop to their fullest capacities and potential. According to Michael Apple and James Beane, democratic societies depend on a variety of important foundations: we create the conditions for a free exchange of ideas, even when these ideas are unpopular, thus allowing us to make fully i

4、nformed decisions; we have faith in our fellow citizens and in our ability to work collaboratively with them to solve problems and to imagine more enriching possibilities for living together; we employ habits of critical thinking, reflection, and analysis to assess ideas and options instead of relyi

5、ng on narrow prejudices, uninformed opinions, and personal biases; and we are all concerned with the rights of individuals, the treatment of minorities, the welfare of both intimate and distant others, and, ultimately, the advancement of the common good. Social justice is an integral feature of demo

6、cratic life, as democratic societies are, at least in the ideal, just societies. They strive for equity, self-determination, and freedom. They educate students to become just citizens, who are, as Walter Parker notes, principled and compassionate, who refrain from harming or exploiting others, and w

7、ho believe it is their duty both to protect just institutions and to prevent injustice. A significant tradition within educational theory foregrounds the concerns of democracy and social justice in how we conceptualize the purposes and goals of schooling. We see this most notably with the social rec

8、onstructionists in the first part of the twentieth century, and more recently in the work of critical pedagogues, cultural studies practitioners, and antiglobalization activists. As early as 1932, George Counts was imploring educators to work toward building a new social order, one where we took ser

9、iously the idea that democracy is more than simply procedural, it is moreover a sentiment with respect to the moral equality of men and women and the aspiration towards a society in which this sentiment will find complete fulfillment. Similarly, John Dewey argued that a democracy is more than a form

10、 of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. His vision of democracy involves genuine communion, dialogue, give and take, the sharing of ideas and experiences, and the involvement of individuals in cooperative undertakings.More recently, the educa

11、tional traditions that have most consciously addressed issues of democracy and social justice are critical pedagogy, cultural studies, and what might loosely be called antiglobalization movements. These traditions are often overlapping and interpenetrating, sharing as they do a broad commitment to t

12、he alleviation of suffering around the world. Critical pedagogues argue that schooling should fundamentally be about individual growth and social transformation; what we do in classrooms should be connected to efforts to challenge social inequalities and to build a better society. Peter McLaren make

13、s this point succinctly, arguing that critical pedagogy is founded on the conviction that schooling for self and social empowerment is ethically prior to a mastery of technical skills. He adds that while critical pedagogy represents a variety of theoretical traditions and ideas, its advocates are un

14、ited in their objectives: to empower the powerless and transform existing social inequalities and injustices. Practitioners of cultural studies of education often draw heavily from the insights of critical pedagogy in calling for education that is critical, interventionist, transformative, and parti

15、san. Henry Giroux writes that like critical pedagogy, cultural studies is largely concerned with the relationship among culture, knowledge, and power. Through understanding this relationship, we can take more conscious control over our educational practices and create approaches that help students t

16、o challenge instrumental rationality, to develop social responsibility and moral agency, and to take seriously the role of schooling in the cultivation of democracy. Most recently, critical educators have turned their attention to challenging the negative effects of globalization, particularly its m

17、anifestation in a celebration of the free market and the concurrent expansion of global capitalism. They worry that market-driven imperatives are increasingly directing educational decision making and that the needs of individuals have been overshadowed, and even sacrificed, in a narrowminded pursui

18、t of economic profits.Critical pedagogy, cultural studies, and antiglobalization, along with other Similar leftist educational movements and traditions, share a belief that issues of education and social justice are fundamentally related. They agree that schools play a crucial role in helping us bot

19、h to imagine the kind of society we want to live in and to bring our visions into existence. In many ways, they adopt a social justice framework in relation to education. Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton offer that a social justice perspective toward education does three things. First, it asks us to

20、uncover, examine, and critique the values and politics that undergird educational decisions and practices, even as we also explore the more instrumental issues of organizing curriculum and instruction. Second, it compels us to challenge educational common sense and to ask important questions about w

21、hy we do that things we do in schools and who benefits from them. Third, it calls for us to attend to the ways in which schooling often contributes to the creation, maintenance, and reproduction of inequalities, particularly along lines of race, class, gender, language, sexual orientation, and other

22、 such categories, ultimately so we can construct more empowering alternatives. The central goal of social justice education is full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. In a just society, there is an equitable distribution of resources, good

23、s, services, and opportunities. People are treated as ends in themselves, with the ability to determine their own life goals in interdependent relationship with the people around them. They are not used for other peoples benefit. Consistent with democratic values, they have a sense of their own agen

24、cy as well as a sense of social responsibility toward and with others and the society as a whole. While there have always been educators calling for a social justice approach toward education, this vision has never been the dominant one. This is especially true in our current climate, where teachers

25、 are increasingly asked to focus on a very narrow set of goals, in particular, raising standardized test scores. Presumably, high test scores show that schools are publicly accountable and give us confidence that American students will be competitive in the global marketplace. In the past decade, te

26、aching and learning have become standardized at a seemingly relentless pace, while students are tested more frequently than ever before. Deborah Meier maintains that we are witnessing a radical redefinition of the task of public education, driven by the widespread belief that by focusing our attenti

27、on on externally imposed tests we can both produce higher achievement and restore public trust in our schools. This almost exclusive attention to raising tests scores has numerous problematic consequences that have been well documented. For example, too much focus on testing leads to narrowed curric

28、ula, where teaching is seen as little more than test preparation; compromises in students intrinsic motivation to learn and challenge themselves, as they are rewarded for correct answers, not complex, critical thinking; and diminishment in the richness of learning, particularly when funding is diver

29、ted away from supposedly nonessential programs in such areas as art, music, and physical education. To challenge this trend toward standardization, as well as to bring more attention to alternative democratic, social justiceoriented visions for schooling, we need a more powerful and strident discour

30、se coming from the educational left, one that can help us to coalesce diverse movements for social justice, as well as provide impetus and vision (theory and practice) for progressive educational change. Three recent edited collections in critical educational thought can help us realize these goals.

31、 In Promises to Keep: Cultural Studies, Democratic Education, and Public Life, Greg Dimitriadis and Dennis Carlson bring together insights drawn from critical theory, cultural studies, pragmatism, postmodernism, democratic education, and popular culture to offer a potential starting point for cobbli

32、ng together something like a strategically unified progressive vision of what education can and should beone that emerges out of dialogue among and between various movements and discourses of democratic education and public life. The authors in Nadine Dolby and Greg Dimitriadis Learning to Labor in

33、New Times further develop these insights as they revisit Paul Williss classic text, Learning to Labor, and consider the ways in which his reflections on the reproduction of social class still speak to our current era. Putting alternative, progressive educational visions into practice is one of the c

34、entral goals of Francisco Ibanez-Carrasco and Erica R. Meiners Public Acts: Disruptive Readings on Making Curriculum Public, a book that began as an attempt to collect articles from activist educators, researchers, and artists who are involved in local projects for social change.”Taken together, the

35、se three books provide a number of resources for education that foregrounds issues of social justice and democracy. In particular, they help to enrich progressive educational discourse, and they also provide concrete visions for alternative educational practice. The authors in all three edited colle

36、ctions under review implicitly and explicitly take up the central theme of what it means to foreground social justice issues in greatest strength of these books is to offer a number of varied and compelling visions of how educators live out their commitments to progressive educational and social cha

37、nge, both theoretically and practically. These visions help to unsettle that which we take for granted, and they inspire readers to imagine more fully the democratic possibilities of education, especially when democracy is conceived as a way of life “in which people are always engaged in a form of s

38、elfeducation through public dialogue and debate, guestioning their beliefs and staying open to new ways of thinking about what is good and just”. Yet, despite the richness of many of these individual visions, not mush ties them together or really helps to bridge the distance between leftist educatio

39、nal discourse that share similar concerns but do not often seem to speak to each other. As a result, readers are left more with fragments and provocations than with holistic ideas. Readers already well versed in education for social justice may find themselves inspired by at least some of these frag

40、ments, yet they are also likely to be left wanting: wanting something more something that speaks across traditions, that offers more concrete tools and directions, and that represents collaborative dialogue across progressive theories.Yet in the end I think this promise mostly goes unfulfilled. Perh

41、aps this is limitation of edited collections in general, where criteria for inclusion may be quite broad. Throughout my reading of these books, I longed for the authors to engage each other and, even more, to works together to respond to and challenge the very unprogressive educational times in whic

42、h we live. They do this at moments, but these moments are rarely sustained. Moreover, with the exception of some of the introductory comments, there is little sense of urgency about responding to the unjust and undemocratic times in which we live. Part of the reason the conservative right is so succ

43、essful is that it does indeed speak in a largely unified voice. It is a voice that appeals to common sense and is seductively simplistic. Strategically, they have a rhetoric that seems to work, at least in education, where progressive visions are losing ground to calls for increased standardization,

44、 accountability, predictability, and control. In this climate, the need for a more unified progressive vision is increasingly vital.Source: Kathy Hytten, Educational Theory; Vol. 56 Issue 2, May2006, p221-236譯文：社會公平教育:挑釁和挑戰可以說是中心目的之一，如果不是中心目的，美國教育的目的是幫助學生發展知識、興趣、技能和作為民主公民的部署需要。這些包括學習進行批判性的思考、參與公共對話、

45、考慮權利和他人的需要、和不同群體的人和諧相處、扮演重要的社會角色、為自己的選擇和決定負責任，并密切合作，為每個人能發揮出最大的能力和潛力而努力創造條件。根據邁克爾和詹姆斯比恩的觀點，民主社會建立在各種重要的基礎上：我們為能自由交換意見和想法創造條件，即使有些想法不是主流意見，也能容許我們做出完全明智的決定；我們相信我們的公民，盡我們的能力和他們一起工作來解決問題，為了你能一起生活想象更多的可能性；我們使用習慣的批判性的去思考、分析和評估想法和選擇，而不是去依靠狹窄的偏見、無知的意見。我們都關心個人的權利、少數族群的處理、親密的人和遠距離的人的福利，并且最終推進公共利益。社會公正是民主生活中不可

46、缺少的，至少是民主的社會理想。他們爭取公平、自主、自由等。他們教導學生，使他們變成真正的公民。沃爾特·帕克說到，“原則和同情心，誰都避免不了傷害或利用別人，那些有責任的人都會保持原則以及防止不公平。”教育理論中重要的傳統讓我們在構思目的和目標的時候關注民主和社會公平。我們看到這個最明顯體現在二十世紀的第一段時間的社會改革中，而最近的是體現在好為人師者們、文化研究工作者、以及激進分子們的工作當中。早在1932年，喬治希望教育工作者朝著建立一個新的社會秩序而奮斗，在這樣的社會里，我們認為民主不僅僅只是一個程序，這是另外一個“對人人【包括女人】平等的情感尊重”和“在渴望走向這樣的社會里，這

47、種情緒會得到完整的滿足”。 同樣，約翰杜威認為：一個民主國家，不僅僅是政府的形式，它首先是一種模式，是一種交流經驗的結合。”他認為的民主是真正的交流、對話、給予和索取、共享思想和經驗，個人的參與和合作的事業。最近，教育傳統有意識地解決問題中最具有民主和社會正義的是批判教育學、文化研究和一些文化運動。這些傳統，往往是相互重疊和相互滲透的，告訴我們，他們為減輕世界各地的痛苦做了廣泛的承諾。關鍵的教育家認為，學校教育根本上的目標是關于個人的成長和社會轉型;我們應致力于挑戰社會不平等現象，并建立一個更美好的社會課堂。彼得麥克拉倫簡明扼要地說明了這一點，認為''批判教育學是建立在堅信教育

48、授權給自身和社會是在掌握技能之前的。''他還說，雖然是一個重要的教學和理論傳統思想，其主張“統一于自己的目標：授權給沒有能力的人和改造現有的社會不平等和不公正現象'”的教育文化研究的實施者通常借助批判教育學呼喚教育公平的觀點是至關重要的。亨利寫到，像吉魯批判教育學那樣，''文化研究主要是根據各文化、知識與權力的關系。''通過了解這種關系，我們可以采取更自覺的教育實踐對我們的控制和創造，幫助學生理性的挑戰，發展社會責任和道德機制，以及在民主培養中發揮教育的作用。最近，批判教育工作者把注意力轉向了全球化的挑戰，特別是在“自由的”市場得到歡迎，

49、而卻對全球資本主義擴張的表現產生抵制的時候。他們擔心，以市場為導向的趨勢日益指引教育決策和個人的需要，個人狹隘主義者一味追求經濟利益，以致被蒙蔽雙眼。批判教育學、文化研究、反全球化，以及其他類似的左派運動和傳統教育，擁有同樣一個信念，即教育和社會公正在根本上是相關的。他們一致認為，學校在幫助我們構想我們想要生活的那種社會以及帶給我們的存在感的愿望上扮演著重要角色。在許多方面，他們在教育上采取一種社會正義的框架。珍妮馬丁奧克斯和利普頓提出一個社會教育公正的角度對教育所做的三件事情。首先，它要求我們去發掘、檢查和批判價值觀和政治的決定和做法，甚至我們還去探索對組織課程和教學有幫助的問題。其次，它迫使我們去挑戰教育的常識，并詢問我們為什么做我們在學校里做的事情以及誰從中獲得了利益。第三，它要求我們學會處理的方法，使學校教育能有助于建立、維護和不平等的再生產，尤其是沿著種族、階級、性別、語言、性取向和其他等類別的趨勢發展，最終使我們可以興建更多賦有權力的替代品。社會正義教育的核心目標是“所有參與的社會群體能夠獲得他們的需要。''在一個公正的社會里，資源、商品和機會能夠被公平的分配。人們被視為目的的本身，他們需要有一種通過與周圍人的關系來達成他們人生目標的能力。他們不使用其他人的利益。與民主價值觀相一致，他們''有他們自己的機構意識以及社會責