This is a reply to six Theory and Research in Education commentators on views I expressed in a 2013 Theory and Research in Education piece about priorities in philosophy of education today. The first section is about a concession to my critics; the second, about various misconceptions in their views. The third section restates my central thesis in favour of a more practical conception of philosophy of education than is now common. The argument is set against the background of historical changes in the subject over the past half century.
BiestaG (2014) Is philosophy of education a historical mistake? Connecting philosophy and education differently. Theory and Research in Education12(1): 65–76.
2.
CuypersS (2014) The power and limits of philosophy of education. Theory and Research in Education12(1): 54–64.
3.
HoweK (2014) Philosophy of education and other education sciences. Theory and Research in Education12(1): 77–87.
4.
LavertyM (2014) Conceiving education: The creative task before us. Theory and Research in Education12(1): 109–119.
5.
RuitenbergC (2014) ‘Plays well with others’: The engagement of philosophy of education with other educational research. Theory and Research in Education12(1): 88–97.
6.
SiegelH (2014) John White on philosophy of education and philosophy. Theory and Research in Education12(1): 120–127.
7.
WhiteJ (2013) Philosophy, philosophy of education and economic realities. Theory and Research in Education11(3): 294–303.
