Or, is there a level of substance to his arguments that could actually give credence to the belief that the soul lives on long after our physical self has perished? Plato wasn’t the only philosopher or academic to long for an answer to one of life’s great metaphysical mysteries.

Plato’s arguments for the immortality of the soul are dependent on his belief in the Forms which he also believes emanate from God. While one cannot dispute whether or not the Forms exist, one can also not refute Plato’s absolute belief in God. There is no proof either for, or against the existence of a Supreme Being in the universe. However, we do know that almost every culture and every major religion also believe in this Being’s existence. Swinburne notes that Plato believed in the idea of the soul and the body as separate and therefore one is not contingent upon the other. This empowers Plato to theorize that the soul lives on in a separate existence. He describes Plato’s argument in the following way:

We only know of things ceasing to exist when they have parts; and they cease to exist only when the parts are separated from each other. A house ceases to exist when the bricks are taken away from each other. But the soul has no parts, and so we know of nothing which in the normal course of things would cause it to cease to exist, barring divine intervention. So it is reasonable to suppose that it is naturally immortal (Swinburne 1).

Yet Swinburne proceeds to refute Plato’s argument based on the theory of parts. His primary example is atoms which cease to exist when they’re transformed into energy. But, this is an argument based on a scientific reality (and one borne out of late 20^th century knowledge). However, Plato hardly makes a case for immortality based on scientific knowledge but rather philosophical deduction. In Phaedo he writes; “That soul, I say, herself invisible, departs to the invisible world—to the divine and immortal and rational…” (66). In this quote, Plato uses the first argument which is called the Opposites Argument or the Cyclical Argument. The soul is the opposite of the body and while the body must die and decompose, the soul does not. In other words, as the body must inevitably perish, the soul does not because it is the body’s exact opposite. This sounds rather like an ‘other-worldly’ explanation at first. However, if one examines the physical world there are indeed opposites for practically every element and every kind of being. As such, Plato argues that humans themselves contain inherent opposites as well.

His second argument is based on something he called The Theory of Recollection. This theory suggests that we have non-empirical or non-factual knowledge that comes to us by way of the immortality of the soul. “They include the argument (Phaedo 73a–78a; Meno 81b–86b) that humans know many things and have many concepts which they have not learned or acquired on earth” (Swinburne 3). This ‘knowledge’ which comes to us is part of Plato’s theory of the Forms and is also dependent on his theory of the Form. “Our souls contain traces of knowledge (episteme) of the immortal Forms, because they experienced them before being born into the body. We largely forgot what we experienced before birth, but certain events can nevertheless awaken reminiscent traces of the memory” (Keyes & Weber 43).

To some degree, Plato’s Affinity Argument is very much like his Cyclical Argument. This one also assumes or deduces that for everything that exists there is something that is very much unlike it. If there is corporeal form then there are non-corporeal forms and if something can be visible, then something can be invisible. The Argument from the Form of Life argues that all things emanate from the Forms. So, once again Plato’s argument for immortality of the soul returns to this notion of the Forms.

In an analysis of Plato’s arguments, one researcher suggests that it’s possible to deconstruct the first argument, the Cyclical Argument, as being less of provable hypothesis than wishful thinking on Plato’s part. “But since SD (substantive dualism) concludes merely that the soul can exist when the body is destroyed, it provides only a basis for hope that the soul continues to exist after the demise of the body…” (Pakaluk 108).  Pakaluk goes on to suggest that Plato’s entire argument is also very much dependent on the first theory, that of substantive dualism. If there is no duality and there is no separation of soul and body then there is no chance for immortality of the soul. Therefore, he bases the crux of his own analysis on that particular aspect of Plato’s argument. “It is clear that Plato intended the provisional conclusion of SD to serve

as the context of the three initial arguments” (Pakaluk 109).

Pakaluk makes a very good argument. The burden of proof is actually on Plato to provide us with some kind of de facto evidence that there is a separation of body and soul. In fact, Plato’s argument is not only dependent on this notion of separation but the very existence of the soul itself. Plato’s argument for the immortality of the soul is not so much an argument per se but rather a thesis that is an extension of the very nature of Greek philosophy at the time.

For the Greeks, the soul is what gives life to the body. Plato thought of it as a thing separate from the body. A human living on earth consists of two parts, soul and body. The soul is the essential part of the human – what makes me me. It is the part to which the mental life of humans pertains – it is the soul which thinks and feels and chooses (Swinburne 1)

Swinburne raises an essential point here. To a large degree, Greek philosophy and by extension the work of Plato is the result of the desire to prove the existence of a human soul. In this process, they attributed many of the positive aspects of life such as beauty and justice as proof of the soul’s existence. They simply could not imagine that humans could produce such exquisite and important contributions without the notion that our soul is responsible for empowering us to do so. This overall desire to believe in the soul extends to the manner in which Greek philosophers seek to describe it. The body which in many ways is utilitarian and (of course) subject to illness and decay seemed to them, the very opposite of creations such as art, music and poetry. In a very practical way, the Greek society of Plato’s time wanted and needed to believe that some force that was the opposite of a decaying body was therefore responsible for beauty in this world. The notion of a soul and an immortal one fit into their ideas very well.

For Plato, however, the idea of substantive dualism was absolutely essential. There had to be something the very opposite of the body and that was, of course, the soul. “So we should regard SD, strictly, not as a passage which merely precedes the three initial arguments, but rather as that which frames them and sets them off, providing their context” (Pakaluk 109). Augustine suggests Plato’s long-held desire to prove the immortality of the soul is a common one throughout history. He calls it the dilemma of the mind-body connection. In fact, myriads of books, lectures, conferences, workshops and films have been devoted to trying to understand just how the mind and body do connect and if in fact humans have a soul. “Belief in survival in the form of disembodied minds presupposes that people possess an immaterial, nonspatial substance which constitutes the personality” (Augustine par.7).

In light of the scientific information we have today about how the brain functions some might suggest it is a difficult leap to accept Plato’s argument. However, even the world of science fails to explain everything. For example, there is the phenomenon of the near-death experience in which people who have temporarily been declared dead on the operating table have all experienced a similar encounter with a white light and seeing long-lost relatives. There is also the phenomenon known as the out of body experience in which people see themselves having a heart attack, or watch as they’re being operated on in the hospital. These two phenomena do not include the entire branch of psychology that investigates the world of the paranormal which claims to have proof that there is some form of existence beyond death. Are all of these just more examples of wishful thinking? Is it the fact of our mortality that drives us to these philosophical and psychological investigations that will somehow give us proof of the existence of a soul which survives our corporeal demise?

Augustine quotes Bertrand Russell who famously commented on his own thoughts about immortality.

Nevertheless, we cannot base our beliefs on what we want to be true; the truth can only be found by weighing the evidence for a given idea. In the case of immortality, the extinction hypothesis is supported by strong and incontrovertible evidence from the hard experimental data of physiological psychology, whereas the survival hypothesis is supported at best by weak and questionable anecdotal evidence from parapsychology (Augustine par. 24).

He also presents extensive evidence to debunk both near death and out of body experiences. Augustine suggests that these are not factual or scientific evidence but rather random parapsychological, non-scientific investigations.

Keyes and Weber also suggest that Plato’s arguments while nicely written and a valid form of philosophical deduction prove absolutely nothing. They are theoretical at best and at their worst, they are musings of someone who dearly wanted to believe in immortality but never proved it. Swinburne points out the distinct pattern in philosophical thinking by noting that Aquinas came to the same conclusion as Plato because he wanted to. “Aquinas appealed to the fact that humans naturally desire to exist forever and that ‘it is impossible that natural appetite should be in vain’ (Summa contra gentiles II, 79.6). Yet it is far from obvious why that is impossible” (Swinburne 3).

With this quote, Swinburne arrives at the heart of the matter. Human beings want to exist beyond the boundaries of death. The thought of our bodies decaying in the cold ground century after century with the proof of our existence fading away after time is not one we generally like to consider. It is a dark reality and one that causes many anxious-ridden nights for some who cannot comprehend it. Therefore, it is quite possible that Plato was simply no different than the rest of us mere mortals. His words have survived him centuries after his death and in that sense, Plato is indeed immortal. But, it is not his soul we remember but rather his life’s work which inspires philosophers in our own time to take up the same cause.

Still, Plato’s arguments come down to two irrevocable facts. First, there is absolutely no proof that human beings even have a soul. That which Plato and other philosophers have dubbed ‘the soul’ may be merely the synapses firing and neurotransmitters relaying messages inside our brain. Once the brain no longer functions the very core of our existence likely dies with it. Plato, like many others in his own time, and like some in our time, desperately wanted to believe that humans have a soul. In a way, this makes us more human. The idea of a soul is a beautiful one. It somehow decreases the reality of all the negativity in our world. The fact that human beings could have a soul means we are not merely just another animal walking the earth in the long evolutionary history of this plant. It means we have purpose. There is perhaps nothing more compelling to us than our lives have real meaning and we are not simply an evolutionary mistake.

No matter how compelling and how beautiful this notion is, Plato does not prove it. He provides an interesting series of deductions. But, at the end of his arguments, Plato only proves what he already believes. He does not demonstrate any factual evidence for the existence of a soul, or for the existence of God for that matter, which is also an integral part of his arguments. Plato merely proves that he sees the world in a highly specific way and that he is a product of his times.

Swinburne argues that neither Eastern nor Western religions offer any proof for the existence of a soul. Eastern religions base their belief on the notion of reincarnation, an idea which has no proof in scientific fact. Western religions base the belief of the soul on the existence of God, which although a wonderful idea also has no proof in science. He arrives at the following conclusion: “In any case, none of the empirical evidence by itself gives any reason at all for supposing the subsequent existence to be everlasting” (Swinburne 5).

The aspect of Plato’s argument which I feel does not stand up to scrutiny is that of his notion of substantive dualism. On the one hand I agree that for many elements in this world there is something that is its exact opposite. However, there are also many elements which do not have an opposite. Perhaps this is a conclusion I can arrive at because I live in the early part of the 21^st century and I have the advantage of centuries of scientific research which Plato did not. Therefore, I think that one need not necessarily be harsh with Plato for coming to that conclusion. At the time he lived, science was still very much in its infancy. We take this scientific knowledge for granted today, but Plato could not. Therefore, one could perhaps easily assume that for everything that exists there is it’s exact opposite.

There is perhaps another reason why Plato came to this conclusion. On a scientific basis, we do know that for ever action in the universe there is its opposite reaction. Perhaps, on some level, Plato was thinking in this regard. In other words, the knowledge that we have a corporeal body that lives and dies in a certain way might also have its exact opposite in a soul which lives on forever.

Another reason I think Plato came to this conclusion is because of the times he wrote in. I believe that to a large degree, all philosophers, scientists and writers are a product of their society. They write within the cultural context they are familiar with and in light of the knowledge that is available to them at the time. Plato is no different in this way. In the Greek society of his day, the notion of the soul was one which people hung on to just as they did with other ‘facts’ which we now know are untrue. They believed in a pantheon of gods and it’s safe to say with a high degree of assurance these gods never existed. Still, they were an integral part of the society in which Plato lived. Thus, he took what he ‘knew to be true’ at the time and formulated his opinions based on that knowledge. I think it is highly likely that if Plato lived today, he would arrive at a much different conclusion.

In the end, I find myself in agreement with Swinburne and Augustine. I do not think that Plato makes a believable argument for the immortality of the soul. However, I do feel that I understand the passion for this endeavor. Life is difficult enough without thinking of our own mortality. Then there is the inexplicable reality that so many people struggle so hard and it seems almost unfair. Take the example of children who live for only a few years then die from a disease such as terminal cancer. We sit back and ask why? Then, as we contemplate the unthinkable, that a young child’s life seems as if it was for naught, we find ourselves thinking back to ideas such as those of Plato – the immortality of the soul. We comfort ourselves with this idea. The child’s soul lives on. Their soul somehow extends into the universe and reattaches itself to another body or lives on in another plane of existence. It is as if we have to believe in these ideas to comfort ourselves and steel ourselves against such loss and tragedy.

Yet, for all of his ability to provide a seemingly logical sequence of deductions, there is nothing in the arguments provided by Plato that I find compelling enough to agree with him. On a personal level, I want to. But that is emotion. On the practical, academic level, I cannot. He has not convinced me. I think in the end, he has merely convinced himself and if so, then perhaps his work was meaningful after all, because it likely comforted him as he faced his own mortality.

However, even though I disagree with Plato’s conclusions, I think it is important to give him his ‘due’ for the complex nature of his philosophical discourse. Given the information he had at the time and the low level of knowledge about the body and the way it works, Plato was a formidable philosophical force. It is a measure of the brilliance of his ideas, whether we agree with them or not, that we continue learn and write about them even today in the 21^st century. I think it is safe to suggest that although his body left us a long time ago, in many ways his mind lives on.

The United Kingdom is culturally diverse and this is an additional and salient factor within the larger issue of urban schooling. It has also been suggested that a school is, in itself also a cultural phenomenon. There are modes of behaviour, rules to follow, expectations, means of survival and success, a hierarchy and a value system. Another factor is the differing needs of the students themselves. Even without the presence of a learning disability or special need, students do assimilate and understand information differently. Teachers today, face the difficult task of taking these needs into account and adjusting lesson plans accordingly. Finally, there are always regional and national standards to be adhered to. 

     Urban schools are not only about the schools themselves, but also the communities in which they exist. To some degree, these communities maintain a symbiotic relationship with their schools. The schools rely on the communities to support them and take an interest in the education of Britain’s youth, while the communities look to the schools to create generations of educated youth prepared to take on leadership roles in the coming years. Schools are also responsible for identifying and dealing with barriers to children’s education in the urban environment. 

     For many schools, this is a distinct challenge as many of their students may come from impoverished homes, backgrounds of abuse and other personal difficulties. In addition, schools may lack the funding to create and initiate the programs they believe can empower their specific student population. According to a report by the National College for School Leadership states that school leadership in the UK must address six specific issues. These are adopting an optimistic attitude and refusing to give up on finding solutions to even the most difficult problems, build capacity within their school and rotate responsibilities, adopt and maintain a vision for the school, be a constant and active force of encouragement – seek higher benchmarks and goals whenever possible, ensure teachers have everything they need to do their job in the classroom and minimalize risk by taking the blame for school mistakes.

     To understand and analyze the challenges in the urban school is to first acknowledge the power of the school itself. It is an environment that provides young people with their primary force of socialization for twelve years of their lives. It is during these formative years that children learn how to socialize, understand and analyze information, identify and strive for constant and changing goals and arrive at an understanding of who they are in this world. One of the primary challenges to those schools that exist in communities designated as ‘neighbourhood renewal areas’ (NRA). The National College for School Leadership (NCSL) reports that “Schools in neighbourhood renewal areas (NRAs), for example, have three times as many children in poverty as the national average. On average their communities have 30 per cent higher mortality rates and three times as much burglary. Schools in NRAs often face very low attainment on entry and may have high numbers of pupils on the at-risk register”. 

     One of the key questions the NCSL reports asks is whether or not the same style of leadership would work in any school regardless of the distinct challenges they face. Or, do specific urban challenges and circumstances require different responses in leadership and policy? While certain communities and schools may experience similarities in certain aspects, schools tend to be unique and the social context in which they exist presents each school with its own specific challenges. The NCSL report suggests that one element in leadership is elementary no matter what the specific challenges are and no matter what social context the school exists in. This element is the ability of the school leadership to cope with their unique pressures with a certain ‘can do’ attitude and the specific ability to understand the community in which it exists and their unique needs. “Perhaps most important is an ability to read the community itself, adapting the style and content of provision to local needs and opening up appropriate channels of communication. The capacity to recognize and respond to differences is perhaps the common factor”.

     Research conducted by Grossman, Walker and Raley (date?) suggests that one of the ways in which school leadership and policymakers can positively affect students in urban schools is to ensure support for effective after-school programs. Many children are left on their own for long periods of time once school ends. This leaves them with a great deal of ‘disposable time’ which they can either use positively or not. After-school programs provide urban youth with opportunities to continue expanding themselves academically and socially. One of the main advantages to after-school programs is the fact that all students can access them. This is in contrast to other programs such as the Boys and Girls Club or Scouts which are not universally available and especially not in poor neighborhoods. “ […] school based, after-school programs are increasingly becoming the solution policymakers suggest for all sorts of youth problems—poor academic achievement, gang participation, violence and drug use” .  These authors temper their enthusiasm with one cautionary stipulation – policymakers and school administrators must identify the potential of these programs with the reality of what they can provide. Therefore, one of the important decisions to be made is not only what programs to put into place but to first identify programs which meet the specific needs of their students. As such, schools need to decide not only if they want to create after-school programs but if they have the funds, space, staff/expertise and resources in order to ensure their program(s) will be successful. 

      Policymakers and leaders must make decisions about how to use schools as positive environments for children in these areas. They must decide how to allocate the money and resources in order to create programs that will support and empower these children. In addition, school administrators must specifically know the community resources in order to help students in extreme distress. One of the roles that urban schools fulfill is that of an emotional support. Teachers, administrators often find themselves in the role of ‘counsellor’ in the absence of funds for a school psychologist. Students who live in distressed areas often need a shoulder to cry on, or simply someone to talk to. They face tremendous pressure at home and are often coping with situations that are far beyond their emotional capabilities.

      The practicality of living in difficult urban environments often generates a certain disenchantment with and disenfranchisement from education. Families coping with issues such as chronic unemployment, poverty, poor health and unstable living environments often view the importance of education with great skepticism. To families facing these problems, their children’s education can take a back seat to basic survival. Thus, the social context for these families is one in which education is less important than being able to provide the basic necessities of life – something which they can’t achieve. It is therefore understandable how children in these families also view educational success and academic achievement as a distant and oftentimes meaningless goal. Yet, as the NCSL points out, even schools in these seemingly impossible environments find the means to be successful. “There is a strong body of evidence that schools in challenging circumstances can raise standards, and that this occurs when initiatives take account of their unique circumstances and take a people-centred approach to change – distributing leadership across the school community”.

     Grossman, Walker and Raley (2006) report that after-school programs have been identified as the Extended-Service Schools (ESS) Adaptation Initiative.  In the UK there are approximately sixty ESS programs in over seventeen cities. One of the key parameters of this initiative is that it not only acknowledges the challenge of urban schooling but also the social context within which this schooling takes place. “ESS’s design intentionally embodies both model and city-level variations so the initiative and its accompanying evaluation can examine after-school programs in very different contexts. […] and offers an opportunity to identify the underlying issues involved in providing these programs, whatever the model and the local contexts in which they operate”. 

     One of the strategies to address the challenges faced by urban schools is the initiative known as ‘the London Challenge’. “Through the London Challenge, since 2002, we have learnt more still about the context in which London schools work, the needs of different students, and the unique combination of challenges this produces”.  The Minister for Education and Skills, Stephen Twigg has served as the head of this initiative since 2002. In his 2005 report, he addresses the specific social context of urban schools and describes the ways in which they have unique needs and why this strategy is so valuable. 

Urban schools are in distinctly different circumstances from other schools in England. They often face greater challenges of deprivation and need to respond to shifting populations. Their more diverse pupil population can be a huge strength but may mean that teachers need more skill, for example to respond to different language needs. Urban areas often also have vast cultural resources on which to draw, which can benefit schools.

      He points out that urban schools tend to have larger populations of students who come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, yet at the same time they are far more ethnically diverse. The Minister’s report stresses the fact that this cultural mix represents both an opportunity for students to learn a great deal about various cultures from one another. At the same time however, it also generates a challenge for teachers and administrators who must learn how to understand the various cultural beliefs and value systems and be prepared to respond and communicate accordingly. In addition, the Minister addresses the key issue of leadership. He opines that strong educational leadership embodies the ability to harness the talents of not only the school staff but area agencies which can provide the type of additional support that many students in urban centers require. In this way, the school takes advantage of its community resources and at the same time becomes an integral part of that community. School leaders/administrators must know how to work in partnership with these agencies and how to partner with them appropriately. Another successful strategy for school leaders is to take advantage of partnering with other schools. He points out that several London boroughs have collaborated to form the ‘London Grid for Learning’ “[…] which has developed ICT across the curriculum and promoted the integration of ICT into whole school improvement strategies”.

      The Department for International Development’s (DFID) Enabling Effective Support (EES) points out that one of the key issues for all urban schools is the new social context that is known internationally as ‘globalisation’. Their report stresses that urban schools today are one of the best examples of the global village in which we live. Children today are not only exposed to a broad range of cultural ideas, values and beliefs, but they have access to an infinite amount of information due to the fact that we live in a highly inter-connected world. This is not simply a reference to the Internet but to the fact that we travel more widely than ever before, people come into our countries from unexpected places and information travels faster than it ever did in human history. 

      Urban schools are, to some degree, the small global village that children will experience on a much larger scale when they become adults and move into the world of work. Another factor is that many students in UK urban schools are individuals who have recently immigrated. Thus, their understanding of the educational system may be sparse and English might not be their primary language. Urban schools have this additional challenge and must devise ways of integrating these students while respecting their cultural backgrounds. As such, many of the UK’s urban schools must adopt a ‘global perspective’. In addition, they need to work with social service agencies, NGO’s, ethnic groups and a broad range of organizations in order to incorporate and adapt to this new perspective. The Department for International Development suggests specific strategies to deal with this. They include; curriculum development, improved access to resources for teachers, pilot projects to practice differing ways of being more inclusive and school networking across the regions in the UK.

      In a 2005 speech, David Miliband stated that urban living could be both challenging and exciting, yet it could also be somewhat bleak. Urban environments that have yet to face renewal efforts can be the most challenging as they are the poorest neighbourhoods in the UK. It is the children in these areas and these schools that often face some of the urban environments bleaker tendencies. This is where crime can be high, children can be witnesses to tremendous acts of violence, face periods of hunger, homelessness and other tragedies. These children live within the social context of loss and trauma. That is their urban environment. People who live in these environments can often feel hopeless in the face of these social, physical, emotional and economic barriers. This hopelessness can also translate into a sense of poor self-esteem and a lack of motivation. Thus, the urban environment can also be a mix of tremendous anger and frustration. To motivate children in these kinds of schools is one of the UK’s biggest challenges. According to Miliband one of the country’s greatest challenges is to regenerate and provide renewal for just such neighbourhoods. 

     Again, according to NCSL, the urban environment is often a hostile one and many of these communities are not only poor but apathetic towards education. In addition to trying to provide these students with a quality education, the headmaster often have numerous incidents to deal with especially in the more ‘troubled schools’. “ […] the urban difference lies in confident action despite ambiguity combined with a readiness to learn and adapt as more evidence arrives.  Further, this is not just about dealing with information but about interpersonal insights”. 

     The NCSL has gone beyond stating the problem. They have also identified what they believe are the core competencies required for strong leadership in urban schools with a high population of disadvantaged students. These competencies include the following: creating the future – has a vision for the school; leading, learning and teaching – takes responsibility for the quality of academia within the school; able to develop self and work with others; excellent managerial skills and always accountable. 

     The ‘London Challenge’ was a significant undertaking by the British government to improve educational standards in urban schools. This effort is governed by the Department of Education and Skills and is a highly ambitious program to generate the significant changes they see as absolutely essential to the educational system. “The Challenge has three levels: pan-London resources and programmes available to all schools;  Keys to Success provide individualised support to about 70 of the most disadvantaged schools; intensive work with five key London boroughs (Hackney, Islington, Haringey, Southwark and Lambeth) to help them reform their secondary school provision” (The London Challenge). 

     According to the government’s own report on this project, the results were as follows. “Results at GCSE have improved faster than in England as a whole. Between 2001 and 2005: the number of secondary schools with more than 55% of their students achieving five plus A*-C grades at GCSE increased from 142 to 195  GCSE results in the five key boroughs improved on average by 8 percentage points (over twice the national average)” (The London Challenge).

   A recent criticque on The London Challenge offers some valuable insights into the continued problem of disadvantaged students and urban schools. The criticque states that there is a growing disparity between the social classes in England, in particular between those who are wealthy and those who are disadvantaged. Unfortunately, this is leading to an increase in the country’s poverty rates and the problems that come with it. Within many of these poor communities, there is high turnover rate of both students and teachers. 

     Many teachers find the challenge of working in these urban schools too difficult for them. As a result, they leave in order to find a less difficult environment in which to work. At the same time, one of the great challenges is London’s ethnic diversity. “London’s students are highly diverse, coming from all over the world. Compared to less than 10% nationwide, nearly 50% of London’s primary and secondary students are of ethnic backgrounds such as Black Caribbean, Black African, Indian, and Pakistani⁵. In the greater London region, 32.1% of secondary school students and 37.4% of primary school students have English as an additional language^” (Lessons from the London Challenge).  This diversity presents a difficulty all its own. Teachers must be prepared to work with a diverse population of students who are also socially and economically disadvantaged. In addition, the educational system is new to them and thus, there must be both curricular changes and the ability to cope with such a broad spectrum of students needs. 

     Yet, there is still some hope from this model. In particular, one of the programs presents a positive step towards supporting strong and able leadership in London’s urban schools. The Consultant Leaders Programme works on the mentoring model in order to support the development of key skills necessary to provide strong leadership in these challenged schools. Participants attend seminars and workshops to develop and improve on key skills such as communication, decision-making, and establishing a positive relationship between teaching and learning. Another aspect of this model is the media awareness program. This part of the model brings a greater awareness of the educational system to the residents of London but also presents the educational system in a much more positive light. It highlights the success stories of the program which provides London residents with a sense of hope for the future of their students in ‘the system’.  

     The criticque is also careful however, to clarify that the full analysis of this program is incomplete. We do not yet have all the data on the program and therefore it may be too early to declare it an unmitigated success. 

Student test scores have improved, but this change cannot be directly attributed to the Challenge’s efforts, as a full evaluation has not yet been completed. Nonetheless, research is underway to study the Challenge and its programs that may provide a direct correlation between student achievement and the Challenge’s efforts. The Institute of Education is producing a booklet inspecting specific aspects of the Challenge, and further study subsequently will be conducted (The London Challenge (2006).

     The conclusion of this critique is that although there has been success as a result of this program, many of the core problems remain. One of these is the significant achievement gap between students from the majority culture and those from minority cultures. Another issue (which has been previously noted in this paper) is the fact of rising poverty in England and its presence in particular cultural groups and communities. While ‘The London Challenge’ is highly to be considered a successful project, at least to some degree, we must be cognizant of the fact that there are still urban schools that face significant challenges. 

     Leadership and policymakers cannot simply address these challenges by implementing one time only projects. While ‘The London Challenge’ certainly addressed some of the key issues, it is unlikely that a five year project can reverse or change all the problems that exist in London’s urban schools. First and foremost, policymakers must address the issue of the systemic problems/issues which exist in London society as a whole.  The issue of the growing disparity between the ‘classes’ in British society is a disturbing one. This indicates that while the wealthy gain in power and status, those who are poor have even less than they did before. Such a trend can serve as a source of disillusionment, anger and frustration on the part of those who see themselves getting less and less while the wealthy become even more so. This disparity cannot be addressed by looking only at the educational system. The system is a microcosm of society itself. It reflects the inequalities but not does address or change them. 

     Critical pedagogy is a movement which notes the disparities in society as reflected by the educational system. It is a philosophy and a movement which believes in disrupting the dominant discourse within the educational system in order to encourage students to challenge the status quo in their society. This may be one way in which to deal with this economic disparity in British society. Policymakers, especially those who influence educational decisions may need to re-think the educational system and ask themselves if this system can be used to disrupt and challenge the problems in British society as a whole. The fact is, these social inequalities cannot be met nor addressed simply within London’s urban schools. This is because these schools are a reflection of that inequality. 

     If policymakers truly want to change the urban schooling system, they must look at ways to address system inequality in England. One of the issues they must surely address is how to provide opportunities for people who are living in poverty and the opportunities to get out of that economically disadvantaged state. Second, they must certainly analyze and address why the economic disparity is growing in the country. The schools themselves cannot be the only aspect of society providing opportunities for those who are poor and/or disadvantaged. There must be opportunities for movement, change and growth in all aspects of society. 

A 2003 report by the NCSL was carried out by Wendy Keys, Caroline Sharp, Katy Greene and Hilary Grayson. The report is the result of a 12-year research project on urban schools and their challenges that was carried out between 1990 and 2002.  The definition of a ‘challenged school’ is stated as one “[…] where 25 per cent or fewer of the pupils achieved five or more grades A*– C in the GCSE and equivalent examinations in 1999, 2000, or both years. This definition can also be extended to primary schools, by using results from Key Stage Assessments”.  In addition, academic markers, the researchers point out the social indicators they used to determine what they would define as a challenged school. This included families who faced a significant number of social, psychological and economic problems. 

[…] many of the children were drawn from families on low incomes (with parents either in low-paid manual/service jobs or unemployed), in poor housing, and from families with little experience of education beyond compulsory schooling. In some cases, families were found to be exceptionally troubled. The communities served by the schools were often affected by elements of deprivation, such as bleak surroundings, poor facilities, poor health, dislocation and disaffection, and high levels of drug and alcohol abuse. Crime rates in the areas were often high (Keys, Sharp,

Greene and Grayson 2006). 

This definition of challenged represents a key point in this subject. The schools themselves are challenged because of the personal circumstances of many of those in the student population. In addition, they are often situated in poor neighbourhoods and have insufficient funding to address the multitude of problems they face. As a result, these schools are often ‘underachieving schools’ because of the personal difficulties for many of their students. According to these researchers, this can often lead to a cycle of underachievement and deprivation. 

The authors go on to point out that effective leadership in any school, whether it is poor and challenged or wealthy and successful, may have many of the same qualities. Leadership is about taking control of the situation and it is also about the ability to address the problems that exist in a very real and practical way. Good leaders are those who are able to adapt their style and maintain a constantly flexible attitude about what is required by teachers and students. They are also visionaries who are not afraid to lay down a plan and work towards very specific objectives and goals. Personality is also an important aspect of an effective leader and those who suit the challenged schools best may be a particular type of personality. “[…]headteachers best suited to the task of turning around a failing school were likely to have an animated, dynamic, charismatic approach. It was suggested that, to be effective, a headteacher’s leadership style needs to be attuned to the specific context experienced by a particular school” (Keys, Sharp, Greene and Grayson 2006). 

With respect to policymaking and leadership, these authors suggest that the first step is the ability to diagnose the problem.  There needs to be an accurate accounting of each school’s specific problems. While challenged schools may indeed share specific characteristics, each school must be viewed as unique and address the actual problems as opposed to those perceived and assumed. Once the specific problems are identified, then appropriate strategies can be adopted. The writers also point out that a key element may be that of the psychological approach taken by a headmaster. Specifically, they need to be able to motivate teachers and students and not adopt a sense of defeat or hopelessness. The school will take its cue from the headmaster and they need to be someone who can continue to be positive even in the face of the challenges they will undoubtedly face. “[…] staff (and pupils). Harris (2002), in her ten case studies of improving secondary schools, noted that a key concern for headteachers was one of maintaining staff morale and motivation. Staff self-development was vigorously promoted through in-service training, visits to other schools or peer support schemes” (Keys, Sharp, Greene and Grayson). 

These same authors point out that another characteristic of effective/good leadership is the ability to delegate appropriately and empower others to assume leadership roles as well. There are possibilities for students to assume roles as a mentor or volunteer, and/or teachers to develop/create programs and opportunities to take the lead in certain specific and appropriate situations. A good leader does not “have to do it all”, but they must be able to identify what needs to be done and who can do it most effectively. Effective leaders know how and when to delegate responsibilities and they do so accordingly. They are persons who are collaborative in style, set clear goals for everyone concerned, set a good example in the way they work, monitor the school’s progress and report to the appropriate authorities about both their successes and continued needs. 

Another specific concern for headmasters in challenged schools is the behavioural problems and issues presented by some of their students. Yet, they note that there the literature is sparse in terms of specific data on effective leadership strategies in these situations. They quote S.C. Carter who dealt with this issue in American schools. “When a school clearly teaches by example that self-control, self-reliance, and self-esteem anchored in achievement are a means to success that school’s own success inspires confidence, order, and discipline in its students”. 

The report also points out that school leadership must extend the mission of the school into the home. This essay has already pointed out the specific challenges that many families in poor circumstances must cope with. These families may become easily discouraged and are perhaps unwilling, or unable to see the ways in which education can help their children. The school must develop strategies for involving these families in undemanding yes positive ways. When the parents become involved and adopt a more positive attitude towards the school specifically and the education system in general, it is more likely that they will model appropriate attitudes and behaviour for their children. 

Policymakers must also adopt a more proactive stance towards such schools. They must engage in a continued and determined effort not to let these children fail. There are far too many disadvantaged children in the UK and if the funding, accommodations and support do not exist, the schools cannot hope to address these students’ needs. In addition, the authors suggest that such schools must embrace the widest possible support network in order to make the necessary changes. 

Sharp, Katy Greene and Hilary

[…] the most improving schools had been able to draw upon a wider range of relevant advice, assistance, support and consultancy than those that had made more limited progress[…]Types of external support mentioned in the publications we reviewed included: professional development programmes and/or courses; peer-learning strategies, including mentoring; external consultants; physical resources and funding; and support from LEAs. The final part of this section focuses on an article describing the support needs of special schools in difficulties. 

This brief review points out the multitude of challenges faced by urban schools and the contexts in which these challenges exist. It also provides some suggestions for the ways in which leadership and policymaking can address these problems/issues. As pointed out however, there is a systemic issue at stake here. While the schools themselves can address and deal with the problem, society as a whole in Britain needs to come to terms with the fact that poverty is increasing and the myriads of problems that accompany the state of living in poverty come with it.  Therefore, the British government and those in power need to make a serious and determined effort to change systemic social problems within the country. The fact is, until such wide scale changes are made, there will always be challenged, urban schools and there will always be a need to address these challenges with specific strategies that can adapt to changing and difficult circumstances. 

Firstly, what Plato believed about reality was very different from Aristotle’s ideology. Plato imagined that there existed an ideal or perfect world beyond our own physical earth. Our earthly world is full of unevenness, imperfections, and impurities which have been copied from the true ideal world which is beyond us. Plato further believed that our physical world and its Forms participate or imitate the real Forms in a disorderly way. He claimed that there was a relationship between the realm of Forms and our world. This relationship revealed to us mortals the forms and brought order to life ⁵.

Aristotle objected to Plato’s view, arguing that one cannot know the type of interaction which is occurring between the two Forms. If the “real or ideal forms” are eternal, pure and unchanging then how do they relate to the material objections or Forms on earth with all their physical imperfections? This participation or imitation link between the real and the imaginary (which Plato claimed existed) is erroneous thinking as no one can/has established such a link – real or otherwise. And even if a link is established it fails to explain all the Forms in the material world. At some point Plato fails to explain how this greater Form was controlled- how can Form control things? Was there energy in “Forms”?

Aristotle’s assumption of the Theory of Forms was intimately integrated with his belief that we develop some type of biological and scientific wisdom of a primary substance (be it plant, animal, rock, etc) only when we know what are usually called its “causes.” The

^a.The name of this aspect of Plato’s thought is not modern and has not been extracted from certain dialogues by modern scholars. The term was used at least as early as Diogenes Laertius, who called it (Plato’s) “Theory of Forms:” Πλάτων ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν ὑπολήψει…., “Plato”. Lives of Eminent Philosophers Book III. Paragraph 15.

Greek word, aitia, which is translated as “causes,” is probably better rendered as “that which explains.” What that means is that our knowledge of something only occurs once we have ascertained why the “thing” is there and what its uses are (the primitive scientific method). Thus, if the essence of being a humanoid includes being a biped, we are able to explain our two legs by appeal to the form of humanness which is in us. So knowledge of the form or essence is in effect knowledge of the thing’s causes, of what explains why it is what it is. In this way Aristotle’s theory of knowledge was integrated with his metaphysics or scientific method ⁶.

Plato postulated that once the humans rose above their physical environment, they would understand the Forms which were present in the invisible world ^b. Whether he meant this would occur after death or during life remains a mystery. Aristotle on the other hand believed that everything was right here on earth and one could find the Form if one developed a scientific method to apprehend it ^7.

I believe the Forms which Plato believed in were not real. He claims that what we see on earth are mimics of the real thing, only with a lot of imperfections. In his Allegory of the Cave, outlined in The Republic, he called mimics artificial replicas of the real thing. In real life all that is seen is an illusion (smoke) of the real thing ^8.

On the other hand, Aristotle believed that our natural world itself was real and physical. Aristotle, having studied some biological and physical phenomenon during his work as a teacher, came to understand that our world was made up of many natural Forms, even though not all of the Forms were ideal, pure or perfect. He argued that with our sense(s) we could identify all the natural Forms on earth. The big question which Aristotle and everyone else asked about Plato’s theory of Forms was ‘what are the two separate realms and what do they mean and how do they explain life as it is?’

No matter how one analyses Plato’s theory, it simply fails to explain our physical world, its evolution and the order of things. Why some things are permanent remains a central question in his philosophy ^c. How was the knowledge about our own world derived from the “ideal Forms”? One can understand that genetic traits can be passed on to future generations of humans and animals, but how does this information pass on to inanimate objects like the stone, rock, sand or water? How could these physical properties with no “Brain” understand the ideal world? I can understand that perhaps some humans may have ESP and perceive (with a lot of good luck) the past or the future, but how can a rock know that it was a rock in the ideal world first and now is a manifestation of the rock in our world?

^b Plato to a large extent identifies what today is called  insight with recollection: “whenever on seeing one thing you conceived another whether like or unlike, there must surely have been an act of recollection?” - Phaedo paragraph 229. Thus geometric reasoning on the part of persons who know no geometry is not insight but is recollection. He does recognize insight: “… with a sudden flash there shines forth understanding about every problem …” (with regard to “the course of scrutiny”) - The Seventh Letter 344b.

^c Fine, Gail (1992). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Oxford University Press.  ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0198235496″ ISBN 0198235496.  Reviewed by Gerson, Lloyd P (1993).  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.05.25.html http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.05.25.html Gail Fine, On Ideas. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms (html). Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.05.25. Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

Another argument against Plato’s theory of Forms is the resemblance of two objects. Plato explains that those two objects look like each other due to their cooperative

contribution in a common Form. A black dog and a black book, for example, resemble each other in goodness by being copies of the “Form” of black. Because the dog and book are copies of the form black, they also bear a resemblance to this form. But this resemblance between the black object and the form of blackness must also be explained in terms of another form. What form does a black object and the form of blackness both copy to account for their similarity? Is everything black a book or is everything black a dog? One quickly gets the idea that Plato’s theory of Forms falls apart ^9.

Since Plato never did write down what he meant and a lot of the material is lost, the translation of his thoughts have taken many meanings. The major evidence for Plato’s theory of Forms has always been limited primarily to intuition, and is not grounded in anything apprehensible.  Aristotle wisely judged the efficacy of Forms on their use and matter of Particulars. He believed in the scientific method in a reverse process.  However, even Aristotle’s philosophy leaves some questions unanswered.  What if something was non existent and needed to be developed? What happens then? Humans only have a limited capacity of senses and many discoveries are made serendipitously. Neither Plato nor Aristotle explains the role of chance in their Form theories.

In conclusion, Plato’s imaginary “Real Forms Theory” remains speculative at best. It is difficult to believe that life exists in the Forms postulated by Plato. We live in a practical world where we have learned to employ our reason, we use methodology to explain and discover things, we reason to think of what can and will happen, we understand the scientific method and when the experiment is done- we understand the process. The majority of us believe in the Greater being, but this does not prevent us from thinking on our own. What we create is controlled by us and not by someone else or a Form.  We live in a different era of time from Plato and Aristotle. We have accomplished a lot in the past 50 years.  We have traveled further, climbed higher, seen more moons and stars (and even visited one), have developed ingenious technology and have become practical individuals with the ability to think scientifically.  When it comes to theories- they are just that. There is no right or wrong, just personal beliefs and not everything has to be psychoanalyzed. I personally believe that neither Plato nor Aristotle is right or wrong- they just had different beliefs and ideology.

References for Further Reading

1. Fine, G. “The One Over Many.” The Philosophical Review 89, no. 2 (April 1980):

197-240.

2. Fine, Gail (1992). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198235496.  Reviewed by Gerson, Lloyd P (1993). Gail Fine, On Ideas. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms (html). Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.05.25. Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

3. White, NP, “Plato’s Metaphysical Epistemology.” In The Cambridge

Companion to Plato, edited by Richard Kraut. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

4. Silverman, Allan (June, 2003).  HYPERLINK “http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/”Plato’s Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology (html). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysical Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University.

5. Watt, Stephen (1997), “Introduction: The Theory of Forms (Books 5-7)”, Plato: Republic, London: Wordsworth Editions, pp. pages xiv-xvi.

6. Annas, J. “Aristotle on Inefficient Causes.” The Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 129 (October 1982): 311-326/

7. McElroy S. A comparison of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. (2003) http://home.telepath.com/~wanderer/school/HSCI%203013%20- %20Plato%20vs %20Aristotle.pdf.

8. Oakes W. The Function of the Forms: Examining Plato’s Conception of Aitia Against the Criticisms of Aristotle. http://www.sewanee.edu/Philosophy/Capstone/2004/oakes.pdf.

9. White, F.C., “Plato’s Middle Dialogues and the Independence of Particulars.” The

Philosophical Quarterly 27, no. 108 (July 1977): 193-213.

Thanks to Siam for contributing this paper.

I believe that Augustus and Niccoló Machiavelli would certainly agree much more so than disagree on how to be an effective ruler. The young Augustus seems to be an excellent example of a ruler whose actions agree with Machiavelli’s guidelines enunciated in The Prince. Machiavelli’s education included studying the “classics”, so it is not hard to make the connection that he was probably influenced by reading Suetonius’ account of the life of Imperator Caesar Augustus.

One of Machiavelli’s guidelines that he detailed in The Prince is that, “A wise man ought to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme”(paragraph 1). Augustus admired his Uncle Julius Caesar. He observed him, learned from him and tried to follow in his wake. One such lesson was how Julius Caesar had successfully arranged for his rival, Pompey the Great to marry his daughter Julia to form a bonding friendship between the two triumvirs. Augustus, whether wanting to or needing to reconcile with Marc Antony, arranged for a marriage between his lovely sister Octavia and Antony. It is noted that he was “deeply attached to his sister, who was, as the saying is, a wonder of a woman”(Everitt 112). So although, like Julius Caesar and Pompey, the marriage was politically motivated; Augustus’ desire to heal the relationship with Marc Antony appears sincere.

In The Prince, Machiavelli offers sage advice in dealing with subordinates which could have been written specifically with young Augustus in mind. Machiavelli writes; “Those who bind themselves (to you), and are not rapacious, ought to be honored and loved”(paragraph 8). Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, as a loyal, trustworthy and devoted friend, was bound to his school chum Augustus, and was rewarded generously for this. Along with money and land, “Agrippa, who had masterminded the Sicilian victory, was given a probably unprecedented honor – a corona rostrata, or golden crown decorated with ships’ beaks, which he was entitled to wear whenever a triumph was celebrated”(Everitt 144).

Machiavelli also warns that when “subordinates bind themselves to you for their own ambitious ends, it is a sign that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you. A prince should guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him”(paragraph 8). Although this does describe the strained and mistrustful relationship between Marc Antony and Augustus, I think that Quintus Salvidienus Rufus is a better contrast example to Agrippa.

Prior to the triumvirs, Antony and Augustus mending their relationship, Augustus’ fickle “friend” and supporter “opened a secrect correspondence with Antony, hinting that he might be ready to switch sides”(Everitt 112). Salvidienus’ faith in Augutus’ success was wavering and he appears to be trying to cover all of his bases by appealing to Antony. However, Antony could smell a rat and alerted Augustus.

Augustus was a man who was “loyal to a fault, but if a friend betrayed him he was merciless”(112). He summoned Salvidienus to Rome, “arraigned him before the Senate and had him condemned both an inimicus (a personal enemy) and a hostis (a public enemy), and put to death”(113). Augustus could have had Salvidienus assassinated quietly, but I would argue that he wanted the proceedings to be very public and humiliating as a warning to others to not betray him. This may have been Machiavelli’s inspiration for the question if it is better for a prince to be feared or loved. Machiavelli reasoned that it was “much safer to be feared” because “men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage. But fear preserves you by a dread of punishment”(paragraph 18).

However, Augustus was always careful, especially publicly. He instilled just enough fear to maintain respect and order, but was able to avoid igniting hatred. Machiavelli says that “when it is necessary for him (a prince) to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause” (paragraph 19). The way that Augustus orchestrated the Salvidienus situation illustrated the cunning sophistication of a seasoned politician more likened to Cicero, than what would be expected from young Augustus.

Being Julius Caesar’s adopted son and chosen heir opened the door to Augustus and paved the way for him. Augustus used this to his advantage, but stepped out from Caesar’s shadow and became a respectable man in his own right after the Sicilian victory. Machiavelli suggests that “a new prince has a greater necessity to earn renown than a hereditary one”(paragraph 36). I believe that Augustus would agree completely with that statement. The Sicilian victory was a turning point in which he proved to the citizens, soldiers, and senate of Rome that he was more than just Julius Caesar’s nephew, but that he had the makings to be a great leader.

The one lesson of Machiavelli’s that Augustus did not follow was in regard to Livia Drusilla. Machiavelli warns that a prince should abstain “from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women”(paragraph 19). Augustus was said to be “a young man with a reputation for copious adultery”(Everitt 119).

He was already married to Scribonia, but divorced her on the day that she gave birth to their daughter Julia in order marry Livia. However, Livia was currently married to Tiberius Claudius Nero and pregnant with their second son. This made for juicy, scandalous gossip, but Augustus was able to navigate any waves that this union caused publicly.

Augustus is an ideal model for Machiavelli’s The Prince. I believe that the two men would heartily agree on the essential qualities and guidelines that are necessary for an effective ruler.

Works Cited

• Machiavelli, Niccolo. Excerpts from The Prince. 1516
• Everitt, Anthony. Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor.
  Random House. New York 2007
• Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars
  Oxford University Press. New York 2000