A reflection on the Philosophy of Formal and Public Education in "Theoretical Foundations of the Fundamental Transformation in the Formal and Public Education System of the Islamic Republic of Iran"

پژوهش نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت

Volume 15, Issue 1 - Serial Number 29, July 2025, Pages 161-188   

Document Type: پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/fedu.2025.84601.1295

Authors

Mina Fayazi¹; Shahram Ramesth^{* 2}

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Farhangian University, Fars, Iran.

²Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract
This study employs a critical perspective to analyze the second section of The Theoretical Foundations of Fundamental Transformation in the Public Formal Education System of the Islamic Republic of Iran. By scrutinizing the document’s conceptual framework, philosophical assumptions, and methodological orientations, the study aims to elucidate the principal challenges and ambiguities involved in articulating the philosophy underpinning public formal education. The analysis reveals that, despite the document’s pronounced emphasis on indigenization and an Islamic orientation, it fails to establish clear and consistent criteria for defining educational concepts as “Islamic” or “indigenous.” Furthermore, the Theoretical Foundations document, which draws upon a hybrid of ideological, rationalist, and non-native humanities perspectives, is marked by conceptual incoherence, lacks a cohesive systematic framework, and demonstrates a pronounced disconnect between theoretical formulations and practical implementation. This research highlights the imperative for a comprehensive reevaluation of the philosophical and methodological bases of the transformation documents, advocating for a rearticulation of fundamental principles—particularly regarding the nexus of religiosity, indigenization, and social education—in a manner congruent with the Iranian Islamic context.
Synopsis:
The present study adopts a critical approach to analyze a segment of “Theoretical Foundations of Fundamental Transformation in the Official and Public Education System of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” with particular focus on the philosophy of official and public education as elaborated in this document. The core objective of this research is to dissect the weaknesses, deficiencies, ambiguities, and challenges inherent in the conceptual articulation of the aforementioned document, ultimately offering recommendations for fundamental reconsideration in this domain.
Drawing on a review of prior studies, the research utilizes the critical analyses of scholars in the field of education. While most of these scholars underscore the inadequacy of the theoretical framework, lack of coherence in definitions, philosophical incoherence, methodological ambiguities, and the absence of educational equity within the documents, the findings of this study suggest that the philosophical section of these documents has not been subjected to in-depth internal and analytical critique. Accordingly, this research aims to provide a critical, internal analysis of the structure of the philosophy of official and public education under two categories: “General Considerations,” which pertains to overall reflections on the philosophy of official education, and “Specific Considerations,” which addresses each of the three aspects of the nature, rationale, and modality of official education.
A key issue identified in this study is the ambiguity surrounding the Islamic and indigenous character of the educational philosophy. While the theoretical foundations emphasize the necessity of the Islamization and localization of the educational system, they do not provide clear and operational criteria to determine the nature of Islamic or indigenous concepts. In many cases, mere reference to religious statements or the use of cultural elements, such as the Persian language and literature, is regarded as an indicator of indigenization, whereas operational, systematic, and measurable definitions of these concepts are absent. The lack of a clear explanation for concepts like “Wilayah,” a core component of Islamic thought, as well as the absence of a defined method for distinguishing between indigenous and imported components, has cast doubt over the implementation path of the aforementioned educational philosophy.
Furthermore, the issue of the ineffective reflection of the ideals and values of the Islamic Revolution within the theoretical foundations is explored. Although the document recurrently refers to the principles and values of the Revolution and the statements of the leaders of the Islamic Republic, these references are largely formalistic, and a systematic and integrated manifestation of revolutionary ideals is not evident at the conceptual and structural levels. This has resulted in a disconnect between the overarching goals of the Revolution and the educational principles of the document, thus reducing the potential for translating such goals into practical policies.
Another major challenge is the inadequate utilization of the historical background of education in Iran. Despite the document’s explicit criticism of imitation from Western models, a thorough and well-documented analysis of Iranian and Islamic educational traditions has not been presented. This neglect constitutes a significant barrier to genuine localization of the philosophy of official education, as engagement with historical and traditional capacities can strengthen the identity-based and theoretical coherence of the educational system. In this regard, the theoretical foundations require a critical reassessment and reconstruction based on lived educational experiences.
In another aspect, the theoretical foundations take an ambivalent and unclear stance in engaging with the achievements of the human sciences. On the one hand, they emphasize the need to utilize human knowledge in conformity with Islamic principles; on the other hand, neither a framework for this conformity is provided, nor is the expected level of alignment specified. Is mere absence of contradiction sufficient, or is conceptual and value alignment also required? This ambiguity complicates the purposeful utilization of global scientific achievements in educational planning and increases the interpretive latitude of statements within the document.
This study also characterizes the methodological weakness in deriving educational principles from the theoretical foundations as a critical shortcoming. While the document claims that its principles are extracted from philosophical, Islamic, psychological, and social policy foundations, the precise process of such inference remains unspecified. Only general references are made to the bases underpinning each principle, without adequately illustrating the logical and conceptual progression from foundation to principle. Such absence of inferential logic undermines both the theoretical and practical coherence of the document and impedes the effective implementation of educational policies.
Another fundamental challenge is the inability of the theoretical foundations to establish a transparent link between the foundations (theory) and the superstructures (policies and practical principles). Although the document claims to follow a specific methodology, how this methodology results in clear, traceable connections among philosophical foundations, educational objectives, executive principles, and policies is not systematically articulated; consequently, readers are unable to reconstruct a rational and substantiated transition from foundations to policies, resulting in a disruption of the conceptual chain in the document.
Elsewhere in the analysis, specific considerations of the document’s definition of the nature of official and public education are addressed. This definition emphasizes elements such as organization, legality, justice orientation, mandatory status, and the central role of the school and the Islamic state, while also noting the participation of families, media, and non-governmental organizations. Nonetheless, neglect of the status of informal education and the inability to precisely delineate shared, exclusive, Islamic, and Iranian identities have led to internal contradictions and ambiguities in prioritization in certain provisions. In particular, the use of terms such as “necessary” and “desirable” for principles introduces a semantic duality that undermines the coherence of the educational concept.
Ultimately, analysis of the general and specific characteristics of education in the documents reveals that, although the discourse is formed within an Islamic perspective, the requisite philosophical references to justify this claim are not provided. Concepts such as shared human nature (fitrah) and universal values similarly lack operational definitions and feasibility criteria. These weaknesses have prevented the theoretical foundations from functioning as a comprehensive, coherent, and authentically Iranian-Islamic educational philosophy.
 
Conclusion:
The findings of this research indicate that, despite significant efforts to integrate religion, culture, and the official educational system, full success has not been achieved in attaining theoretical coherence, clear conceptual articulation, or systematic design of principles and policies. This study recommends a fundamental revision of the structure of the theoretical foundations, a clear articulation of key concepts such as Islamization, localization, and social education, as well as methodological improvement in drawing principles from the foundations, as indispensable requirements for the genuine realization of the educational transformation discourse in Iran.
 

Keywords

Philosophy of education; philosophy of public formal education; theoretical foundations of the fundamental transformation

References

Adorno, T. W. (1966). Erziehung nach Auschwitz, in: Th. W. Adorno: Erziehung zur Mündigkeit. Frankfurt/Main 1973 (Suhrkamp Verlag), p. 88-104. This text originally was a radio lecture broadcasted by Hessischer Rundfunk the 18th of april 1966.

Alamolhoda, J. (2012). Islamic theory of education (formal education foundations). In: Tehran: University of Imam Sadeq.(In Persian).

Bagheri, K. (2008). Philosophy of education in Islamic republic of Iran (Vol. 1). Tehran: Elmi-Farhangi. In.

Bakhtiari, L., & Dehghani, M. (2022). A Study on the Researches of the Education Fundamental Reform Document of Islamic Republic of Iran: Meta-analysis Study. Islamic Perspective on Educational Science, 10(19), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.30497/esi.2022.242347.1509

Dizavi, S. (2013). Analysis of the philosophical foundations of the fundamental transformation of the Iranian education system Payam Noor Center of South Tehran].

Ghajari, N. M., M & Shamshiri, B (2020). Understanding the Most Significant Challenges to Execution of the Document of Fundamental Transformation in the Education System of Iran; a Focus on Its Main Subsystems. Journal of Curriculum Research 10(1), 1-33.‏.

Hasani, M. S., A. (2021). Philosophy of formal and public education (philosophy of scooling). Tehran: Research Institute of Hawzah and University. https://doi.org/(In Persian)

Izadpanah, A. (2016). Dialogue and polyphony in Iran's official education Shiraz University]. Shiraz.

Mahmoodi, S. (2020). An Appraisal of the Position of Religious and Revolutionary Identities in the Document of Fundamental Transformation of Education. Research in Islamic Education Issues, 28(47), 159–182.

Marzooghi, r., Aghili, r., & Mehrvarz, m. (2017). A Methodological and Theoretical Analysis and Critique of the Educational Fundamental Transformative Documents of Islamic Republic of Iran. Foundations of Education, 6(2), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.22067/fedu.v6i2.53863

Mazidi, M., & Shamshiri, B. (2020). Understanding the Most Significant Challenges to Execution of the Document of Fundamental Transformation in the Education System of Iran; a Focus on Its Main Subsystems. Journal of Curriculum Research, 10(1), 1–33.

Mesbah Yazdi, M. (2011). Islamic philosophy of education. (Tehran: Madrese Press). https://doi.org/ (In Persian)

Moradi, M., & Bagheri Noaparast, K. (2020). An Analysis and Critique of the Concept of “Identity” in the Documents of Fundamental Transformation of the Education of Islamic Republic of Iran. Foundations of Education, 10(1), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.22067/fedu.v10i1.81044

Mosaffa, S. (2021). Explaining and Evaluating of Philosophy of educational justice in the theoretical foundations of the documents of the fundamental transformation of the public formal education system. Kharazmi university]. Tehran.

Najafi, E., & Ahmadi, H. (2012). The Importance, Role, and Function of Family from Islam's Perspective and the Status of Family in Education Fundamental Reform Document. Journal of Family and Research, 9(1), 7–.

Navidpour, F. (2016). Identifying the implementation obstacles of the fundamental transformation of Iran's education based on Q methodology Shahid Madani University]. Azerbaijan.

Rajaei, M. (2020). An Islamic approach the dialogical education and a Critique of the Social and Political Dimensions of education in The Fundamental Reform Document of Education in the Islamic Republic of Iran Ferdowsi Mashhad]. Mashahd.

Saffarheidari, h., & Hossainnjad, R. (2014). The Perspectives of Educational Justice (A study about the position of educational justice in the Document of Iran Education System Transformation). Foundations of Education, 4(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.22067/fe.v4i1.23696

TFT. (2011). Theoretical foundations of transformation in the system of formal and public education of Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran: Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution. https://doi.org/(In Persian)

Yadollahi, A., zarei, M. H., & Yavari, A. (2020). A Comparative Study of the 2030 Agenda Approach and the Transformation Document in Iran’s Education toward Gender Educational Equality. Public Law Researsh, 21(65), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2019.34379.1910