In his recent review of Amelie Rorty's collection, "Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives," John White makes the uncontroversial observation that the future of philosophy of education within Educational Studies is uncertain. He chooses to be optimistic, hoping that "the climate in which philosophising about education, whether by specialised or general philosophers, can flourish may--with luck--now be in the process of being recreated." Exactly what this "climate" may be, why he thinks it might soon be "recreated", and just how much "luck" will be needed are not specified, which suggests that his optimism is more wishful thinking than a considered judgement. More important is White's assumption that the future of educational philosophy will be decided by forces--he calls them "climates" and "luck"--outside the discipline itself. The author suggests that the future of educational philosophy within Educational Studies has nothing to do with "climates" or "luck", but with reforms that must be made from inside the discipline itself. He argues that too many currently influential educationists, Professor White in particular, are literally unaware that educational philosophy has a history more than three hundred years in duration, and that this historical ignorance is one cause of the uncertain future of the discipline. He uses White's review of Rorty's collection as a point of departure, from which he examines some features of the philosophy of education "as it is defined within academic departments of Educational Studies." He argues that it is useful to use White's review in this way in part because he is a prominent educationist whose pronouncements are seriously considered within Educational Studies, but primarily because so many of the views he expresses are typical of philosophers of education within Educational Studies. The author argues, firstly, that educationist philosophers are wrong to believe that educational philosophy has little or no history prior to the eighteenth century. He also argues, secondly, that one reason for this ignorance of the history of their own discipline is that educationists have uncritically accepted erroneous and unsubstantiated opinions about the history of educational thought made by a narrow selection of what they have named "general" philosophers. The result has been that educational philosophers with Educational Studies are now profoundly ignorant of the history of their own discipline, particularly with reference to questions of method and value in educational thought. A recovery of some knowledge of the history of educational philosophy will be a necessary first step towards the recovery of educational philosophy as an autonomous discipline with its own history, methods and conceptions of educational value.