define good education

Four Competing Definitions Of Good Education – And The Dilemma Of Value

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

By David Rapp, University of Mannheim, Class of 2021, Working Student, SAP SE

As we marked the International Day of Education in a year that has disrupted education like no other, I considered the value of education as we once defined it.

Higher Education in particular, has been left exposed, for if the education can be delivered online, and tutorials given over Zoom, then how can the high fees remain justified?

As a current student in higher education, I consider the thought that across higher education, there are numerous factors that drive the definition of what constitutes “good” education. Students weigh different factors than their parents, while scholars and the university´s operations staff have still different versions of success. But what is truly good education? Is there even one way to objectively and thoroughly answer this question?

How one reviews these questions heavily depends on their personal definition of value. Every individual will rank their preferences in a way that is rational in their own eyes. However, we can identify different groups, whose rankings all merit relative review.

Compared to commercial businesses, where organizations have unified focus on bringing forward their products or services to serve the end customers, universities may struggle to balance and unify all four competing definitions of success:

Students strive for personal development
Parents focus on affording tuition and return
Scholars would like to focus on research without caring about teaching and operations
Operations staff would like to minimize costs

Certainly, students try to get into the best universities. Academic rankings provide an indicator for good education that is mainly based on an institution’s academic reputation and/or citations per faculty. For students, good education does not only mean great research, but includes a superb environment, a beautiful campus, lovely people, delicious restaurants, and a vibrant nightlife.

Students need room to develop themselves beyond academic achievements. For most students, a campus life is the first time they are living away from their parents; cooking, cleaning, and doing their laundry on their own.

The comprehensive advanced education is not just about building the foundation for an adult life, it is also about celebrating youth, building lifelong friendships, and making new experiences.

What Students Need

Students certainly need world class teachers, but they also need a world class environment to become the best they can be. This cannot just be reduced to off-campus activities.

Students want to be engaged in their universities; they want to be part of student initiatives. Students want to listen to lectures about life; not dissertations limited to just business, engineering, or politics.

Students want to broaden their horizon to be as good as possible as a human, innovator, and leader. They want to reach beyond current borders and historical societal norms; Students want to reach for the Stars.

But as everyone knows, space travel is expensive. Only a privileged few can travel to the International Space Station, financed by NASA.

Parents, a student´s NASA, often need to pay for their children’s journey to become an astronaut, space engineer, or data scientist. While students like the idea of going to the highest ranked universities, often being a highway to a successful career in the future, the decision path is most likely costly and is rather exclusively funded by only privileged families.

Good education for parents may simply mean an education that is affordable, an education that provides anyone a fair opportunity to become an astronaut (of education).

The role of academic scholars and researchers is to provide students the knowledge needed for success. The faculty provides a toolbox for identifying problems, creating a research project, and finally finding a solution that improves understanding, and hopefully a new perspective singularly and mutually.

To become the best scientist means acquiring as much detailed knowledge as possible in a specific area, or for a specific topic. Students have to read scientific papers, contribute to lab experiments, and attend many varied classes. For scientists, good education must be highly scientific and deliver a maximum of knowledge to students. Only the best prepared students can address the complex scientific equations and hypotheses.

All these factors come together under the administration of the institution staff who maintain control over all business activities including finance, enrollment, and recruiting. Managing all those workstreams and functions to ensure student success is costly and often time consuming .

While universities serve to provide and create knowledge, they rely on operations striving for minimum financial expenses and high efficiency to maximize investment in research, science and education.

Four Competing Arguments of What Good Education Could - or Should Be - Unified Under The Institution

Fortunately, or unfortunately, within higher education and research institutions, all four opinions may be weighed up as equally reasonable and true:

Students need to develop themselves personally, learn from the best instructors to be as knowledgeable as possible, and get to know diverse, open-minded people to become the thought leaders of our future.
Researchers are right in pursuing the goal of educating the best possible next generation, that can one day invent, found a new company, or even develop a potentially life-saving vaccine that can help fight a pandemic.
Parents need to be able to afford the education of their children. The more children are in the equal position to obtain great knowledge and great skills, the better our whole future word will be.
Faculty and staff must be as efficient as possible to protect funding for their primary real purpose: Providing the best possible knowledge – engaging students, and supporting scientific advancement.

When reviewing the value equation in today’s dynamic environment, all the above need to be seen in a completely different context; educational value has shifted with the current pandemic.

Students can barely live the life they had originally imagined for themselves. They either have to study, eat, and sleep in the same small room, or live together with their parents back home. Both options limit overall personal development. There are extremely limited chances to meet new people, explore new environments, or celebrate student life.

But not only is life around academic environment different, goals for both the professors and students are harder to achieve. Large lectures might be recorded and work remotely, but classes in smaller groups without active discussions or collaboration cannot replace in-person interaction .

Interpersonal interaction helps drive opinions, shapes ideas, molds individual personalities, and hopefully sharpening argumentations and driving new scientific perspectives.

When personal development and academic progress are lacking, it is totally understandable that students and their parents question the value of “COVID-education.”

Good Education is the Education That Actually Happens

Higher education is often an enormous financial burden that families may/may no longer be willing to support . But investing in education is not only paying current classes, but also investing in the future of our careers and the future of our world. Higher education in any form is still the beginning of a lifelong journey of learning.

Imagine if students and their parents no longer choose to pay for higher education? Institutions in turn will struggle to invest in research, and scientific progress will suffer .

Translated, there is a very dynamic equation, leading to a singular means to define the value of (good) education. Good education drives advancements.

Good education develops ideas in how to restore society to normality.

Good education provides our future leaders with the knowledge to overcome future challenges.

All four conflicting groups have to work together to achieve the only thing that matters to education right now: Providing opportunity. Because good education is the education that actually happens .

Learn more about how SAP is helping Higher Education institutions prepare for a digital future.

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

What makes a quality education?

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Claire Boonstra

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Sustainable Development is affecting economies, industries and global issues

A hand holding a looking glass by a lake

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, sustainable development.

What constitutes a quality education? Today, quality is most often measured through the OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) standardized tests – and countries are ranked accordingly. The higher on that list, the better your education would be. But do these results and rankings still relate to what really matters today – and tomorrow?

At first glance, the relationship between PISA and economic performance doesn’t seem too hard to pinpoint. Correlations between high PISA rankings and “hard” variables such as GDP, performance, productivity – these are easy enough to draw up. But if we agree that the success of modern-day economies is based on more than children’s ability to read, write and do maths, what other variables might we draw up and how might we assess their presence? If we also agree that societies are more than just their economic performance, what of instruments such as GDP and PISA?

Preparing children for life

The rapid changes we’re experiencing in our societies are having a substantial impact on the likelihood that our children will find a satisfying path when they are older. Our life expectancies are rising dramatically. Rather than pinpointing the single role they’ll play, children may have to prepare for a series of roles, more so than we have so far been used to.

The meaningful discussion I believe we should engage in thus goes beyond the mere necessity of finding a job. Should an education prepare us for a single job to last our entire career, or might it take into account the sequence of professional roles that is becoming more commonplace?

Does one mould fit all?

Each developing child passes through our school system to reach their full potential as an adult in society. The current version of our education system requires each child to be measured against the same standards. We must all fit these particular norms, fit that particular mould, strive to meet those specific criteria. Are we not wasting an awful amount of potential and harming both ourselves and society? Wouldn’t developing the full and infinite potential of each person be the preferable route to take, for each individual as well as humanity? What if we could use all our existing knowledge on learning and developments in technology to find a solution that matches the natural diversity in talents with the infinite array of different roles?

Artificial employees

We are entering an age where computers, robots and artificial intelligence will start to outperform humans in skills we score children against today: computation, applied writing, organization and assembly, rote memorization, decision-tree-based problem solving. Replacing humans in such jobs makes as much economic sense as the replacement of horses by cars once did. In healthcare, in retail, in the services industry, this is already happening and there is every reason to believe it will continue.

Roles likely to avoid such robotization for some time yet are those that revolve around the precise traits that make us unmistakably human: inventiveness, creativity, empathy, entrepreneurialism, intuition, lateral thinking, cultural sensitivity, to name a few. What if we gave these more emphasis in schools? Who is going to programme the robots?

Policy changes vs. fundamental review

Changes at the policy level are a constant for our schools and our teachers are right to sigh at yet another shift. Changes in recent years seem to have been mostly directed at the what and the how of education, rather than the more fundamental question: what is it for? That is the broad, deep and fundamental discussion I would very much like to see happening: what should be the purpose of our education, if a substantial portion of our children will soon have more than 100 years to spend in societies that are changing rapidly?

It’s up to each of us to find our own answers to these questions: individuals, schools and also governments, in creating the wider conditions for their citizens. There may be no correct or ideal answers, just like there are no ‘ideal’ political standpoints. But we must try to answer them, to determine a course for the compass.

Five attempts at an answer

After several years of asking these questions in various national and international forums, I’ve come to the conclusion that education has five key goals:

To unleash the infinite potential of humanity. A substantial potential remains unused in people, simply because current curricula and testing bodies lack the means to address it. Imagine the benefits of an education system that helps students reach their full potential? Imagine the effect such students might have on our societies?
To learn how to apply oneself as an instrument towards lifelong value. Post-war generations went to work where they could. In contrast, recent generations have learned to do what they enjoy. Bridging the two tendencies, we might teach children how they matter and impart a sense of self-appreciation in a societal context. Ask them what are their core strengths, their talents and interests, and how they will put these to use for society?
To learn how to shape the future. Rather than preparing children for the future – which is rather passive and arguably impossible to do, as we don’t know how history will develop – we might teach children how they may have an influence on society; how they may shape, design, develop, articulate, make and programme ideas and things.
To understand and master the conditions for peace. Conflict resolution, clear interpersonal communications, empathy and intercultural understanding may well be crucial traits of our societies if they are to stay liveable, both in the context of our increasingly culturally diverse societies as well as the everyday school and work environment.
To learn how to be healthy and happy. Taking proper care of one’s body and discovering the drivers of one’s general well-being are essential skills to succeed at life. Schools might help students find a good balance between effort, exercise and relaxation, and to define their personal priorities in life.

This is not a debate for politicians and civil servants alone. Every single one of us is a decision-maker when it comes to education. None of us should debate how a quality education is best provided to children or how such quality is best assessed if we haven’t first asked ourselves: what is quality education in the first place?

Have you read? 5 reasons why we need to reduce global inequality Why gender equality will make or break the Global Goals

Author: Claire Boonstra is the co-founder of tech start-ups, founder of Operation Education and a Young Global Leader

Guest editor of this series is Owen Gaffney, Director, International Media and Strategy, Stockholm Resilience Centre and Future Earth

Image: Children sit inside a classroom on their first day of school at Shimizu elementary school in Fukushima, northern Japan April 6, 2011. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Sustainable Development .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

What is needed for inclusive and sustainable global economic growth? Four leaders share their thoughts

Liam Coleman

May 24, 2024

Translating Critical Raw Material Trade into Development Benefits

Tourism is bouncing back - but can we make travel sustainable?

Robin Pomeroy and Sophia Akram

May 23, 2024

Protecting the magic of travel - and local economies

Topaz Smith

May 21, 2024

6 years to the Global Goals – here's how tourism can help get us there

Zurab Pololikashvili

Travel & Tourism Development Index 2024

Our Mission

What Is Education For?

Read an excerpt from a new book by Sir Ken Robinson and Kate Robinson, which calls for redesigning education for the future.

What is education for? As it happens, people differ sharply on this question. It is what is known as an “essentially contested concept.” Like “democracy” and “justice,” “education” means different things to different people. Various factors can contribute to a person’s understanding of the purpose of education, including their background and circumstances. It is also inflected by how they view related issues such as ethnicity, gender, and social class. Still, not having an agreed-upon definition of education doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it or do anything about it.

We just need to be clear on terms. There are a few terms that are often confused or used interchangeably—“learning,” “education,” “training,” and “school”—but there are important differences between them. Learning is the process of acquiring new skills and understanding. Education is an organized system of learning. Training is a type of education that is focused on learning specific skills. A school is a community of learners: a group that comes together to learn with and from each other. It is vital that we differentiate these terms: children love to learn, they do it naturally; many have a hard time with education, and some have big problems with school.

There are many assumptions of compulsory education. One is that young people need to know, understand, and be able to do certain things that they most likely would not if they were left to their own devices. What these things are and how best to ensure students learn them are complicated and often controversial issues. Another assumption is that compulsory education is a preparation for what will come afterward, like getting a good job or going on to higher education.

So, what does it mean to be educated now? Well, I believe that education should expand our consciousness, capabilities, sensitivities, and cultural understanding. It should enlarge our worldview. As we all live in two worlds—the world within you that exists only because you do, and the world around you—the core purpose of education is to enable students to understand both worlds. In today’s climate, there is also a new and urgent challenge: to provide forms of education that engage young people with the global-economic issues of environmental well-being.

This core purpose of education can be broken down into four basic purposes.

Education should enable young people to engage with the world within them as well as the world around them. In Western cultures, there is a firm distinction between the two worlds, between thinking and feeling, objectivity and subjectivity. This distinction is misguided. There is a deep correlation between our experience of the world around us and how we feel. As we explored in the previous chapters, all individuals have unique strengths and weaknesses, outlooks and personalities. Students do not come in standard physical shapes, nor do their abilities and personalities. They all have their own aptitudes and dispositions and different ways of understanding things. Education is therefore deeply personal. It is about cultivating the minds and hearts of living people. Engaging them as individuals is at the heart of raising achievement.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and that “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Many of the deepest problems in current systems of education result from losing sight of this basic principle.

Schools should enable students to understand their own cultures and to respect the diversity of others. There are various definitions of culture, but in this context the most appropriate is “the values and forms of behavior that characterize different social groups.” To put it more bluntly, it is “the way we do things around here.” Education is one of the ways that communities pass on their values from one generation to the next. For some, education is a way of preserving a culture against outside influences. For others, it is a way of promoting cultural tolerance. As the world becomes more crowded and connected, it is becoming more complex culturally. Living respectfully with diversity is not just an ethical choice, it is a practical imperative.

There should be three cultural priorities for schools: to help students understand their own cultures, to understand other cultures, and to promote a sense of cultural tolerance and coexistence. The lives of all communities can be hugely enriched by celebrating their own cultures and the practices and traditions of other cultures.

Education should enable students to become economically responsible and independent. This is one of the reasons governments take such a keen interest in education: they know that an educated workforce is essential to creating economic prosperity. Leaders of the Industrial Revolution knew that education was critical to creating the types of workforce they required, too. But the world of work has changed so profoundly since then, and continues to do so at an ever-quickening pace. We know that many of the jobs of previous decades are disappearing and being rapidly replaced by contemporary counterparts. It is almost impossible to predict the direction of advancing technologies, and where they will take us.

How can schools prepare students to navigate this ever-changing economic landscape? They must connect students with their unique talents and interests, dissolve the division between academic and vocational programs, and foster practical partnerships between schools and the world of work, so that young people can experience working environments as part of their education, not simply when it is time for them to enter the labor market.

Education should enable young people to become active and compassionate citizens. We live in densely woven social systems. The benefits we derive from them depend on our working together to sustain them. The empowerment of individuals has to be balanced by practicing the values and responsibilities of collective life, and of democracy in particular. Our freedoms in democratic societies are not automatic. They come from centuries of struggle against tyranny and autocracy and those who foment sectarianism, hatred, and fear. Those struggles are far from over. As John Dewey observed, “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.”

For a democratic society to function, it depends upon the majority of its people to be active within the democratic process. In many democracies, this is increasingly not the case. Schools should engage students in becoming active, and proactive, democratic participants. An academic civics course will scratch the surface, but to nurture a deeply rooted respect for democracy, it is essential to give young people real-life democratic experiences long before they come of age to vote.

Eight Core Competencies

The conventional curriculum is based on a collection of separate subjects. These are prioritized according to beliefs around the limited understanding of intelligence we discussed in the previous chapter, as well as what is deemed to be important later in life. The idea of “subjects” suggests that each subject, whether mathematics, science, art, or language, stands completely separate from all the other subjects. This is problematic. Mathematics, for example, is not defined only by propositional knowledge; it is a combination of types of knowledge, including concepts, processes, and methods as well as propositional knowledge. This is also true of science, art, and languages, and of all other subjects. It is therefore much more useful to focus on the concept of disciplines rather than subjects.

Disciplines are fluid; they constantly merge and collaborate. In focusing on disciplines rather than subjects we can also explore the concept of interdisciplinary learning. This is a much more holistic approach that mirrors real life more closely—it is rare that activities outside of school are as clearly segregated as conventional curriculums suggest. A journalist writing an article, for example, must be able to call upon skills of conversation, deductive reasoning, literacy, and social sciences. A surgeon must understand the academic concept of the patient’s condition, as well as the practical application of the appropriate procedure. At least, we would certainly hope this is the case should we find ourselves being wheeled into surgery.

The concept of disciplines brings us to a better starting point when planning the curriculum, which is to ask what students should know and be able to do as a result of their education. The four purposes above suggest eight core competencies that, if properly integrated into education, will equip students who leave school to engage in the economic, cultural, social, and personal challenges they will inevitably face in their lives. These competencies are curiosity, creativity, criticism, communication, collaboration, compassion, composure, and citizenship. Rather than be triggered by age, they should be interwoven from the beginning of a student’s educational journey and nurtured throughout.

From Imagine If: Creating a Future for Us All by Sir Ken Robinson, Ph.D and Kate Robinson, published by Penguin Books, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2022 by the Estate of Sir Kenneth Robinson and Kate Robinson.

education, community-building and change

What is education? A definition and discussion

Picture: Dessiner le futur adulte by Alain Bachellier. Sourced from Flickr and reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) licence. http://www.flickr.com/photos/alainbachellier/537180464/

Education is the wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning and change undertaken in the belief that we all should have the chance to share in life.

Mark k smith explores the meaning of education and suggests it is a process of being with others and inviting truth and possibility., contents : introduction • education – cultivating hopeful environments and relationships for learning • education, respect and wisdom • education – acting so all may share in life • conclusion – what is education • further reading and references • acknowledgements • how to cite this piece, introduction.

When talking about education people often confuse it with schooling. Many think of places like schools or colleges when seeing or hearing the word. They might also look to particular jobs like teacher or tutor. The problem with this is that while looking to help people learn, the way a lot of schools and teachers operate is not necessarily something we can properly call education. They have chosen or fallen or been pushed into ‘schooling’ – trying to drill learning into people according to some plan often drawn up by others. Paulo Freire (1973) famously called this banking – making deposits of knowledge. Such ‘schooling’ too easily descends into treating learners like objects, things to be acted upon rather than people to be related to.

Education, as we understand it here, is a process of inviting truth and possibility, of encouraging and giving time to discovery. It is, as John Dewey (1916) put it, a social process – ‘a process of living and not a preparation for future living’. In this view educators look to learning and being with others rather than acting upon them. Their task is to educe (related to the Greek notion of educere ), to bring out or develop potential both in themselves and others. Such education is:

Deliberate and hopeful. It is learning we set out to make happen in the belief that we all can ‘be more’;
Informed, respectful and wise. A process of inviting truth and possibility.
Grounded in a desire that at all may flourish and share in life . It is a cooperative and inclusive activity that looks to help us to live our lives as well as we can.

In what follows we will try to answer the question ‘what is education?’ by exploring these dimensions and the processes involved.

Education – cultivating hopeful environments and relationships for learning

It is often said that we are learning all the time and that we may not be conscious of it happening. Learning is both a process and an outcome. As a process, it is part of being and living in the world, part of the way our bodies work. As an outcome, it is a new understanding or appreciation of something.

In recent years, developments in neuroscience have shown us how learning takes place both in the body and as a social activity. We are social animals. As a result, educators need to focus on creating environments and relationships for learning rather than trying to drill knowledge into themselves and others.

Teachers are losing the education war because our adolescents are distracted by the social world. Naturally, the students don’t see it that way. It wasn’t their choice to get endless instruction on topics that don’t seem relevant to them. They desperately want to learn, but what they want to learn about is their social world—how it works and how they can secure a place in it that will maximize their social rewards and minimize the social pain they feel. Their brains are built to feel these strong social motivations and to use the mentalizing system to help them along. Evolutionarily, the social interest of adolescents is no distraction. Rather, it is the most important thing they can learn well. (Lieberman 2013: 282)

The cultivation of learning is a cognitive and emotional and social activity (Illeris 2002)

Alison Gopnik (2016) has provided a helpful way of understanding this orientation. It is that educators, pedagogues and practitioners need to be gardeners rather than carpenters. A key theme emerging from her research over the last 30 years or so that runs in parallel with Lieberman, is that children learn by actively engaging their social and physical environments – not by passively absorbing information. They learn from other people, not because they are being taught – but because people are doing and talking about interesting things. The emphasis in a lot of the literature about parenting (and teaching) presents the roles much like that of a carpenter.

You should pay some attention to the kind of material you are working with, and it may have some influence on what you try to do. But essentially your job is to shape that material into a final product that will fit the scheme you had in mind to begin with.

Instead, Gopnik argues, the evidence points to being a gardener.

When we garden, on the other hand, we create a protected and nurturing space for plants to flourish. It takes hard labor and the sweat of our brows, with a lot of exhausted digging and wallowing in manure. And as any gardener knows, our specific plans are always thwarted. The poppy comes up neon orange instead of pale pink, the rose that was supposed to climb the fence stubbornly remains a foot from the ground, black spot and rust and aphids can never be defeated.

Education is deliberate. We act with a purpose – to build understanding and judgement and enable action. We may do this for ourselves, for example, learning what different road signs mean so that we can get a license to drive; or watching wildlife programmes on television because we are interested in animal behaviour. This process is sometimes called self-education or teaching yourself. We join with the journey that the writer, presenter or expert is making, think about it and develop our understanding. Hopefully, we bring that process and understanding into play when we need to act. We also seek to encourage learning in others (while being open to learning ourselves). Examples here include parents and carers showing their children how to use a knife and fork or ride a bike; schoolteachers introducing students to a foreign language; and animators and pedagogues helping a group to work together.

Sometimes as educators, we have a clear idea of what we’d like to see achieved; at others, we do not and should not. In the case of the former, we might be working to a curriculum, have a session or lesson plan with clear objectives, and have a high degree of control over the learning environment. This is what we often mean by ‘formal education’. In the latter, for example, when working with a community group, the setting is theirs and, as educators, we are present as guests. This is an example of informal education and here two things are happening.

First, the group may well be clear on what it wants to achieve e.g. putting on an event, but unclear about what they need to learn to do it. They know learning is involved – it is something necessary to achieve what they want – but it is not the main focus. Such ‘incidental learning’ is not accidental. People know they need to learn something but cannot necessarily specify it in advance (Brookfield 1984).

Second, this learning activity works largely through conversation – and conversation takes unpredictable turns. It is a dialogical rather than curricula form of education.

In both forms, educators set out to create environments and relationships where people can explore their, and other’s, experiences of situations, ideas and feelings. This exploration lies, as John Dewey argued, at the heart of the ‘business of education’. Educators set out to emancipate and enlarge experience (1933: 340). How closely the subject matter is defined in advance, and by whom, differs from situation to situation. John Ellis (1990) has developed a useful continuum – arguing that most education involves a mix of the informal and formal, of conversation and curriculum (i.e. between points X and Y).

The informal-formal education continuum - John Ellis

Those that describe themselves as informal educators, social pedagogues or as animators of community learning and development tend to work towards the X; those working as subject teachers or lecturers tend to the Y. Educators when facilitating tutor groups might, overall, work somewhere in the middle.

Acting in hope

Underpinning intention is an attitude or virtue – hopefulness. As educators ‘we believe that learning is possible, that nothing can keep an open mind from seeking after knowledge and finding a way to know’ (hooks 2003: xiv) . In other words, we invite people to learn and act in the belief that change for the good is possible. This openness to possibility isn’t blind or over-optimistic. It looks to evidence and experience, and is born of an appreciation of the world’s limitations (Halpin 2003: 19-20).

We can quickly see how such hope is both a part of the fabric of education – and, for many, an aim of education. Mary Warnock (1986:182) puts it this way:

I think that of all the attributes that I would like to see in my children or in my pupils, the attribute of hope would come high, even top, of the list. To lose hope is to lose the capacity to want or desire anything; to lose, in fact, the wish to live. Hope is akin to energy, to curiosity, to the belief that things are worth doing. An education which leaves a child without hope is an education that has failed.

But hope is not easy to define or describe. It is:

An emotion . Hope, John Macquarrie (1978 11) suggests, ‘consists in an outgoing and trusting mood toward the environment’. We do not know what will happen but take a gamble. ‘It’s to bet on the future, on your desires, on the possibility that an open heart and uncertainty is better than gloom and safety. To hope is dangerous, and yet it is the opposite of fear, for to live is to risk’ (Solnit 2016: 21).

A choice or intention to act . Hope ‘promotes affirmative courses of action’ (Macquarrie 1978: 11). Hope alone will not transform the world. Action ‘undertaken in that kind of naïveté’, wrote Paulo Freire (1994: 8), ‘is an excellent route to hopelessness, pessimism, and fatalism’. Hope and action are linked. Rebecca Solnit (2016: 22) put it this way, ‘Hope calls for action; action is impossible without hope… To hope is to give yourself to the future, and that commitment to the future makes the present inhabitable’.

An intellectual activity . Hope is not just feeling or striving, according to McQuarrie it has a cognitive or intellectual aspect. ‘[I]t carries in itself a definite way of understanding both ourselves – and the environing processes within which human life has its setting’ ( op. cit. ).

This provides us with a language to help make sense of things and to imagine change for the better – a ‘vocabulary of hope’. It helps us to critique the world as it is and our part in it, and not to just imagine change but also to plan it (Moltman 1967, 1971). It also allows us, and others, to ask questions of our hopes, to request evidence for our claims. (See, what is hope? ).

Education – being respectful, informed and wise

Education is wrapped up with who we are as learners and facilitators of learning – and how we are experienced by learners. In order to think about this, it is helpful to look back at a basic distinction made by Erich Fromm (1979), amongst others, between having and being. Fromm approaches these as fundamental modes of existence. He saw them as two different ways of understanding ourselves and the world in which we live.

Having is concerned with owning, possessing and controlling. In it we want to ‘make everybody and everything’, including ourselves, our property (Fromm 1979: 33). It looks to objects and material possessions.

Being is rooted in love according to Fromm. It is concerned with shared experience and productive activity. Rather than seeking to possess and control, in this mode, we engage with the world. We do not impose ourselves on others nor ‘interfere’ in their lives (see Smith and Smith 2008: 16-17).

These different orientations involve contrasting approaches to learning.

Students in the having mode must have but one aim; to hold onto what they have ‘learned’, either by entrusting it firmly to their memories or by carefully guarding their notes. They do not have to produce or create something new…. The process of learning has an entirely different quality for students in the being mode… Instead of being passive receptacles of words and ideas, they listen, they hear , and most important, they receive and they respond in an active, productive way. (Fromm 1979: 37-38)

In many ways, this difference mirrors that between education and schooling. Schooling entails transmitting knowledge in manageable lumps so it can be stored and then used so that students can pass tests and have qualifications. Education involves engaging with others and the world. It entails being with others in a particular way. Here I want to explore three aspects – being respectful, informed and wise.

Being respectful

The process of education flows from a basic orientation of respect – respect for truth, others and themselves, and the world. It is an attitude or feeling which is carried through into concrete action, into the way we treat people, for example. Respect, as R. S. Dillon (2014) has reminded us, is derived from the Latin respicere , meaning ‘to look back at’ or ‘to look again’ at something. In other words, when we respect something we value it enough to make it our focus and to try to see it for what it is, rather than what we might want it to be. It is so important that it calls for our recognition and our regard – and we choose to respond.

We can see this at work in our everyday relationships. When we think highly of someone we may well talk about respecting them – and listen carefully to what they say or value the example they give. Here, though, we are also concerned with a more abstract idea – that of moral worth or value. Rather than looking at why we respect this person or that, the interest is in why we should respect people in general (or truth, or creation, or ourselves).

First, we expect educators to hold truth dearly . We expect that they will look beneath the surface, try to challenge misrepresentation and lies, and be open to alternatives. They should display the ‘two basic virtues of truth’: sincerity and accuracy (Williams 2002: 11). There are strong religious reasons for this. Bearing false witness, within Christian traditions, can be seen as challenging the foundations of God’s covenant. There are also strongly practical reasons for truthfulness. Without it, the development of knowledge would not be possible – we could not evaluate one claim against another. Nor could we conduct much of life. For example, as Paul Seabright (2010) has argued, truthfulness allows us to trust strangers. In the process, we can build complex societies, trade and cooperate.

Educators, as with other respecters of truth, should do their best to acquire ‘true beliefs’ and to ensure what they say actually reveals what they believe (Williams 2002: 11). Their authority, ‘must be rooted in their truthfulness in both these respects: they take care, and they do not lie’ op. cit.).

Second, educators should display fundamental respect for others (and themselves) . There is a straightforward theological argument for this. There is also a fundamental philosophical argument for ‘respect for persons’. Irrespective of what they have done, the people they are or their social position, it is argued, people are deserving of some essential level of regard. The philosopher most closely associated with this idea is Immanuel Kant – and his thinking has become a central pillar of humanism. Kant’s position was that people were deserving of respect because they are people – free, rational beings. They are ends in themselves with an absolute dignity

Alongside respect for others comes respect for self. Without it, it is difficult to see how we can flourish – and whether we can be educators. Self-respect is not to be confused with qualities like self-esteem or self-confidence; rather it is to do with our intrinsic worth as a person and a sense of ourselves as mattering. It involves a ‘secure conviction that [our] conception of the good, [our] plan of life, is worth carrying out’ (Rawls 1972: 440). For some, respect for ourselves is simply the other side of the coin from respect for others. It flows from respect for persons. For others, like John Rawls, it is vital for happiness and must be supported as a matter of justice.

Third, educators should respect the Earth . This is sometimes talked about as respect for nature, or respect for all things or care for creation. Again there is a strong theological argument here – in much religious thinking humans are understood as stewards of the earth. Our task is to cultivate and care for it (see, for example, Genesis 2:15). However, there is also a strong case grounded in human experience. For example, Miller (2000) argues that ‘each person finds identity, meaning, and purpose in life through connections to the community, to the natural world, and to spiritual values such as compassion and peace’. Respect for the world is central to the thinking of those arguing for a more holistic vision of education and to the thinking of educationalists such as Montessori . Her vision of ‘cosmic education’ puts appreciating the wholeness of life at the core.

Since it has been seen to be necessary to give so much to the child, let us give him a vision of the whole universe. The universe is an imposing reality, and an answer to all questions. We shall walk together on this path of life, for all things are part of the universe, and are connected with each other to form one whole unity. This idea helps the mind of the child to become fixed, to stop wandering in an aimless quest for knowledge. He is satisfied, having found the universal centre of himself with all things’. (Montessori 2000)

Last, and certainly not least, there is a basic practical concern. We face an environmental crisis of catastrophic proportions. As Emmett (among many others) has pointed out, it is likely that we are looking at a global average rise of over four degrees Centigrade. This ‘will lead to runaway climate change, capable of tipping the planet into an entirely different state, rapidly. Earth would become a hell hole’ (2013: 143).

Being informed

To facilitate learning we must have some understanding of the subject matter being explored, and the impact study could have on those involved. In other words, facilitation is intelligent.

We expect, quite reasonably, that when people describe themselves as teachers or educators, they know something about the subjects they are talking about. In this respect, our ‘subject area’ as educators is wide. It can involve particular aspects of knowledge and activity such as those associated with maths or history. However, it is also concerned with happiness and relationships, the issues and problems of everyday life in communities, and questions around how people are best to live their lives. In some respects, it is wisdom that is required – not so much in the sense that we know a lot or are learned – but rather we are able to help people make good judgements about problems and situations.

We also assume that teachers and educators know how to help people learn. The forms of education we are exploring here are sophisticated. They can embrace the techniques of classroom management and of teaching to a curriculum that has been the mainstay of schooling. However, they move well beyond this into experiential learning, working with groups, and forms of working with individuals that draw upon insights from counselling and therapy.

In short, we look to teachers and educators as experts, We expect them to apply their expertise to help people learn. However, things don’t stop there. Many look for something more – wisdom.

Wisdom is not something that we can generally claim for ourselves – but a quality recognized by others. Sometimes when people are described as wise what is meant is that they are scholarly or learned. More often, I suspect, when others are described as ‘being wise’ it that people have experienced their questions or judgement helpful and sound when exploring a problem or difficult situation (see Smith and Smith 2008: 57-69). This entails:

appreciating what can make people flourish
being open to truth in its various guises and allowing subjects to speak to us
developing the capacity to reflect
being knowledgeable, especially about ourselves, around ‘what makes people tick’ and the systems of which we are a part
being discerning – able to evaluate and judge situations. ( op. cit. : 68)

This combination of qualities, when put alongside being respectful and informed, comes close to what Martin Buber talked about as the ‘real teacher’. The real teacher, he believed:

… teaches most successfully when he is not consciously trying to teach at all, but when he acts spontaneously out of his own life. Then he can gain the pupil’s confidence; he can convince the adolescent that there is human truth, that existence has a meaning. And when the pupil’s confidence has been won, ‘his resistance against being educated gives way to a singular happening: he accepts the educator as a person. He feels he may trust this man, that this man is taking part in his life, accepting him before desiring to influence him. And so he learns to ask…. (Hodes 1972: 136)

Education – acting so that all may share in life

Thus far in answering the question ‘what is education?’ we have seen how it can be thought of as the wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning. Here we will explore the claim that education should be undertaken in the belief that all should have the chance to share in life. This commitment to the good of all and of each individual is central to the vision of education explored here, but it could be argued that it is possible to be involved in education without this. We could take out concern for others. We could just focus on process – the wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning – and not state to whom this applies and the direction it takes.

Looking beyond process

First, we need to answer the question ‘if we act wisely, hopefully, and respectfully as educators do we need to have a further purpose?’ Our guide here will again be John Dewey. He approached the question a century ago by arguing that ‘the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth’ (Dewey 1916: 100). Education, for him, entailed the continuous ‘reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases the ability to direct the course of subsequent experience. (Dewey 1916: 76). His next step was to consider the social relationships in which this can take place and the degree of control that learners and educators have over the process. Just as Freire (1972) argued later, relationships for learning need to be mutual, and individual and social change possible.

In our search for aims in education, we are not concerned… with finding an end outside of the educative process to which education is subordinate. Our whole conception forbids. We are rather concerned with the contrast which exists when aims belong within the process in which they operate and when they are set up from without. And the latter state of affairs must obtain when social relationships are not equitably balanced. For in that case, some portions of the whole social group will find their aims determined by an external dictation; their aims will not arise from the free growth of their own experience, and their nominal aims will be means to more ulterior ends of others rather than truly their own. (Dewey 1916: 100-101)

In other words, where there are equitable relationships, control over the learning process, and the possibilities of fundamental change we needn’t look beyond the process. However, we have to work for much of the time in situations and societies where this level of democracy and social justice does not exist. Hence the need to make clear a wider purpose. Dewey (1916: 7) argued, thus, that our ‘chief business’ as educators is to enable people ‘to share in a common life’. I want to widen this and to argue that all should have a chance to share in life.

Having the chance to share in life

We will explore, briefly, three overlapping approaches to making the case – via religious belief, human rights and scientific exploration.

Religious belief. Historically it has been a religious rationale that has underpinned much thinking about this question. If we were to look at Catholic social teaching, for example, we find that at its heart lays a concern for human dignity . This starts from the position that, ‘human beings, created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), have by their very existence an inherent value, worth, and distinction’ (Groody 2007). Each life is considered sacred and cannot be ignored or excluded. As we saw earlier, Kant argued something similar with regard to ‘respect for persons’. All are worthy of respect and the chance to flourish.

To human dignity a concern for solidarity is often added (especially within contemporary Catholic social teaching). Solidarity:

… is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. On Social Concern ( Sollicitudo rei Socialis . . . ), #38

Another element, fundamental to the formation of the groups, networks and associations necessary for the ‘common life’ that Dewey describes, is subsidiarity . This principle, which first found its institutional voice in a papal encyclical in 1881, holds that human affairs are best handled at the ‘lowest’ possible level, closest to those affected (Kaylor 2015). It is a principle that can both strengthen civil society and the possibility of more mutual relationships for learning.

Together, these can provide a powerful and inclusive rationale for looking beyond particular individuals or groups when thinking about educational activity.

Human rights. Beside religious arguments lie others that are born of agreed principle or norm rather than faith. Perhaps the best known of these relate to what have become known as human rights. The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it this way:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 26 further states:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms….

These fundamental and inalienable rights are the entitlement of all human beings regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status (Article 2).

Scientific exploration. Lastly, I want to look at the results of scientific investigation into our nature as humans. More specifically we need to reflect on what it means when humans are described as social animals.

As we have already seen there is a significant amount of research showing just how dependent we are in everyday life on having trusting relationships in a society. Without them even the most basic exchanges cannot take place. We also know that in those societies where there is stronger concern for others and relatively narrow gaps between rich and poor people are generally happier (see, for example, Halpern 2010). On the basis of this material we could make a case for educators to look to the needs and experiences of all. Political, social and economic institutions depend on mass participation or at least benign consent – and the detail of this has to be learnt. However, with our growing appreciation of how our brains work and with the development of, for example, social cognitive neuroscience, we have a different avenue for exploration. We look to the needs and experience of others because we are hard-wired to do so. As Matthew D. Lieberman (2013) has put it:

Our basic urges include the need to belong, right along with the need for food and water. Our pain and pleasure systems do not merely respond to sensory inputs that can produce physical harm and reward. They are also exquisitely tuned to the sweet and bitter tastes delivered from the social world—a world of connection and threat to connection. (Lieberman 2013: 299)

Our survival as a species is dependent upon on looking to the needs and experiences of others. We dependent upon:

Connecting: We have ‘evolved the capacity to feel social pains and pleasures, forever linking our well-being to our social connectedness. Infants embody this deep need to stay connected, but it is present through our entire lives’ ( op. cit. : 10) Mindreading: Primates have developed an unparalleled ability to understand the actions and thoughts of those around them, enhancing their ability to stay connected and interact strategically… This capacity allows humans to create groups that can implement nearly any idea and to anticipate the needs and wants of those around us, keeping our groups moving smoothly ( op. cit. : 10) Harmonizing: Although the self may appear to be a mechanism for distinguishing us from others and perhaps accentuating our selfishness, the self actually operates as a powerful force for social cohesiveness. Whereas connection is about our desire to be social, harmonizing refers to the neural adaptations that allow group beliefs and values to influence our own. ( op. cit. : 11)

One of the key issues around these processes is the extent to which they can act to become exclusionary i.e. people can become closely attached to one particular group, community or nation and begin to treat others as somehow lesser or alien. In so doing relationships that are necessary to our survival – and that of the planet – become compromised. We need to develop relationships that are both bonding and bridging (see social capital ) – and this involves being and interacting with others who may not share our interests and concerns.

Education is more than fostering understanding and an appreciation of emotions and feelings. It is also concerned with change – ‘with how people can act with understanding and sensitivity to improve their lives and those of others’ (Smith and Smith 2008: 104). As Karl Marx (1977: 157-8) famously put it ‘all social life is practical…. philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; ‘the point is to change it’. Developing an understanding of an experience or a situation is one thing, working out what is good and wanting to do something about it is quite another. ‘For appropriate action to occur there needs to be commitment’ (Smith and Smith 2008: 105).

This combination of reflection; looking to what might be good and making it our own; and seeking to change ourselves and the world we live in is what Freire (1973) talked about as praxis. It involves us, as educators, working with people to create and sustain environments and relationships where it is possible to:

Go back to experiences . Learning doesn’t take place in a vacuum. We have to look to the past as well as the present and the future. It is necessary to put things in their place by returning to, or recalling, events and happenings that seem relevant.
Attend and connect to feelings . Our ability to think and act is wrapped up with our feelings. Appreciating what might be going on for us (and for others) at a particular moment; thinking about the ways our emotions may be affecting things; and being open to what our instincts or intuitions are telling us are important elements of such reflection. (See Boud et. al. 1985).
Develop understandings . Alongside attending to feelings and experiences, we need to examine the theories and understandings we are using. We also need to build new interpretations where needed. We should be looking to integrating new knowledge into our conceptual framework.
Commit . Education is something ‘higher’ according to John Henry Newman. It is concerned not just with what we know and can do, but also with who we are, what we value, and our capacity to live life as well as we can . We need space to engage with these questions and help to appreciate the things we value. As we learn to frame our beliefs we can better appreciate how they breathe life into our relationships and encounters, become our own, and move us to act.
Act . Education is forward-looking and hopeful. It looks to change for the better. In the end our efforts at facilitating learning have to be judged by the extent to which they further the capacity to flourish and to share in life. For this reason we need also to attend to the concrete, the actual steps that can be taken to improve things.

As such education is a deeply practical activity – something that we can do for ourselves (what we could call self-education), and with others.

Conclusion – so what is education?

It is in this way that we end up with a definition of education as ‘the wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning undertaken in the belief that all should have the chance to share in life’. What does education involve?

We can begin with what Aristotle discusses as hexis – a readiness to sense and know. This is a state – or what Joe Sachs (2001) talks about as an ‘active condition’. It allows us to take a step forward – both in terms of the processes discussed above, and in what we might seek to do when working with learners and participants. Such qualities can be seen as being at the core of the haltung and processes of pedagogues and educators (see below). There is a strong emphasis upon being in touch with feelings, attending to intuitions and seeking evidence to confirm or question what we might be sensing. A further element is also present – a concern not to take things for granted or at their face value (See, also, Pierre Bourdieu on education , Bourdieu 1972|1977: 214 n1).

Beyond that, we can see a guiding eidos or leading idea. This is the belief that all share in life and a picture of what might allow people to be happy and flourish. Alongside is a disposition or haltung (a concern to act respectfully, knowledgeably and wisely) and interaction (joining with others to build relationships and environments for learning). Finally, there is praxis – informed, committed action (Carr and Kemmis 1986; Grundy 1987).

The process of education

At first glance, this way of answering the question ‘what is education?’ – with its roots in the thinking of Aristotle , Rousseau , Pestalozzi and Dewey (to name a few) – is part of the progressive tradition of educational practice. It seems very different from ‘formal tradition’ or ‘traditional education’.

If there is a core theme to the formal position it is that education is about passing on information; for formalists, culture and civilization represent a store of ideas and wisdom which have to be handed on to new generations. Teaching is at the heart of this transmission; and the process of transmission is education…

While progressive educators stress the child’s development from within, formalists put the emphasis, by contrast, on formation from without— formation that comes from immersion in the knowledge, ideas, beliefs, concepts, and visions of society, culture, civilization. There are, one might say, conservative and liberal interpretations of this world view— the conservative putting the emphasis on transmission itself, on telling, and the liberal putting the emphasis more on induction, on initiation by involvement with culture’s established ideas.(Thomas 2013: 25-26).

As both Thomas and Dewey (1938: 17-23) have argued, these distinctions are problematic. A lot of the debate is either really about education being turned, or slipping, into something else, or reflecting a lack of balance between the informal and formal.

In the ‘formal tradition’ problems often occur where people are treated as objects to be worked on or ‘moulded’ rather than as participants and creators i.e. where education slips into ‘schooling’.

In the ‘progressive tradition’ issues frequently arise where the nature of experience is neglected or handled incompetently. Some experiences are damaging and ‘mis-educative’. They can arrest or distort ‘the growth of further experience’ (Dewey 1938: 25). The problem often comes when education drifts or moves into entertainment or containment. Involvement in the immediate activity is the central concern and little attention is given to expanding horizons, nor to reflection, commitment and creating change.

The answer to the question ‘what is education?’ given here can apply to both those ‘informal’ forms that are driven and rooted in conversation – and to more formal approaches involving a curriculum. The choice is not between what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ – but rather what is appropriate for people in this situation or that. There are times to use transmission and direct teaching as methods, and moments for exploration, experience and action. It is all about getting the mix right and framing it within the guiding eidos and disposition of education.

AWARD-WINNING BLOG

What is a “good education”.

Growing up, my parents told me “You need a good education if you want to get a good job. That means college or university.” When someone they knew was struggling in life, the explanation was simply, “Well, he never did get a degree.”

The message: a university degree brings you wealth, happiness, opportunity, and success. Not having a degree doomed you to a life of menial, unpleasant, drudgery and servitude.

I bought into the message and vowed to get a good job. But I was never quite sure what that job would be.

Especially after I took a vocational guidance test in Grade 10. I eagerly awaited my personal list of ‘Top 5 Careers,” hoping it would include magician, comedian, stuntman, toy designer, or gigolo.

Or maybe all five! Yay! Multi-tasking!

The truth was, I didn’t want to grow up.

Alas, the test results did not recommend my imagined careers. The only one I can recall from the list was… ahem… Furrier. I thought Furrier was an adjective. As in, “my dog is furrier than your dog.”

When the Guidance Counselor explained what a Furrier did, I was mortified. I tried to imagine any aspect of that job that would appeal to me—skinning animals, sewing them into clothing, dealing with customers. A test designed to open my mind to opportunities left me afraid that adulthood was going to be hell. I would have to endure 40 years of boredom before being allowed to retire…Unless I got a university degree.

In something. I just didn’t know what.

When well meaning relatives would ask, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” I shrugged. After learning what a Furrier did, I didn’t want to grow up .

A million-to-one long shot.

When I went off to university, I still had no idea what I wanted to do. I was pursuing a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics, not because I fancied a career in Physics, but because it was my most interesting course in high school (and I had a great teacher). Yes, I did love art class and a TV course I took in Grade 11. But the notion that I might make a living in television, or creating art… that seemed like a million-to-one long shot.

So when I was struggling through my second year of university, depressed, dreading university as much as I had dreaded High School, I went to the Registrars office and opted for a 3-year General Degree instead of a full 4-Year degree. I was convinced this less rigorous degree doomed me to a mediocre life with a mediocre salary.

I was wrong, or half wrong. My life has never been mediocre .

When I graduated from university, I still had no idea what I was going to do with my life. But I had a great job, doing zany public demonstrations with lasers, cryogenics, and combustible chemicals at a Science Centre. It was perfect for me. But it never felt like a career.

I dislike the term ‘career.’ For me, and a lot of my peers, our work record does not look like a ‘career path.’ It’s more like a game of Leap Frog or Hop Scotch, jumping from one interesting job to another, often with only passing connections or overlap.

A burgeoning revolution .

Despite my own checkered but fascinating journey, when I became a parent, I found myself repeating the same ‘truth’ to my kids, “You need a good education to get a good job. That means college or university.”

Now my kids are adults… and I’ve come to see that ‘truth’ is wrong. Or half wrong. Yes, you need a good education to get a good job. But no, that doesn’t mean the only route to your dream job is through college or university.

Nor does a college or university degree guarantee a job.

I base this conclusion on my own experience… and that of my siblings, colleagues, and friends.

Lately I’ve been editing a new TotallyADD video about how to prepare ADHD kids for college or university. A dozen experts talk about the extra challenges ADHD brings to an already stressful transition, and the pitfalls ADHD kids face in trying to earn a degree. There’s lots of really sensible advice. And some creative, out of the box strategies.

And several experts talk about something… well, revolutionary. Their message is simple, but almost alarming: “ Don’t go to college or university. ”

Or perhaps, go only for as long as you need to get the knowledge you need.

Or take 2 years and work in a slew of different fields to find a fit.

Intern. Apprentice. Take online courses. Volunteer.

This is not just an extraordinary idea—it’s happening. More and more. A burgeoning revolution.

In the middle of editing the video, I read the latest edition of ‘The Economist. (Which I’d argue, is the best business magazine in the world. Certainly the most readable.)

And their cover story?

“The Whole World Is Going To University: Is it worth it?”

It’s a big question.

Many people who are excelling in today’s hyper-evolving economy are self-educated. They are constantly upgrading their skills. Life-long learning. For the ADHD mindset, it’s a natural fit.

I Believe in Good Education .

Let me be clear, I am very much in favor of education. Good education. And by good I mean the right education, the appropriate education for the job you want. Yes, if you want to be a doctor, you will need to spend 6 or 7 years earning a medical degree. And that’s a good thing. For many careers, a traditional, linear, accredited, structured education curriculum is terrific.

But I’ve watched a lot of young people earn degrees that did not give them the skills they needed to get the job they wanted. Or any job at all.

It seems to me that most people spend more thought and research on a new house than on what kind of degree to earn. We rush kids directly from High School into University without any experience of real work and real workplaces. It’s all theoretical. What they’ve read about the career, or seen on TV.

Asking 16 year old students to decide on what they’re going to do for a living, and then commit tens of thousands of dollars and many years of studying it, is… well, it’s like asking young people to purchase a house based solely on reading a dozen real-estate ads.

And with the change of pace in the world, there’s a real danger that they could end up spending time and money getting a degree for a career that no longer exists.

Or even worse, working as a Furrier.

Privacy Overview

SDG4 coordination
Global Education Monitoring Report
Global Coalition for Education
UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks
Global network of technical and vocational education and training institutions
Global network of learning cities
Right to education
Education in emergencies
Inclusion in education
Early childhood care and education
Higher education
Literacy and adult learning
Technical and vocational education and training
Education and gender equality
Girls’ and women’s education in science and technology
Teacher education
Education policies and strategies
Education management, monitoring and evaluation
Assessment for improved learning outcomes
Curriculum development
Global citizenship education
Education about the Holocaust and genocide
Countering hate speech
Education for sustainable development
Health and education
Digital learning and transformation of education
Futures of Education
All UNESCO news on education
Education stories
Subscribe to the Education monthly newsletter
Publications
Databases and tools
National education profiles

About education

UNESCO believes that education is a human right for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality. The Organization is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to cover all aspects of education. It has been entrusted to lead the Global Education 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Development Goal 4 . The roadmap to achieve this is the Education 2030 Framework for Action (FFA).

UNESCO provides global and regional leadership in education, strengthens education systems worldwide and responds to contemporary global challenges through education with gender equality an underlying principle.

Its work encompasses educational development from pre-school to higher education and beyond. Themes include global citizenship and sustainable development, human rights and gender equality, health and HIV and AIDS, as well as technical and vocational skills development.

How we work

UNESCO leads the coordination and monitoring of the Global Education 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Development Goal 4 and using the Education 2030 Framework for Action as a roadmap.

The UNESCO Education Strategy 2014-2021 has three strategic objectives:

The education sector is shifting and evolving towards a more explicit, active commitment to addressing gender-related barriers within and beyond the education system. This shift is being accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic with more NGOs, local governments as well as national governments recognizing the role education has in promoting gender-transformative change. Many are responding to this shift with innovations that aim to address the persistent challenges faced by girls and women in education. By highlighting these key practices through the Prize, we can contribute to inspiring more action for girls and women.

We speak about the importance of gender-transformative change both in and beyond education. Can you define what this means for you?

Gender-transformative education aims not only to respond to gender disparities within the education system but also to harness the full potential of education to transform attitudes, practices and discriminatory gender norms. Education can support critical changes for gender equality, such as promoting women’s leadership, preventing gender-based violence, and catalyzing boys' and men's engagement to embrace gender equality.

I have been very impressed by the capacity shown by many organizations and individuals nominated to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure they could maintain the delivery of their programmes. We know that fewer girls and women have access to and use the internet, and the digital gender gap is growing, particularly in developing countries. Many found new ways of delivering educational content and finding solutions to conduct fully online or blended approaches to learning, often in low-resource settings where access to the internet is extremely limited.

Global Education

By: Hannah Ritchie , Veronika Samborska , Natasha Ahuja , Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser

A good education offers individuals the opportunity to lead richer, more interesting lives. At a societal level, it creates opportunities for humanity to solve its pressing problems.

The world has gone through a dramatic transition over the last few centuries, from one where very few had any basic education to one where most people do. This is not only reflected in the inputs to education – enrollment and attendance – but also in outcomes, where literacy rates have greatly improved.

Getting children into school is also not enough. What they learn matters. There are large differences in educational outcomes : in low-income countries, most children cannot read by the end of primary school. These inequalities in education exacerbate poverty and existing inequalities in global incomes .

On this page, you can find all of our writing and data on global education.

Key insights on Global Education

The world has made substantial progress in increasing basic levels of education.

Access to education is now seen as a fundamental right – in many cases, it’s the government’s duty to provide it.

But formal education is a very recent phenomenon. In the chart, we see the share of the adult population – those older than 15 – that has received some basic education and those who haven’t.

In the early 1800s, fewer than 1 in 5 adults had some basic education. Education was a luxury; in all places, it was only available to a small elite.

But you can see that this share has grown dramatically, such that this ratio is now reversed. Less than 1 in 5 adults has not received any formal education.

This is reflected in literacy data , too: 200 years ago, very few could read and write. Now most adults have basic literacy skills.

What you should know about this data

Basic education is defined as receiving some kind of formal primary, secondary, or tertiary (post-secondary) education.
This indicator does not tell us how long a person received formal education. They could have received a full program of schooling, or may only have been in attendance for a short period. To account for such differences, researchers measure the mean years of schooling or the expected years of schooling .

Despite being in school, many children learn very little

International statistics often focus on attendance as the marker of educational progress.

However, being in school does not guarantee that a child receives high-quality education. In fact, in many countries, the data shows that children learn very little.

Just half – 48% – of the world’s children can read with comprehension by the end of primary school. It’s based on data collected over a 9-year period, with 2016 as the average year of collection.

This is shown in the chart, where we plot averages across countries with different income levels. 1

The situation in low-income countries is incredibly worrying, with 90% of children unable to read by that age.

This can be improved – even among high-income countries. The best-performing countries have rates as low as 2%. That’s more than four times lower than the average across high-income countries.

Making sure that every child gets to go to school is essential. But the world also needs to focus on what children learn once they’re in the classroom.

Millions of children learn only very little. How can the world provide a better education to the next generation?

Research suggests that many children – especially in the world’s poorest countries – learn only very little in school. What can we do to improve this?

This data does not capture total literacy over someone’s lifetime. Many children will learn to read eventually, even if they cannot read by the end of primary school. However, this means they are in a constant state of “catching up” and will leave formal education far behind where they could be.

Children across the world receive very different amounts of quality learning

There are still significant inequalities in the amount of education children get across the world.

This can be measured as the total number of years that children spend in school. However, researchers can also adjust for the quality of education to estimate how many years of quality learning they receive. This is done using an indicator called “learning-adjusted years of schooling”.

On the map, you see vast differences across the world.

In many of the world’s poorest countries, children receive less than three years of learning-adjusted schooling. In most rich countries, this is more than 10 years.

Across most countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa – where the largest share of children live – the average years of quality schooling are less than 7.

Learning-adjusted years of schooling merge the quantity and quality of education into one metric, accounting for the fact that similar durations of schooling can yield different learning outcomes.
Learning-adjusted years is computed by adjusting the expected years of school based on the quality of learning, as measured by the harmonized test scores from various international student achievement testing programs. The adjustment involves multiplying the expected years of school by the ratio of the most recent harmonized test score to 625. Here, 625 signifies advanced attainment on the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) test, with 300 representing minimal attainment. These scores are measured in TIMSS-equivalent units.

Hundreds of millions of children worldwide do not go to school

While most children worldwide get the opportunity to go to school, hundreds of millions still don’t.

In the chart, we see the number of children who aren’t in school across primary and secondary education.

This number was around 260 million in 2019.

Many children who attend primary school drop out and do not attend secondary school. That means many more children or adolescents are missing from secondary school than primary education.

Access to basic education: almost 60 million children of primary school age are not in school

The world has made a lot of progress in recent generations, but millions of children are still not in school.

The gender gap in school attendance has closed across most of the world

Globally, until recently, boys were more likely to attend school than girls. The world has focused on closing this gap to ensure every child gets the opportunity to go to school.

Today, these gender gaps have largely disappeared. In the chart, we see the difference in the global enrollment rates for primary, secondary, and tertiary (post-secondary) education. The share of children who complete primary school is also shown.

We see these lines converging over time, and recently they met: rates between boys and girls are the same.

For tertiary education, young women are now more likely than young men to be enrolled.

While the differences are small globally, there are some countries where the differences are still large: girls in Afghanistan, for example, are much less likely to go to school than boys.

Research & Writing

Talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. We are all losing out because of this.

Access to basic education: almost 60 million children of primary school age are not in school, interactive charts on global education.

This data comes from a paper by João Pedro Azevedo et al.

João Pedro Azevedo, Diana Goldemberg, Silvia Montoya, Reema Nayar, Halsey Rogers, Jaime Saavedra, Brian William Stacy (2021) – “ Will Every Child Be Able to Read by 2030? Why Eliminating Learning Poverty Will Be Harder Than You Think, and What to Do About It .” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9588, March 2021.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

IIEP Buenos Aires

A global institute
Governing Board
Expert directory
60th anniversary
Monitoring and evaluation

Latest news

Upcoming events
PlanED: The IIEP podcast
Partnering with IIEP
Career opportunities
11th Medium-Term Strategy
Planning and management to improve learning
Inclusion in education
Using digital tools to promote transparency and accountability
Ethics and corruption in education
Digital technology to transform education
Crisis-sensitive educational planning
Rethinking national school calendars for climate-resilient learning
Skills for the future
Interactive map
Foundations of education sector planning programmes
Online specialized courses
Customized, on-demand training
Training in Buenos Aires
Training in Dakar
Preparation of strategic plans
Sector diagnosis
Costs and financing of education
Tools for planning
Crisis-sensitive education planning
Supporting training centres
Support for basic education quality management
Gender at the Centre
Teacher careers
Geospatial data
Cities and Education 2030
Learning assessment data
Governance and quality assurance
School grants
Early childhood education
Flexible learning pathways in higher education
Instructional leaders
Planning for teachers in times of crisis and displacement
Planning to fulfil the right to education
Thematic resource portals
Policy Fora
Network of Education Policy Specialists in Latin America
Publications
Briefs, Papers, Tools
Search the collection
Visitors information
Planipolis (Education plans and policies)
IIEP Learning Portal
Ethics and corruption ETICO Platform
PEFOP (Vocational Training in Africa)
SITEAL (Latin America)
Policy toolbox
Education for safety, resilience and social cohesion
Health and Education Resource Centre
Interactive Map
Search deploy
The institute

Defining and measuring the quality of education

Strategic_seminar1.jpg.

What is the quality of education? What are the most important aspects of quality and how can they be measured?

These questions have been raised for a long time and are still widely debated. The current understanding of education quality has considerably benefitted from the conceptual work undertaken through national and international initiatives to assess learning achievement. These provide valuable feedback to policy-makers on the competencies mastered by pupils and youths, and the factors which explain these. But there is also a growing awareness of the importance of values and behaviours, although these are more difficult to measure.

To address these concerns, IIEP organized (on 15 December 2011) a Strategic Debate on “Defining and measuring the quality of education: Is there an emerging consensus?” The topic was approached from the point of view of two cross-national surveys: the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ)*.

Assessing the creativity of students

“Students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and apply this creatively in novel situations is more important than what the students know”, said Andreas Schleicher, Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division at the Directorate for Education, OECD, and in charge of PISA. This concept is reflected in current developments taking place in workplaces in many countries, which increasingly require non-routine interactive skills. When comparing the results obtained in different countries, PISA’s experience has shown that “education systems can creatively combine the equity and quality agenda in education”, Schleicher said. Contrary to conventional wisdom, countries can be both high-average performers in PISA while demonstrating low individual and institutional variance in students’ achievement. Finally, Schleicher emphasized that investment in education is not the only determining factor for quality, since good and consistent implementation of educational policy is also very important.

The importance of cross-national cooperation

When reviewing the experience of SACMEQ, Mioko Saito, Head a.i of the IIEP Equity, Access and Quality Unit (technically supporting the SACMEQ implementation in collaboration with SACMEQ Coordinating Centre), explained how the notion of educational quality has significantly evolved in the southern and eastern African region and became a priority over the past decades. Since 1995, SACMEQ has, on a regular basis, initiated cross-national assessments on the quality of education, and each member country has benefited considerably from this cooperation. It helped them embracing new assessment areas (such as HIV and AIDS knowledge) and units of analysis (teachers, as well as pupils) to produce evidence on what pupils and teachers know and master, said Saito. She concluded by stressing that SACMEQ also has a major capacity development mission and is concerned with having research results bear on policy decisions.

The debate following the presentations focused on the crucial role of the media in stimulating public debate on the results of cross-national tests such as PISA and SACMEQ. It was also emphasized that more collaboration among the different cross-national mechanisms for the assessment of learner achievement would be beneficial. If more items were shared among the networks, more light could be shed on the international comparability of educational outcomes.

* PISA assesses the acquisition of key competencies for adult life of 15-year-olds in mathematics, reading, and science in OECD countries. SACMEQ focuses on achievements of Grade 6 pupils. Created in 1995, SACMEQ is a network of 15 southern and eastern African ministries of education: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (Mainland), Tanzania (Zanzibar), Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Leading for change: Q&A with chief of education planning from Saint Kitts and Nevis 28 May 2024
IIEP Strategic Debates 24 May 2024
Education in emergencies: Improving the Education in Emergencies (EiE) data landscape 24 May 2024
PISA Website
Andreas Schleicher's presentation pdf, 2.3 Mo
Mioko Saito's presentation pdf, 1.6 Mo

Privacy Notice

What makes a good education?

Share this idea.

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

See all articles in the series >>

About the author.

Laura McClure is the TED-Ed editor.

category What makes a good education?

TED Talk of the Day

How to make radical climate action the new normal

What designs do you love most, what's the future of food, where's my flying car, how do you solve a problem like the climate crisis, how much are you prepared to reveal, what's to be done about rising inequality, what will blow our minds in the next 30 years, should we redesign humans.

6 ways to give that aren't about money

Let’s stop calling them “soft skills” -- and call them “real skills” instead

A smart way to handle anxiety -- courtesy of soccer great Lionel Messi

Set of astronaut women in spacesuit and helmet in different poses flat vector illustration. Clipart with girl cosmonaut characters. International female group in cosmos. Astronauts people

3 strategies for effective leadership, from a former astronaut

There’s a know-it-all at every job — here’s how to deal

Lahore in pictures: a tech professor on the heart of Pakistan's major city

What the best education systems are doing right

MOOCs by the numbers: Where are we now?

What does the future of education look like.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so varied, and its influence so profound, the subject is wide-ranging, involving issues in ethics and social/political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind and language, and other areas of philosophy. Because it looks both inward to the parent discipline and outward to educational practice and the social, legal, and institutional contexts in which it takes place, philosophy of education concerns itself with both sides of the traditional theory/practice divide. Its subject matter includes both basic philosophical issues (e.g., the nature of the knowledge worth teaching, the character of educational equality and justice, etc.) and problems concerning specific educational policies and practices (e.g., the desirability of standardized curricula and testing, the social, economic, legal and moral dimensions of specific funding arrangements, the justification of curriculum decisions, etc.). In all this the philosopher of education prizes conceptual clarity, argumentative rigor, the fair-minded consideration of the interests of all involved in or affected by educational efforts and arrangements, and informed and well-reasoned valuation of educational aims and interventions.

Philosophy of education has a long and distinguished history in the Western philosophical tradition, from Socrates’ battles with the sophists to the present day. Many of the most distinguished figures in that tradition incorporated educational concerns into their broader philosophical agendas (Curren 2000, 2018; Rorty 1998). While that history is not the focus here, it is worth noting that the ideals of reasoned inquiry championed by Socrates and his descendants have long informed the view that education should foster in all students, to the extent possible, the disposition to seek reasons and the ability to evaluate them cogently, and to be guided by their evaluations in matters of belief, action and judgment. This view, that education centrally involves the fostering of reason or rationality, has with varying articulations and qualifications been embraced by most of those historical figures; it continues to be defended by contemporary philosophers of education as well (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997, 2007, 2017). As with any philosophical thesis it is controversial; some dimensions of the controversy are explored below.

This entry is a selective survey of important contemporary work in Anglophone philosophy of education; it does not treat in detail recent scholarship outside that context.

1. Problems in Delineating the Field

2. analytic philosophy of education and its influence, 3.1 the content of the curriculum and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.2 social, political and moral philosophy, 3.3 social epistemology, virtue epistemology, and the epistemology of education, 3.4 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 4. concluding remarks, other internet resources, related entries.

The inward/outward looking nature of the field of philosophy of education alluded to above makes the task of delineating the field, of giving an over-all picture of the intellectual landscape, somewhat complicated (for a detailed account of this topography, see Phillips 1985, 2010). Suffice it to say that some philosophers, as well as focusing inward on the abstract philosophical issues that concern them, are drawn outwards to discuss or comment on issues that are more commonly regarded as falling within the purview of professional educators, educational researchers, policy-makers and the like. (An example is Michael Scriven, who in his early career was a prominent philosopher of science; later he became a central figure in the development of the field of evaluation of educational and social programs. See Scriven 1991a, 1991b.) At the same time, there are professionals in the educational or closely related spheres who are drawn to discuss one or another of the philosophical issues that they encounter in the course of their work. (An example here is the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner, the central figure in the development of operant conditioning and programmed learning, who in works such as Walden Two (1948) and Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1972) grappled—albeit controversially—with major philosophical issues that were related to his work.)

What makes the field even more amorphous is the existence of works on educational topics, written by well-regarded philosophers who have made major contributions to their discipline; these educational reflections have little or no philosophical content, illustrating the truth that philosophers do not always write philosophy. However, despite this, works in this genre have often been treated as contributions to philosophy of education. (Examples include John Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education [1693] and Bertrand Russell’s rollicking pieces written primarily to raise funds to support a progressive school he ran with his wife. (See Park 1965.)

Finally, as indicated earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, and the like. It is not surprising that scholars who work in this broad genre also find a home in the field of philosophy of education.

As a result of these various factors, the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content of arguments and methods of argumentation in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—all of which are at least part of the philosophical toolkit—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity. In any case, as they gained prominence and for a time hegemonic influence during the rise of analytic philosophy early in the twentieth century analytic techniques came to dominate philosophy of education in the middle third of that century (Curren, Robertson, & Hager 2003).

The pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

The Cambridge analytical school, led by Moore, Broad and Wittgenstein, has attempted so to analyse propositions that it will always be apparent whether the disagreement between philosophers is one concerning matters of fact, or is one concerning the use of words, or is, as is frequently the case, a purely emotive one. It is time, I think, that a similar attitude became common in the field of educational theory. (Hardie 1962: xix)

About a decade after the end of the Second World War the floodgates opened and a stream of work in the analytic mode appeared; the following is merely a sample. D. J. O’Connor published An Introduction to Philosophy of Education (1957) in which, among other things, he argued that the word “theory” as it is used in educational contexts is merely a courtesy title, for educational theories are nothing like what bear this title in the natural sciences. Israel Scheffler, who became the paramount philosopher of education in North America, produced a number of important works including The Language of Education (1960), which contained clarifying and influential analyses of definitions (he distinguished reportive, stipulative, and programmatic types) and the logic of slogans (often these are literally meaningless, and, he argued, should be seen as truncated arguments), Conditions of Knowledge (1965), still the best introduction to the epistemological side of philosophy of education, and Reason and Teaching (1973 [1989]), which in a wide-ranging and influential series of essays makes the case for regarding the fostering of rationality/critical thinking as a fundamental educational ideal (cf. Siegel 2016). B. O. Smith and R. H. Ennis edited the volume Language and Concepts in Education (1961); and R.D. Archambault edited Philosophical Analysis and Education (1965), consisting of essays by a number of prominent British writers, most notably R. S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the United States), Paul Hirst, and John Wilson. Topics covered in the Archambault volume were typical of those that became the “bread and butter” of analytic philosophy of education (APE) throughout the English-speaking world—education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination.

Among the most influential products of APE was the analysis developed by Hirst and Peters (1970) and Peters (1973) of the concept of education itself. Using as a touchstone “normal English usage,” it was concluded that a person who has been educated (rather than instructed or indoctrinated) has been (i) changed for the better; (ii) this change has involved the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills and the development of understanding; and (iii) the person has come to care for, or be committed to, the domains of knowledge and skill into which he or she has been initiated. The method used by Hirst and Peters comes across clearly in their handling of the analogy with the concept of “reform”, one they sometimes drew upon for expository purposes. A criminal who has been reformed has changed for the better, and has developed a commitment to the new mode of life (if one or other of these conditions does not hold, a speaker of standard English would not say the criminal has been reformed). Clearly the analogy with reform breaks down with respect to the knowledge and understanding conditions. Elsewhere Peters developed the fruitful notion of “education as initiation”.

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for, it was argued, getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by the content taught, the intention of the instructor, the methods of instruction used, the outcomes of the instruction, or by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook 1972). The danger of restricting analysis to ordinary language (“normal English usage”) was recognized early on by Scheffler, whose preferred view of analysis emphasized

first, its greater sophistication as regards language, and the interpenetration of language and inquiry, second, its attempt to follow the modern example of the sciences in empirical spirit, in rigor, in attention to detail, in respect for alternatives, and in objectivity of method, and third, its use of techniques of symbolic logic brought to full development only in the last fifty years… It is…this union of scientific spirit and logical method applied toward the clarification of basic ideas that characterizes current analytic philosophy [and that ought to characterize analytic philosophy of education]. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 9–10])

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import. (It is worth noting that a 1966 article in Time , reprinted in Lucas 1969, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970’s radical students in Britain accused Peters’ brand of linguistic analysis of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

Third, criticisms of language analysis in mainstream philosophy had been mounting for some time, and finally after a lag of many years were reaching the attention of philosophers of education; there even had been a surprising degree of interest on the part of the general reading public in the United Kingdom as early as 1959, when Gilbert Ryle, editor of the journal Mind , refused to commission a review of Ernest Gellner’s Words and Things (1959)—a detailed and quite acerbic critique of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and its espousal of ordinary language analysis. (Ryle argued that Gellner’s book was too insulting, a view that drew Bertrand Russell into the fray on Gellner’s side—in the daily press, no less; Russell produced a list of insulting remarks drawn from the work of great philosophers of the past. See Mehta 1963.)

Richard Peters had been given warning that all was not well with APE at a conference in Canada in 1966; after delivering a paper on “The aims of education: A conceptual inquiry” that was based on ordinary language analysis, a philosopher in the audience (William Dray) asked Peters “ whose concepts do we analyze?” Dray went on to suggest that different people, and different groups within society, have different concepts of education. Five years before the radical students raised the same issue, Dray pointed to the possibility that what Peters had presented under the guise of a “logical analysis” was nothing but the favored usage of a certain class of persons—a class that Peters happened to identify with (see Peters 1973, where to the editor’s credit the interaction with Dray is reprinted).

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s and 1980s, including The Dialectic of Freedom (1988); the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin’s Reclaiming a Conversation . In more recent years all these trends have continued. APE was and is no longer the center of interest, although, as indicated below, it still retains its voice.

3. Areas of Contemporary Activity

As was stressed at the outset, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren 2003), which contains more than six-hundred pages divided into forty-five chapters each of which surveys a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge, truth and learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, the purposes of universities, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education (Siegel 2009) contains a similarly broad range of articles on (among other things) the epistemic and moral aims of education, liberal education and its imminent demise, thinking and reasoning, fallibilism and fallibility, indoctrination, authenticity, the development of rationality, Socratic teaching, educating the imagination, caring and empathy in moral education, the limits of moral education, the cultivation of character, values education, curriculum and the value of knowledge, education and democracy, art and education, science education and religious toleration, constructivism and scientific methods, multicultural education, prejudice, authority and the interests of children, and on pragmatist, feminist, and postmodernist approaches to philosophy of education.

Given this enormous range, there is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to highlighting contemporary work that makes solid contact with and contributes to important discussions in general philosophy and/or the academic educational and educational research communities.

The issue of what should be taught to students at all levels of education—the issue of curriculum content—obviously is a fundamental one, and it is an extraordinarily difficult one with which to grapple. In tackling it, care needs to be taken to distinguish between education and schooling—for although education can occur in schools, so can mis-education, and many other things can take place there that are educationally orthogonal (such as the provision of free or subsidized lunches and the development of social networks); and it also must be recognized that education can occur in the home, in libraries and museums, in churches and clubs, in solitary interaction with the public media, and the like.

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including/excluding particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why should evolution or creation “science” be included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Do the justifications for including/excluding materials on birth control, patriotism, the Holocaust or wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some school districts stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato’s pioneering efforts all draw, explicitly or implicitly, upon the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues.

First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same)? Many aims have been proposed; a short list includes the production of knowledge and knowledgeable students, the fostering of curiosity and inquisitiveness, the enhancement of understanding, the enlargement of the imagination, the civilizing of students, the fostering of rationality and/or autonomy, and the development in students of care, concern and associated dispositions and attitudes (see Siegel 2007 for a longer list). The justifications offered for all such aims have been controversial, and alternative justifications of a single proposed aim can provoke philosophical controversy. Consider the aim of autonomy. Aristotle asked, what constitutes the good life and/or human flourishing, such that education should foster these (Curren 2013)? These two formulations are related, for it is arguable that our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life—although this is not obvious, both because it is not clear that there is one conception of the good or flourishing life that is the good or flourishing life for everyone, and it is not clear that this is a question that should be settled in advance rather than determined by students for themselves. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to think and act autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. A rival justification of the aim of autonomy, associated with Kant, champions the educational fostering of autonomy not on the basis of its contribution to human flourishing, but rather the obligation to treat students with respect as persons (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988). Still others urge the fostering of autonomy on the basis of students’ fundamental interests, in ways that draw upon both Aristotelian and Kantian conceptual resources (Brighouse 2005, 2009). It is also possible to reject the fostering of autonomy as an educational aim (Hand 2006).

Assuming that the aim can be justified, how students should be helped to become autonomous or develop a conception of the good life and pursue it is of course not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the general question of how best to determine curriculum content. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing and then pursuing a conception of the good life, and because logical analysis shows, he argued, that there are seven basic forms of knowledge, the case can be made that the function of the curriculum is to introduce students to each of these forms (Hirst 1965; see Phillips 1987: ch. 11). Another, suggested by Scheffler, is that curriculum content should be selected so as “to help the learner attain maximum self-sufficiency as economically as possible.” The relevant sorts of economy include those of resources, teacher effort, student effort, and the generalizability or transfer value of content, while the self-sufficiency in question includes

self-awareness, imaginative weighing of alternative courses of action, understanding of other people’s choices and ways of life, decisiveness without rigidity, emancipation from stereotyped ways of thinking and perceiving…empathy… intuition, criticism and independent judgment. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 123–5])

Both impose important constraints on the curricular content to be taught.

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as a vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a dominant group, or any particular group, including one’s own; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as an instrument of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect and serve the interests of powerful cultural elites. What to do about this situation (if it is indeed the situation of contemporary educational institutions) is far from clear and is the focus of much work at the interface of philosophy of education and social/political philosophy, some of which is discussed in the next section. A closely related question is this: ought educational institutions be designed to further pre-determined social ends, or rather to enable students to competently evaluate all such ends? Scheffler argued that we should opt for the latter: we must

surrender the idea of shaping or molding the mind of the pupil. The function of education…is rather to liberate the mind, strengthen its critical powers, [and] inform it with knowledge and the capacity for independent inquiry. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 139])

Third, should educational programs at the elementary and secondary levels be made up of a number of disparate offerings, so that individuals with different interests and abilities and affinities for learning can pursue curricula that are suitable? Or should every student pursue the same curriculum as far as each is able?—a curriculum, it should be noted, that in past cases nearly always was based on the needs or interests of those students who were academically inclined or were destined for elite social roles. Mortimer Adler and others in the late twentieth century sometimes used the aphorism “the best education for the best is the best education for all.”

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all. Medically, this is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings 2015.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato’s system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

The publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice in 1971 was the most notable event in the history of political philosophy over the last century. The book spurred a period of ferment in political philosophy that included, among other things, new research on educationally fundamental themes. The principles of justice in educational distribution have perhaps been the dominant theme in this literature, and Rawls’s influence on its development has been pervasive.

Rawls’s theory of justice made so-called “fair equality of opportunity” one of its constitutive principles. Fair equality of opportunity entailed that the distribution of education would not put the children of those who currently occupied coveted social positions at any competitive advantage over other, equally talented and motivated children seeking the qualifications for those positions (Rawls 1971: 72–75). Its purpose was to prevent socio-economic differences from hardening into social castes that were perpetuated across generations. One obvious criticism of fair equality of opportunity is that it does not prohibit an educational distribution that lavished resources on the most talented children while offering minimal opportunities to others. So long as untalented students from wealthy families were assigned opportunities no better than those available to their untalented peers among the poor, no breach of the principle would occur. Even the most moderate egalitarians might find such a distributive regime to be intuitively repugnant.

Repugnance might be mitigated somewhat by the ways in which the overall structure of Rawls’s conception of justice protects the interests of those who fare badly in educational competition. All citizens must enjoy the same basic liberties, and equal liberty always has moral priority over equal opportunity: the former can never be compromised to advance the latter. Further, inequality in the distribution of income and wealth are permitted only to the degree that it serves the interests of the least advantaged group in society. But even with these qualifications, fair equality of opportunity is arguably less than really fair to anyone. The fact that their education should secure ends other than access to the most selective social positions—ends such as artistic appreciation, the kind of self-knowledge that humanistic study can furnish, or civic virtue—is deemed irrelevant according to Rawls’s principle. But surely it is relevant, given that a principle of educational justice must be responsive to the full range of educationally important goods.

Suppose we revise our account of the goods included in educational distribution so that aesthetic appreciation, say, and the necessary understanding and virtue for conscientious citizenship count for just as much as job-related skills. An interesting implication of doing so is that the rationale for requiring equality under any just distribution becomes decreasingly clear. That is because job-related skills are positional whereas the other educational goods are not (Hollis 1982). If you and I both aspire to a career in business management for which we are equally qualified, any increase in your job-related skills is a corresponding disadvantage to me unless I can catch up. Positional goods have a competitive structure by definition, though the ends of civic or aesthetic education do not fit that structure. If you and I aspire to be good citizens and are equal in civic understanding and virtue, an advance in your civic education is no disadvantage to me. On the contrary, it is easier to be a good citizen the better other citizens learn to be. At the very least, so far as non-positional goods figure in our conception of what counts as a good education, the moral stakes of inequality are thereby lowered.

In fact, an emerging alternative to fair equality of opportunity is a principle that stipulates some benchmark of adequacy in achievement or opportunity as the relevant standard of distribution. But it is misleading to represent this as a contrast between egalitarian and sufficientarian conceptions. Philosophically serious interpretations of adequacy derive from the ideal of equal citizenship (Satz 2007; Anderson 2007). Then again, fair equality of opportunity in Rawls’s theory is derived from a more fundamental ideal of equality among citizens. This was arguably true in A Theory of Justice but it is certainly true in his later work (Dworkin 1977: 150–183; Rawls 1993). So, both Rawls’s principle and the emerging alternative share an egalitarian foundation. The debate between adherents of equal opportunity and those misnamed as sufficientarians is certainly not over (e.g., Brighouse & Swift 2009; Jacobs 2010; Warnick 2015). Further progress will likely hinge on explicating the most compelling conception of the egalitarian foundation from which distributive principles are to be inferred. Another Rawls-inspired alternative is that a “prioritarian” distribution of achievement or opportunity might turn out to be the best principle we can come up with—i.e., one that favors the interests of the least advantaged students (Schouten 2012).

The publication of Rawls’s Political Liberalism in 1993 signaled a decisive turning point in his thinking about justice. In his earlier book, the theory of justice had been presented as if it were universally valid. But Rawls had come to think that any theory of justice presented as such was open to reasonable rejection. A more circumspect approach to justification would seek grounds for justice as fairness in an overlapping consensus between the many reasonable values and doctrines that thrive in a democratic political culture. Rawls argued that such a culture is informed by a shared ideal of free and equal citizenship that provided a new, distinctively democratic framework for justifying a conception of justice. The shift to political liberalism involved little revision on Rawls’s part to the content of the principles he favored. But the salience it gave to questions about citizenship in the fabric of liberal political theory had important educational implications. How was the ideal of free and equal citizenship to be instantiated in education in a way that accommodated the range of reasonable values and doctrines encompassed in an overlapping consensus? Political Liberalism has inspired a range of answers to that question (cf. Callan 1997; Clayton 2006; Bull 2008).

Other philosophers besides Rawls in the 1990s took up a cluster of questions about civic education, and not always from a liberal perspective. Alasdair Macintyre’s After Virtue (1984) strongly influenced the development of communitarian political theory which, as its very name might suggest, argued that the cultivation of community could preempt many of the problems with conflicting individual rights at the core of liberalism. As a full-standing alternative to liberalism, communitarianism might have little to recommend it. But it was a spur for liberal philosophers to think about how communities could be built and sustained to support the more familiar projects of liberal politics (e.g., Strike 2010). Furthermore, its arguments often converged with those advanced by feminist exponents of the ethic of care (Noddings 1984; Gilligan 1982). Noddings’ work is particularly notable because she inferred a cogent and radical agenda for the reform of schools from her conception of care (Noddings 1992).

One persistent controversy in citizenship theory has been about whether patriotism is correctly deemed a virtue, given our obligations to those who are not our fellow citizens in an increasingly interdependent world and the sordid history of xenophobia with which modern nation states are associated. The controversy is partly about what we should teach in our schools and is commonly discussed by philosophers in that context (Galston 1991; Ben-Porath 2006; Callan 2006; Miller 2007; Curren & Dorn 2018). The controversy is related to a deeper and more pervasive question about how morally or intellectually taxing the best conception of our citizenship should be. The more taxing it is, the more constraining its derivative conception of civic education will be. Contemporary political philosophers offer divergent arguments about these matters. For example, Gutmann and Thompson claim that citizens of diverse democracies need to “understand the diverse ways of life of their fellow citizens” (Gutmann & Thompson 1996: 66). The need arises from the obligation of reciprocity which they (like Rawls) believe to be integral to citizenship. Because I must seek to cooperate with others politically on terms that make sense from their moral perspective as well as my own, I must be ready to enter that perspective imaginatively so as to grasp its distinctive content. Many such perspectives prosper in liberal democracies, and so the task of reciprocal understanding is necessarily onerous. Still, our actions qua deliberative citizen must be grounded in such reciprocity if political cooperation on terms acceptable to us as (diversely) morally motivated citizens is to be possible at all. This is tantamount to an imperative to think autonomously inside the role of citizen because I cannot close-mindedly resist critical consideration of moral views alien to my own without flouting my responsibilities as a deliberative citizen.

Civic education does not exhaust the domain of moral education, even though the more robust conceptions of equal citizenship have far-reaching implications for just relations in civil society and the family. The study of moral education has traditionally taken its bearings from normative ethics rather than political philosophy, and this is largely true of work undertaken in recent decades. The major development here has been the revival of virtue ethics as an alternative to the deontological and consequentialist theories that dominated discussion for much of the twentieth century.

The defining idea of virtue ethics is that our criterion of moral right and wrong must derive from a conception of how the ideally virtuous agent would distinguish between the two. Virtue ethics is thus an alternative to both consequentialism and deontology which locate the relevant criterion in producing good consequences or meeting the requirements of moral duty respectively. The debate about the comparative merits of these theories is not resolved, but from an educational perspective that may be less important than it has sometimes seemed to antagonists in the debate. To be sure, adjudicating between rival theories in normative ethics might shed light on how best to construe the process of moral education, and philosophical reflection on the process might help us to adjudicate between the theories. There has been extensive work on habituation and virtue, largely inspired by Aristotle (Burnyeat 1980; Peters 1981). But whether this does anything to establish the superiority of virtue ethics over its competitors is far from obvious. Other aspects of moral education—in particular, the paired processes of role-modelling and identification—deserve much more scrutiny than they have received (Audi 2017; Kristjánsson 2015, 2017).

Related to the issues concerning the aims and functions of education and schooling rehearsed above are those involving the specifically epistemic aims of education and attendant issues treated by social and virtue epistemologists. (The papers collected in Kotzee 2013 and Baehr 2016 highlight the current and growing interactions among social epistemologists, virtue epistemologists, and philosophers of education.)

There is, first, a lively debate concerning putative epistemic aims. Alvin Goldman argues that truth (or knowledge understood in the “weak” sense of true belief) is the fundamental epistemic aim of education (Goldman 1999). Others, including the majority of historically significant philosophers of education, hold that critical thinking or rationality and rational belief (or knowledge in the “strong” sense that includes justification) is the basic epistemic educational aim (Bailin & Siegel 2003; Scheffler 1965, 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997, 2005, 2017). Catherine Z. Elgin (1999a,b) and Duncan Pritchard (2013, 2016; Carter & Pritchard 2017) have independently urged that understanding is the basic aim. Pritchard’s view combines understanding with intellectual virtue ; Jason Baehr (2011) systematically defends the fostering of the intellectual virtues as the fundamental epistemic aim of education. This cluster of views continues to engender ongoing discussion and debate. (Its complex literature is collected in Carter and Kotzee 2015, summarized in Siegel 2018, and helpfully analyzed in Watson 2016.)

A further controversy concerns the places of testimony and trust in the classroom: In what circumstances if any ought students to trust their teachers’ pronouncements, and why? Here the epistemology of education is informed by social epistemology, specifically the epistemology of testimony; the familiar reductionism/anti-reductionism controversy there is applicable to students and teachers. Anti-reductionists, who regard testimony as a basic source of justification, may with equanimity approve of students’ taking their teachers’ word at face value and believing what they say; reductionists may balk. Does teacher testimony itself constitute good reason for student belief?

The correct answer here seems clearly enough to be “it depends”. For very young children who have yet to acquire or develop the ability to subject teacher declarations to critical scrutiny, there seems to be little alternative to accepting what their teachers tell them. For older and more cognitively sophisticated students there seem to be more options: they can assess them for plausibility, compare them with other opinions, assess the teachers’ proffered reasons, subject them to independent evaluation, etc. Regarding “the teacher says that p ” as itself a good reason to believe it appears moreover to contravene the widely shared conviction that an important educational aim is helping students to become able to evaluate candidate beliefs for themselves and believe accordingly. That said, all sides agree that sometimes believers, including students, have good reasons simply to trust what others tell them. There is thus more work to do here by both social epistemologists and philosophers of education (for further discussion see Goldberg 2013; Siegel 2005, 2018).

A further cluster of questions, of long-standing interest to philosophers of education, concerns indoctrination : How if at all does it differ from legitimate teaching? Is it inevitable, and if so is it not always necessarily bad? First, what is it? As we saw earlier, extant analyses focus on the aims or intentions of the indoctrinator, the methods employed, or the content transmitted. If the indoctrination is successful, all have the result that students/victims either don’t, won’t, or can’t subject the indoctrinated material to proper epistemic evaluation. In this way it produces both belief that is evidentially unsupported or contravened and uncritical dispositions to believe. It might seem obvious that indoctrination, so understood, is educationally undesirable. But it equally seems that very young children, at least, have no alternative but to believe sans evidence; they have yet to acquire the dispositions to seek and evaluate evidence, or the abilities to recognize evidence or evaluate it. Thus we seem driven to the views that indoctrination is both unavoidable and yet bad and to be avoided. It is not obvious how this conundrum is best handled. One option is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable indoctrination. Another is to distinguish between indoctrination (which is always bad) and non-indoctrinating belief inculcation, the latter being such that students are taught some things without reasons (the alphabet, the numbers, how to read and count, etc.), but in such a way that critical evaluation of all such material (and everything else) is prized and fostered (Siegel 1988: ch. 5). In the end the distinctions required by the two options might be extensionally equivalent (Siegel 2018).

Education, it is generally granted, fosters belief : in the typical propositional case, Smith teaches Jones that p , and if all goes well Jones learns it and comes to believe it. Education also has the task of fostering open-mindedness and an appreciation of our fallibility : All the theorists mentioned thus far, especially those in the critical thinking and intellectual virtue camps, urge their importance. But these two might seem at odds. If Jones (fully) believes that p , can she also be open-minded about it? Can she believe, for example, that earthquakes are caused by the movements of tectonic plates, while also believing that perhaps they aren’t? This cluster of italicized notions requires careful handling; it is helpfully discussed by Jonathan Adler (2002, 2003), who recommends regarding the latter two as meta-attitudes concerning one’s first-order beliefs rather than lessened degrees of belief or commitments to those beliefs.

Other traditional epistemological worries that impinge upon the epistemology of education concern (a) absolutism , pluralism and relativism with respect to knowledge, truth and justification as these relate to what is taught, (b) the character and status of group epistemologies and the prospects for understanding such epistemic goods “universalistically” in the face of “particularist” challenges, (c) the relation between “knowledge-how” and “knowledge-that” and their respective places in the curriculum, (d) concerns raised by multiculturalism and the inclusion/exclusion of marginalized perspectives in curriculum content and the classroom, and (e) further issues concerning teaching and learning. (There is more here than can be briefly summarized; for more references and systematic treatment cf. Bailin & Siegel 2003; Carter & Kotzee 2015; Cleverley & Phillips 1986; Robertson 2009; Siegel 2004, 2017; and Watson 2016.)

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one. (For an illuminating account of the historical development of educational research and its tribulations, see Lagemann 2000.)

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn’s ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemological: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they were used only sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe 2003 and Phillips 2009.)

The most lively contemporary debates about education research, however, were set in motion around the turn of the millennium when the US Federal Government moved in the direction of funding only rigorously scientific educational research—the kind that could establish causal factors which could then guide the development of practically effective policies. (It was held that such a causal knowledge base was available for medical decision-making.) The definition of “rigorously scientific”, however, was decided by politicians and not by the research community, and it was given in terms of the use of a specific research method—the net effect being that the only research projects to receive Federal funding were those that carried out randomized controlled experiments or field trials (RFTs). It has become common over the last decade to refer to the RFT as the “gold standard” methodology.

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the US National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC 2002), that argued that this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work. Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which the exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, and so on. This cluster of issues continues to be debated by educational researchers and by philosophers of education and of science, and often involves basic topics in philosophy of science: the constitution of warranting evidence, the nature of theories and of confirmation and explanation, etc. Nancy Cartwright’s important recent work on causation, evidence, and evidence-based policy adds layers of both philosophical sophistication and real world practical analysis to the central issues just discussed (Cartwright & Hardie 2012, Cartwright 2013; cf. Kvernbekk 2015 for an overview of the controversies regarding evidence in the education and philosophy of education literatures).

As stressed earlier, it is impossible to do justice to the whole field of philosophy of education in a single encyclopedia entry. Different countries around the world have their own intellectual traditions and their own ways of institutionalizing philosophy of education in the academic universe, and no discussion of any of this appears in the present essay. But even in the Anglo-American world there is such a diversity of approaches that any author attempting to produce a synoptic account will quickly run into the borders of his or her competence. Clearly this has happened in the present case.

Fortunately, in the last thirty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, both on the field as a whole and also on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules 1994; Chambliss 1996b; Curren 1998, 2018; Phillips 1985, 2010; Siegel 2007; Smeyers 1994), two “Encyclopedias” (Chambliss 1996a; Phillips 2014), a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish 2003), a “Companion” (Curren 2003), two “Handbooks” (Siegel 2009; Bailey, Barrow, Carr, & McCarthy 2010), a comprehensive anthology (Curren 2007), a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch & Gingell 1999), and a good textbook or two (Carr 2003; Noddings 2015). In addition there are numerous volumes both of reprinted selections and of specially commissioned essays on specific topics, some of which were given short shrift here (for another sampling see A. Rorty 1998, Stone 1994), and several international journals, including Theory and Research in Education , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Educational Theory , Studies in Philosophy and Education , and Educational Philosophy and Theory . Thus there is more than enough material available to keep the interested reader busy.

Adler, Jonathan E., 2002, Belief’s Own Ethics , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
–––, 2003, “Knowledge, Truth and Learning”, in Curren 2003: 285–304. doi:10.1002/9780470996454.ch21
Anderson, Elizabeth, 2007, “Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective”, Ethics , 117(4): 595–622. doi:10.1086/518806
Archambault, Reginald D. (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
Audi, Robert, 2017, “Role Modelling and Reasons: Developmental and Normative Grounds of Moral Virtue”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 14(6): 646–668. doi:10.1163/17455243-46810063
Baehr, Jason, 2011, The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604074.001.0001
––– (ed.), 2016, Intellectual Virtues and Education: Essays in Applied Virtue Epistemology , New York: Routledge.
Bailey, Richard, Robin Barrow, David Carr, and Christine McCarthy (eds), 2010, The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Education , Los Angeles: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446200872
Bailin, Sharon and Harvey Siegel, 2003, “Critical Thinking”, in Blake et al. 2003: 181–193. doi:10.1002/9780470996294.ch11
Ben-Porath, Sigal R., 2006. Citizenship Under Fire: Democratic Education in Times of Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Blake, Nigel, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith, and Paul Standish (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470996294
Brighouse, Harry, 2005, On Education , London: Routledge.
–––, 2009, “Moral and Political Aims of Education”, in Siegel 2009: 35–51.
Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2009, “Educational Equality versus Educational Adequacy: A Critique of Anderson and Satz”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 26(2): 117–128. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00438.x
Bull, Barry L., 2008, Social Justice in Education: An Introduction , New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Burbules, Nicholas C., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, second edition, pp. 3617–22.
Burnyeat, Myles F., 1980, “Aristotle on Learning to be Good”, in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , Berkeley CA: University of California Press, pp. 69–92.
Callan, Eamonn, 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198292589.001.0001
–––, 2006, “Love, Idolatry, and Patriotism”, Social Theory and Practice , 32(4): 525–546. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200632430
Carr, David, 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Carter, J. Adam and Ben Kotzee, 2015, “Epistemology of Education”, Oxford Bibliographies Online , last modified: 26 October 2015.
Carter, J.Adam and Duncan Pritchard, 2017, “Epistemic Situationism, Epistemic Dependence, and the Epistemology of Education”, in Abrol Fairweather and Mark Alfano (eds.), Epistemic Situationism , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–191. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199688234.003.0010
Cartwright, Nancy D., 2013, Evidence: For Policy and Wheresoever Rigor Is a Must , London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Cartwright, Nancy D. and Jeremy Hardie, 2012, Evidence-based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chambliss, J.J. (ed.), 1996a, Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , New York: Garland.
Chambliss, J.J., 1996b, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Chambliss 1996a, pp. 461–472.
Clayton, Matthew, 2006, Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199268940.001.0001
Cleverley, John and D.C. Phillips, 1986, Visions of Childhood: Influential Models from Locke to Spock , New York: Teachers College Press.
Curren, Randall R., 1998, “Education, Philosophy of”, in E.J. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , vol. 3, pp. 231–240.
–––, 2000, Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
–––, (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470996454
–––, (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2013, “A Neo-Aristotelian Account of Education, Justice and the Human Good”, Theory and Research in Education , 11(3): 231–249. doi:10.1177/1477878513498182
–––, 2018, “Education, History of Philosophy of”, revised second version, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online . doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N014-2
Curren, Randall, Emily Robertson, and Paul Hager, 2003, “The Analytical Movement”, in Curren 2003: 176–191. doi:10.1002/9780470996454.ch13
Curren, Randall and Charles Dorn, 2018, Patriotic Education in a Global Age , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Elgin, Catherine Z., 1999a, “Epistemology’s Ends, Pedagogy’s Prospects”, Facta Philosophica , 1: 39–54
–––, 1999b, “Education and the Advancement of Understanding”, in David M. Steiner (ed.), Proceedings of the 20 th World Congress of Philosophy , vol. 3, Philosophy Documentation Center, pp. 131–140.
Galston, William A., 1991, Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139172462
Gellner, Ernest, 1959, Words and Things: A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology , London: Gollancz.
Gilligan, Carol, 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldberg, Sanford, 2013, “Epistemic Dependence in Testimonial Belief, in the Classroom and Beyond”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 47(2): 168–186. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12019
Goldman, Alvin I., 1999, Knowledge in a Social World , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001
Greene, Maxine, 1988, The Dialectic of Freedom , New York: Teachers College Press.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis F. Thompson, 1996, Democracy and Disagreement , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hand, Michael, 2006, “Against Autonomy as an Educational Aim”, Oxford Review of Education , 32(4): 535–550. doi:10.1080/03054980600884250
Hardie, Charles Dunn, 1941 [1962], Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
Hirst, Paul, 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , Reginald D. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113–138.
Hirst, Paul and R.S. Peters, 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
Hollis, Martin, 1982, “Education as A Positional Good”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 16(2): 235–244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1982.tb00615.x
Howe, Kenneth R., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/0-306-47984-2
Jacobs, Lesley A., 2010, “Equality, Adequacy, And Stakes Fairness: Retrieving the Equal Opportunities in Education Approach”, Theory and Research in Education , 8(3): 249–268. doi:10.1177/1477878510381627
Kotzee, Ben (ed.), 2013, Education and the Growth of Knowledge: Perspectives from Social and Virtue Epistemology , Oxford: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118721254
Kristjánsson, Kristján, 2015, Aristotelian Character Education , London: Routledge.
–––, 2017, “Emotions Targeting Moral Exemplarity: Making Sense of the Logical Geography of Admiration, Emulation and Elevation”, Theory and Research in Education , 15(1): 20–37. doi:10.1177/1477878517695679
Kvernbekk, Tone, 2015, Evidence-based Practice in Education: Functions of Evidence and Causal Presuppositions , London: Routledge.
Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe, 2000, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Locke, J., 1693, Some Thoughts Concerning Education , London: Black Swan in Paternoster Row.
Lucas, Christopher J. (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? , London: Macmillan.
Lyotard, J-F., 1984, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory , second edition, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Martin, Jane Roland, 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mehta, Ved, 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle: Encounters with British Intellectuals , London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Miller, Richard W., 2007, “Unlearning American Patriotism”, Theory and Research in Education , 5(1): 7–21. doi:10.1177/1477878507073602
National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ NRC 2002 available online ]
Noddings, Nel, 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
–––, 1992, The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education , New York: Teachers College Press.
–––, 2015, Philosophy of Education , fourth edition, Boulder, CO: Westview.
O’Connor, D.J., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
Park, J., (ed.), 1965, Bertrand Russell on Education , London: Allen and Unwin.
Peters, R.S., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1981, Moral Development and Moral Education , London: G. Allen & Unwin.
Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education , Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, (eds.), pp. 3859–3877.
–––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry: Contemporary Methodological Controversies in Social Science and Related Applied Fields of Research , Oxford: Pergamon.
–––, 2009, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in Siegel 2009: 381–406.
–––, 2010, “What Is Philosophy of Education?”, in Bailey et al. 2010: 3–19. doi:10.4135/9781446200872.n1
–––, (ed.), 2014, Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy , Los Angeles: Sage.
Pritchard, Duncan, 2013, “Epistemic Virtue and the Epistemology of Education”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 47(2): 236–247. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12022
–––, 2016, “Intellectual Virtue, Extended Cognition, and the Epistemology of Education”, in Baehr 2016: 113–127.
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
Robertson, Emily, 2009, “The Epistemic Aims of Education”, in Siegel 2009: 11–34.
Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
Satz, Debra, 2007, “Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship”, Ethics , 117(4): 623–648. doi:10.1086/518805
Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Thomas.
–––, 1965, Conditions of Knowledge: An Introduction to Epistemology and Education , Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
–––, 1973 [1989], Reason and Teaching , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Schouten, Gina, 2012, “Fair Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of Natural Ability: Toward a Prioritarian Principle of Educational Justice”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 46(3): 472–491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00863.x
Scriven, Michael, 1991a, “Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation”, in Milbrey McLaughlin and D.C. Phillips (eds.), Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century , Chicago: University of Chicago Press/NSSE, pp. 19–64.
–––, 1991b, Evaluation Thesaurus , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Siegel, Harvey, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1997, Rationality Redeemed?: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2004, “Epistemology and Education: An Incomplete Guide to the Social-Epistemological Issues”, Episteme , 1(2): 129–137. doi:10.3366/epi.2004.1.2.129
–––, 2005, “Truth, Thinking, Testimony and Trust: Alvin Goldman on Epistemology and Education”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71(2): 345–366. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00452.x
–––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , last modified 2 February 2018. URL = <https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/philosophy-of-education/108550>
–––, (ed.), 2009, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001
–––, 2016, “Israel Scheffler”, In J. A Palmer (ed.), Routledge Encyclopaedia of Educational Thinkers , London: Routledge, pp. 428–432.
–––, 2017, Education’s Epistemology: Rationality, Diversity, and Critical Thinking , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018, “The Epistemology of Education”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online , doi:10.4324/0123456789-P074-1.
Skinner, B.F., 1948 [1962], Walden Two , New York: Macmillan.
–––, 1972, Beyond Freedom and Dignity , London: Jonathan Cape.
Smeyers, Paulus, 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, second Edition, pp. 4456–61.
Smith, B. Othanel and Robert H. Ennis (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
Snook, I.A., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Stone, Lynda (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
Strike, Kenneth A., 2010, Small Schools and Strong Communities: A Third Way of School Reform , New York: Teachers College Press.
Warnick, Bryan R., 2015, “Taming the Conflict over Educational Equality”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(1): 50–66. doi:10.1111/japp.12066
Watson, Lani, 2016, “The Epistemology of Education”, Philosophy Compass , 11(3): 146–159. doi:10.1111/phc3.12316
Winch, Christopher and John Gingell, 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)

Acknowledgments

The authors and editors would like to thank Randall Curren for sending a number of constructive suggestions for the Summer 2018 update of this entry.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Progress towards quality education was already slower than required before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has had devastating impacts on education, causing learning losses in four out of five of the 104 countries studied.

Without additional measures, an estimated 84 million children and young people will stay out of school by 2030 and approximately 300 million students will lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills necessary for success in life.

In addition to free primary and secondary schooling for all boys and girls by 2030, the aim is to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to quality higher education.

Education is the key that will allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved. When people are able to get quality education they can break from the cycle of poverty.

Education helps to reduce inequalities and to reach gender equality. It also empowers people everywhere to live more healthy and sustainable lives. Education is also crucial to fostering tolerance between people and contributes to more peaceful societies.

To deliver on Goal 4, education financing must become a national investment priority. Furthermore, measures such as making education free and compulsory, increasing the number of teachers, improving basic school infrastructure and embracing digital transformation are essential.

What progress have we made so far?

While progress has been made towards the 2030 education targets set by the United Nations, continued efforts are required to address persistent challenges and ensure that quality education is accessible to all, leaving no one behind.

Between 2015 and 2021, there was an increase in worldwide primary school completion, lower secondary completion, and upper secondary completion. Nevertheless, the progress made during this period was notably slower compared to the 15 years prior.

What challenges remain?

According to national education targets, the percentage of students attaining basic reading skills by the end of primary school is projected to rise from 51 per cent in 2015 to 67 per cent by 2030. However, an estimated 300 million children and young people will still lack basic numeracy and literacy skills by 2030.

Economic constraints, coupled with issues of learning outcomes and dropout rates, persist in marginalized areas, underscoring the need for continued global commitment to ensuring inclusive and equitable education for all. Low levels of information and communications technology (ICT) skills are also a major barrier to achieving universal and meaningful connectivity.

Where are people struggling the most to have access to education?

Sub-Saharan Africa faces the biggest challenges in providing schools with basic resources. The situation is extreme at the primary and lower secondary levels, where less than one-half of schools in sub-Saharan Africa have access to drinking water, electricity, computers and the Internet.

Inequalities will also worsen unless the digital divide – the gap between under-connected and highly digitalized countries – is not addressed .

Are there groups that have more difficult access to education?

Yes, women and girls are one of these groups. About 40 per cent of countries have not achieved gender parity in primary education. These disadvantages in education also translate into lack of access to skills and limited opportunities in the labour market for young women.

What can we do?

Ask our governments to place education as a priority in both policy and practice. Lobby our governments to make firm commitments to provide free primary school education to all, including vulnerable or marginalized groups.

Facts and figures

Goal 4 targets.

Without additional measures, only one in six countries will achieve the universal secondary school completion target by 2030, an estimated 84 million children and young people will still be out of school, and approximately 300 million students will lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills necessary for success in life.
To achieve national Goal 4 benchmarks, which are reduced in ambition compared with the original Goal 4 targets, 79 low- and lower-middle- income countries still face an average annual financing gap of $97 billion.

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023

4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and Goal-4 effective learning outcomes

4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and preprimary education so that they are ready for primary education

4.3 By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university

4.4 By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

4.6 By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy

4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

4.A Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

4.B By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries

4.C By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing states

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UN Children’s Fund

UN Development Programme

Global Education First Initiative

UN Population Fund: Comprehensive sexuality education

UN Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Youth

Fast Facts: Quality Education

Infographic: Quality Education

Related news

‘Education is a human right,’ UN Summit Adviser says, urging action to tackle ‘crisis of access, learning and relevance’

Masayoshi Suga 2022-09-15T11:50:20-04:00 14 Sep 2022 |

14 September, NEW YORK – Education is a human right - those who are excluded must fight for their right, Leonardo Garnier, Costa Rica’s former education minister, emphasized, ahead of a major United Nations [...]

Showcasing nature-based solutions: Meet the UN prize winners

Masayoshi Suga 2022-08-13T22:16:45-04:00 11 Aug 2022 |

NEW YORK, 11 August – The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and partners have announced the winners of the 13th Equator Prize, recognizing ten indigenous peoples and local communities from nine countries. The winners, selected from a [...]

UN and partners roll out #LetMeLearn campaign ahead of Education Summit

Yinuo 2022-08-10T09:27:23-04:00 01 Aug 2022 |

New York, 1 August – Amid the education crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations is partnering with children's charity Theirworld to launch the #LetMeLearn campaign, urging world leaders to hear the [...]

VIDEO: Climate education at COP22

From the football field to the classrooms of Nepal | UNICEF

Share this story, choose your platform!

What Makes a Great School?

Posted October 23, 2017
By Jack Schneider

What are the signs that a school is succeeding?

Try asking someone. Chances are, they’ll say something about the impact a school makes on the young people who attend it. Do students feel safe and cared for? Are they being challenged? Do they have opportunities to play and create? Are they happy?

If you’re a parent, getting this kind of information entails a great deal of effort — walking the hallways, looking in on classrooms, talking with teachers and students, chatting with parents, and watching kids interact on the playground.

Since most of us don’t have the time or the wherewithal to run our own school-quality reconnaissance missions, we rely on rumor and anecdote, hunches and heuristics, and, increasingly, the Internet.

So what’s out there on the web? Are our pressing questions about schools being answered by crowdsourced knowledge and big data sets?

As it turns out, no.

There’s information, certainly. But mostly it doesn’t align with what we really want to know about how schools are doing. Instead, most of what we learn about schools online — on the websites of magazines , on school rating sites , and even on real estate listings — comes from student standardized test scores. Some may include demographic information or class size ratios. But the ratings are derived primarily from state-mandated high stakes tests.

One consequence of such limited and distorting data is an impoverished public conversation about school quality. We talk about schools as if they are uniformly good or bad, as if we have complete knowledge of them, and as if there is agreement about the practices and outcomes of most value.

The first problem with this state of affairs is that test scores don’t tell us a tremendous amount about what students are learning in school. As research has demonstrated, school factors explain only about 20 percent of achievement scores — about one-third of what student and family background characteristics explain. Consequently, test scores often indicate much more about demography than about schools.

Even if scores did reflect what students were learning in school, they’d still fail to address the full range of what schools actually do. Multiple-choice tests communicate nothing about school climate, student engagement, the development of citizenship skills, student social and emotional health, or critical thinking. School quality is multidimensional. And just because a school is strong in one area does not mean that it is equally strong in another. In fact, my research team has found that high standardized test score growth can be correlated with low levels of student engagement . Standardized tests, in short, tell us very little about what we actually value in schools.

One consequence of such limited and distorting data is an impoverished public conversation about school quality. We talk about schools as if they are uniformly good or bad, as if we have complete knowledge of them, and as if there is agreement about the practices and outcomes of most value.

Another consequence is that we can make unenlightened decisions about where to live and send our children to school. Schools with more affluent student bodies tend to produce high test scores. Perceived as “good,” they become the objects of desire for well-resourced and quality-conscious parents. Conversely, schools with more diverse student bodies are dismissed as bad.

GreatSchools.org gives my daughter’s school — a highly diverse K–8 school — a 6 on its 10-point scale. The state of Massachusetts labels it a “Level 2” school in its five-tier test score-based accountability system. SchoolDigger.com rates it 456th out of 927 Massachusetts elementary schools.

How does that align with reality? My daughter is excited to go to school each day and is strongly attached to her current and former teachers. A second-grader, she reads a book a week, loves math, and increasingly self-identifies as an artist and a scientist. She trusts her classmates and hugs her principal when she sees him. She is often breathlessly excited about gym. None of this is currently measured by those purporting to gauge school quality.

Better measures aren’t a panacea. But so much might be accomplished if we had a shared understanding of what we want our schools to do, clear language for articulating our aims, and more honest metrics for tracking our progress.

Of course, I’m a professor of education and my wife is a teacher. Our daughter is predisposed to like school. So what might be said objectively about the school as a whole? Over the past two years, suspensions have declined to one-fifth of the previous figure, thanks in part to a restorative justice program and an emphasis on positive school culture. The school has adopted a mindfulness program that helps students cope with stress and develop the skill of self-reflection. A new maker space is being used to bring hands-on science, technology, engineering, and math into classrooms. The school’s drama club, offered free after school twice a week, now has almost 100 students involved.

The inventory of achievements that don’t count is almost too long to list.

So if the information we want about schools is too hard to get, and the information we have is often misleading, what’s a parent to do?

Four years ago, my research team set out to build a more holistic measure of school quality. Beginning first in the city of Somerville, Massachusetts, and then expanding to become a statewide initiative — the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment — we asked stakeholders what they actually care about in K–12 education. The result is a clear, organized, and comprehensive framework for school quality that establishes common ground for richer discussions and recognizes the multi-dimensionality of schools.

Only after establishing shared values did we seek out measurement tools. Our aim, after all, was to begin measuring what we value, rather than to place new values on what is already measured.

For some components of the framework, we turned to districts, which often gather much more information than ends up being reported. For many other components, we employed carefully designed surveys of students and teachers — the people who know schools best. And though we currently include test score growth, we are moving away from multiple-choice tests and toward curriculum-embedded performance assessments designed and rated by educators rather than by machines.

Better measures aren’t a panacea. Segregation by race and income continues to menace our public schools, as does inequitable allocation of resources. More accurate and comprehensive data systems won’t wash those afflictions away. But so much might be accomplished if we had a shared understanding of what we want our schools to do, clear and common language for articulating our aims, and more honest metrics for tracking our progress.

Illustration: Wilhelmina Peragine

More on Testing

We talk with Daniel Koretz, author of The Testing Charade , about the purpose, the misuse, and the abuse of standardized testing .

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Transforming Place Through Neighborhood Leadership

Community-based leaders from around the country gathered at HGSE to share new ideas and guidance around closing the opportunity gap

The Art of Talking With Children

Ten ways to jumpstart conversations with kids that will help them bounce back from challenges

The Movements Making Change in Public Schools

The current influence of mom groups could shape the future of education

High contrast
Press Centre

Search UNICEF

Every child has the right to learn..

Muna Ali bin Ali, a student at Al-Zahra’a school in the classroom in Yemen in September 2021

Available in:

Overview | What we do | Reports | Data | News

A child’s right to education entails the right to learn. Yet, for too many children across the globe, schooling does not lead to learning.

Over 600 million children worldwide are unable to attain minimum proficiency levels in reading and mathematics, even though two thirds of them are in school. For out-of-school children, foundational skills in literacy and numeracy are further from grasp.

Children are deprived of education for various reasons. Poverty remains one of the most obstinate barriers. Children living through economic fragility, political instability, conflict or natural disaster are more likely to be cut off from schooling – as are those with disabilities, or from ethnic minorities. In some countries, education opportunities for girls remain severely limited.

Even in schools, a lack of trained teachers, inadequate education materials and poor infrastructure make learning difficult for many students. Others come to class too hungry, ill or exhausted from work or household tasks to benefit from their lessons.

Compounding these inequities is a digital divide of growing concern: Most of the world’s school-aged children do not have internet connection in their homes, restricting their opportunities to further their learning and skills development.

Without quality education, children face considerable barriers to employment later in life. They are more likely to suffer adverse health outcomes and less likely to participate in decisions that affect them – threatening their ability to shape a better future for themselves and their societies.

Education is a basic human right. In 147 countries around the world, UNICEF works to provide quality learning opportunities that prepare children and adolescents with the knowledge and skills they need to thrive. We focus on:

Equitable access : Access to quality education and skills development must be equitable and inclusive for all children and adolescents, regardless of who they are or where they live. We make targeted efforts to reach children who are excluded from education and learning on the basis of gender, disability, poverty, ethnicity and language.

Quality learning : Outcomes must be at the centre of our work to close the gap between what students are learning and what they need to thrive in their communities and future jobs. Quality learning requires a safe, friendly environment, qualified and motivated teachers, and instruction in languages students can understand. It also requires that education outcomes be monitored and feed back into instruction.

Education in emergencies : Children living through conflict, natural disaster and displacement are in urgent need of educational support. Crises not only halt children’s learning but also roll back their gains. In many emergencies, UNICEF is the largest provider of educational support throughout humanitarian response, working with UNHCR, WFP and other partners.

Our programmes

Our strategy

Get involved

Help us tackle the learning crisis.

Skills for a green transition

Solutions for youth on the move

ICTD annual report 2022

Information and Communication Technology Division

Children attending class at the ‘Ecole Coranique Rénové’

Tracking progress on foundational learning

Findings from the RAPID 2023 analysis

Girls sitting in a classroom on the first day schools reopened in September 2022.

Global annual results report 2022: Goal Area 2

Every child, including adolescents, learns and acquires skills for the future

Data and insights

Our research

Our insights

22-year-old Aminath Zara Hilmy stands on an artificial beach in Malé as one of the 25 participants in the mock COP negotiation session at UNICEF Maldives

Children call for access to quality climate education

On Earth Day, UNICEF urges governments to empower every child with learning opportunities to be a champion for the planet

Displaced children participate in a digital learning session at Al Salam internally displaced people’s camp in Kassala state.

An entire generation of children in Sudan faces a catastrophe as the war enters its second year

Students points at a chalkboard at a primary school in northeast Nigeria.

Teachers wanted

Empowering teachers at the forefront of the learning crisis

Children and teachers killed in air strikes on schools in eastern Myanmar

Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of education in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

I'm very fortunate to have had such a good education.
They had a difference of opinion about their child's education.
It's a disgrace that the government spends so much on guns and so little on education.
Most children in the UK remain in full-time education until they are at least 16 years old .
A college education is often the best route to a good job .
asynchronous
chief academic officer
communicative
multi-course
non-conditioned
non-didactic
non-education
sex education
show/teach someone the ropes idiom
socialization
socializing
special education

education | American Dictionary

Education | business english, examples of education, collocations with education.

These are words often used in combination with education .

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

Translations of education

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

have your head in the clouds

to not know the facts of a situation

Apples and oranges (Talking about differences, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
English–Dutch Dutch–English
English–French French–English
English–German German–English
English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
English–Italian Italian–English
English–Japanese Japanese–English
English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
English–Polish Polish–English
English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
English–Spanish Spanish–English
English–Swedish Swedish–English
Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
English Noun
American Noun
Business Noun
Collocations
Translations
All translations

To add education to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add education to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

What Makes A Good Education System?

Written By:

James Johnstone

Blog Date – Updated:

Education can affect the world. Increased access to high-quality education has the potential to alter a person, a community, and society as a whole. Investing in education has undeniable benefits: it decreases gender disparity, enhances economic growth, promotes peace, and lifts people out of poverty.

However, because different countries have different approaches to education, it’s difficult to establish a system that can be called ideal and fulfill the worldwide need for “a great education system”. However, the topic of what is the key to a successful education system is a matter of controversy in modern society. It is obvious that a variety of elements influence the educational process, and it is nearly difficult to pinpoint the one aspect that mainly leads to a successful educational system.

Equality between all students, friendly environment, teachers’ professionalism, less homework, apply new technologies into curriculumn, frequently asked questions, should schools be responsible for teaching social skills and non-academic courses, 4 reasons why education can change people’s lives.

Based on my opinion, here are some of the most important factors that define a good education system:

Because education inequality is a problem in many nations, it is critical to concentrate attention on this issue to improve the system. Students from poor backgrounds do not have the same chances as students from high-income families since they do not have access to private schools, tutors, or extra classes. They have a lower opportunity of acceptance into a university because they do not have the financial resources.

Moreover, boys’ and girls’ opportunities to attend and be assessed at school should be the same. No matter what gender a student is, they should be able to go to school; teachers should look at the student’s results and give students of both genders an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities without any gender differences.

In addition, students from different countries of color should be treated equally; everyone has the same right to go to school, eat, work, and give opinions. Schools should educate their students and require that teachers must treat equally students of all races, gender, and sexual orientation.

Students may feel uncomfortable and unhappy at schools for many reasons: peers pressure, too much homework, stressful exams, boring classes, teachers’ bad attitudes. As a result, schools should concentrate their efforts on cultivating a climate of trust and comfort at school. It is important to instil in pupils the belief that they can trust their professors and that they may look for assistance if they require it. Students should be able to receive assistance and be led if they are unsure of which path they should take for their education.

The sustainable development goal of schools should be to build a friendly and healthy environment for students. This will help students learn and practice in the best environment, as well as having a healthy educational competition with the other classmates, thereby promoting their best ability for their scholastic achievements.

Because the learning process is constantly decided by how the teacher constructs it, it is extremely critical to ensure that teachers have a high degree of qualification. Teachers’ degree of professionalism is determined not only by their expertise but also by their willingness to work with and understand the students. The capacity of the teacher to interact with kids, find a way to approach them, and give them opportunities to exhibit their creativity and skills is crucial to creating a comfortable environment in the classroom.

A great teacher will be a successful leader who can motivate pupils with his or her influence and provide them with a good example to emulate so that their students can achieve better outcomes. Teachers are also not allowed to favor any student and should keep a neutral and objective attitude in all situations occurring in the classroom to avoid causing psychological harm to students.

Teachers should assign a small amount of homework to students instead of giving too much. It’s difficult for students to find the motivation to finish the homework after a long and tiring day at school when they can barely think about the homework. Such a large quantity of homework is ineffective because children do not comprehend information at home once they have gained sufficient knowledge at school.

Homework should be an extra activity that aids students in remembering and refreshing material more effectively, but there is no need to make them struggle to solve a difficult problem. Less homework will enhance the students’ ability to work in class since they will have more energy which allows them to better perceive lessons provided by the teacher.

In the modern world, new technology plays an important role in the field of education. Schools should let students practice and familiarize themselves with new technologies so that later on they will not have difficulty going to work at large companies where new and modern technologies are applied. Students of the current generation are used to utilizing their mobile devices in their daily lives, so they will be more at ease throughout the learning process with the assistance of new technologies that may make the process more efficient and entertaining.

Students will find that having their textbooks on laptops or tablets is far more convenient than bringing heavy books to school. New technologies provide a plethora of possibilities for making the learning process more interactive and engaging students in more productive work.

In conclusion, these are the things that can improve the educational system. It’s critical to establish an environment in which kids feel less stressed and free to be themselves, regardless of their background.

A good educational system should be built on psychological comfort and equality, where all teachers are dedicated to their jobs and can tailor an approach to each student in order to provide all students with effective communication and solve problems that may arise during the learning process.

At Project Sprouts, we realize that we can not solve all the problems of poverty in a situation like this. But we can seek to make a difference in the lives of needy children by giving them school supplies and encouraging them to continue their education; we can give them winter coats, boots, and blankets to help them stay warm during the cold winter months.

Project Sprouts would love to have you be a part of our community and help us to help worthy children in North Vietnam.

You can find out more about Project Sprouts by clicking here or go to our give now page to donate by clicking here. As we are a grassroots organization, all funds go to help those in need.

What makes a good education system?

A good education system fosters an environment conducive to learning, has a comprehensive curriculum, offers well-trained educators, and prioritizes the individual needs and strengths of students. It should be inclusive and accessible to all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

How important is the role of teachers in a good education system?

Teachers play a crucial role in a good education system. Well-trained, passionate, and dedicated teachers can inspire students, deliver effective instruction, and nurture critical thinking skills.

What is the role of curriculum in an education system?

A comprehensive and balanced curriculum is vital as it outlines the knowledge, skills, and competencies students are expected to learn. It should be regularly updated to reflect societal changes and the evolving needs of students and the workforce.

How important is technology in a good education system?

Technology, when appropriately used, can greatly enhance learning by providing interactive educational tools, supporting distance learning, and preparing students for a digitally driven world. However, access to technology should be equitable to prevent a digital divide.

How does a good education system support students with special needs?

A good education system should be inclusive, providing support for students with special needs through specialized resources, adaptive learning tools, and trained support staff. It should aim to integrate these students into mainstream classrooms whenever possible.

What role does assessment play in a good education system?

Assessment is crucial in measuring student progress, providing feedback, and refining teaching methods. However, a good education system should employ a balanced assessment approach, combining both formative (ongoing) and summative (end of unit or term) assessments.

Why is the learning environment important in an education system?

The learning environment, both physical and psychological, significantly impacts student success. A safe, supportive, and stimulating environment can enhance student engagement and wellbeing.

Why is parental involvement important in a good education system?

Parental involvement can reinforce learning at home and strengthen parent-teacher communication. It’s associated with improved student behavior, higher academic achievement, and a better attitude toward learning.

A Dictionary of Education (1 ed.)

Edited by: susan wallace.

Education is of relevance to everyone but it involves a specialised vocabulary and terminology which may be opaque or unfamiliar to those new to the field. The new UK-focused Dictionary of Education provides clear and concise definitions for 1,250 terms, from A* to zero tolerance , that anyone studying education or working in the field is likely to encounter. Coverage includes all sectors of education: pre-school, primary, secondary, further and higher education, special needs, adult and continuing education, and work-based learning. It also includes major legislation, key figures andorganisations, and national curriculum and assessment terminology.

The dictionary features entry-level weblinks, a timeline summary of landmark educational legislation since 1945 and a glossary of acronyms. In addition, there is a useful, fully cross-referenced section of comparative terms used in the US, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. This up-to-date and authoritative dictionary is essential for all students of education, teachers, and lecturers ondevelopment programmes, and it is strongly recommended for governors, classroom assistants, and parents.

Bibliographic Information

Affiliations are at time of print publication..

Susan Wallace is a Reader in Education at Nottingham Trent University. She is the author of a number of books on further education, including Managing Behaviour in the Lifelong Learning Sector (2007), Teaching, Tutoring and Training in the Lifelong Learning Sector (2007), and Getting the Buggers Motivated in FE (2007).

Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
All Contents

Access to the complete content on Oxford Reference requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us .

ability grouping

Academic board, academic monitoring, accelerated learning, access arrangements, access course, access fund, access to employment, accessibility plans, accountability, accreditation, accreditation of prior learning, achievement, action for employment, action research, front matter, publishing information, general links for this work, notes on the contributors, abbreviations, educational provision in some other english‐speaking countries.

Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 28 May 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

Education: The Great Equaliser or a Divider?

How "equal opportunities for all" might be unfair from the first day of school..

Updated May 22, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

Why Education Is Important
Find a Child Therapist
Children who perform better at school go on to have greater life success.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds lag behind in key skills and abilities at school entry.
These children also perform worse in later school than those from advantaged backgrounds.
Socioeconomic barriers prevent children from utilising educational opportunities equally.

By Kirsty Wilding

Horace Mann, a pioneer of American public schools in the 19th century, famously called education the “great equalizer.” What he meant was that education could be a force to even out the disparities between people. Providing high-quality free education to all children regardless of their origins was a means by which those without privilege or generational wealth could experience hope of equal footing.

In meritocratic societies, like Britain, education policy typically focuses on creating " equal learning opportunities," where all children are taught the same curriculum, at the same pace, by the same methods, regardless of their differences in ability, skills, and interests. This is different from " equity of educational outcomes" where, in theory, all children, regardless of their differing abilities, are able to achieve the same academic results. One way to achieve equity in education is by allocating greater support and resources to the children who struggle most in school.

But, if children who perform poorly at the beginning of school continue to struggle throughout school, is education really a great equaliser, or is it possibly more of a great divider?

The notion that schools increase, rather than reduce, children’s differences in life chances appears correct when we consider that children who earn better grades go on to have greater life success. For example, in a U.K. representative sample, students who excelled in their exams were much more likely to go on to university and achieve a first-class degree, whereas less than 10 percent of students who struggled to pass their exams went on to university.

Children enter school on unequal footing.

Before children even enter education, their life experiences differ substantially. Children’s family background (e.g., how educated their parents are or how much household income their family has at their disposal) is a powerful predictor of their school readiness —a combination of children’s school-entry skills, attention skills, and socioemotional skills. Children from more advantaged family backgrounds tend to be better prepared for school (they have higher school readiness) than kids from underresourced families.

We know that preschool education helps better prepare children for school, but for some families the costs of preschool are simply too high to pay. The average cost of part-time preschool (25 hours) for children under the age of 2 years in 2024 is £8,194 . In the United Kingdom, families do not gain access to any form of free childcare until children are two years old, when families receive 15 hours free, increasing to 30 hours after the age of three. This is reflected in the proportion of families who utilise preschool childcare when kids are 0 to 4 years old. Three-quarters of upper- and middle-class families send their children to preschool, compared to only half of low-income families.

According to teachers , 39 percent of children enter reception class unable to hold a pencil, 36 percent lack basic numeracy skills, and 25 percent struggle with basic language.

As children’s language develops, they begin building the foundations for literacy, reading, and writing, which are key to doing well in class. But we know children arrive at school with very different language abilities: Some show signs of developmental language disorders, some struggle with reading because they are affected by dyslexia, and some have not been much exposed within their family homes to the language that is typical in school settings . That means that some children are better prepared than others for school. These children are more likely to participate in classroom discussions and to enjoy doing their homework, thereby gaining richer learning experiences than other kids.

Performance remains unequal throughout school.

Children from advantaged family backgrounds do better in exams when they start school and continue to do so as they go through the primary and secondary school years. The differences in children’s school performance actually magnify and get larger as children grow up.

The relationship between family background and school performance has remained stable for almost a century in Britain, with children from more advantaged family backgrounds consistently performing better. This finding suggests that current policies aimed at bridging the gap between children from advantaged and disadvantaged homes have been mostly unsuccessful.

We must therefore ask ourselves whether the current education system, equal opportunities for all, is actually unfair from the very beginning.

Socioeconomic barriers prevent children from utilising opportunities equally.

Creating equal learning opportunities for all students will not produce fair education systems if students differ in their abilities to utilise these opportunities. To be fair to all, education systems need to adapt to students’ differential learning needs and backgrounds, offering additional help and support to those who need it, and acknowledging that children enter education on very different footing.

In the United Kingdom, the pupil premium reflects this idea: Schools receive additional funding to afford extra educational resources to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds overcome their disadvantages in education. Ofsted has reported that pupil premium has made a positive impact across many U.K. schools, with gaps in attainment between those pupils eligible for free school meals and those who are not slowly closing.

How do we achieve both equity and equality?

Some suggest that aiming for educational adequacy is what is most fair, whereby some inequality in opportunities is acceptable, and at-risk children should be provided with additional support and resources. In theory, this would allow all students to develop the basic competencies necessary to live rich, meaningful, and fulfilling lives. But what society deems as the " basic competencies" remains unanswered.

What we do know is that “ equal societies almost always do better ,” and ensuring all children have an equal chance to benefit from the opportunities schooling offers and achieve their full potential regardless of barriers needs to be the primary aim of educational policy.

Researchers at the Hungry Mind Lab at the University of York study the causes and consequences of individual differences in cognitive and social-emotional development across the life course.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Centre
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
Calgary, AB
Edmonton, AB
Hamilton, ON
Montréal, QC
Toronto, ON
Vancouver, BC
Winnipeg, MB
Mississauga, ON
Oakville, ON
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

The Importance of Education: 10 Benefits to Change Your Life

June 27, 2023

Image of a Black person wearing a tan t-shirt holding an orange book

Share This Article

What does it mean to be educated, why is education important, 10 benefits of education, robert f. smith and the importance of education.

Being educated means having a general comprehension of and ability to apply different knowledge, skills and values in your life.
Education can help you learn skills and get a good job, but it is also an important tool we can use to develop ourselves.
There are many benefits of education for people of all ages, including helping to build financial stability.

It is important to recognize the significant role education plays in our lives. Not only does it help us gain critical knowledge, but it teaches us healthy habits and skills. The benefits gained from education lead to broader social and economic benefits that positively impact society.

Since education plays such a pivotal role in shaping us as individuals and as a society, we all need to understand why it is essential. Ahead, we explain what it means to be educated, why education is important to society and 10 benefits of becoming educated.

In the simplest terms, being educated means having a broad understanding of and ability to apply different knowledge, skills and values in your life. These skills include listening, reading, writing, thinking critically and reviewing facts. Equally important are using creativity, being analytical and articulating and considering alternative viewpoints.

Education helps to set the foundation for us to become respectful and productive members of society.

Many of us grew up hearing that education is essential to success, but the conversation often stopped there. The importance of education in life extends beyond the need to learn skills to get a decent job. Education is the most vital tool we can use to develop ourselves, our communities and the world.

Education can provide countless benefits for people of all ages. Ahead, we will explain 10 of the most common.

1. Develops Important Skills

One of the most important benefits of education is the development of soft, hard and life skills . Learning these essential skills can help you professionally and personally. For example, learning critical thinking can help you analyze and evaluate information to create solutions to problems. In a practical sense, this skill can help you in the workplace.

2. Helps Us Discover Our Passions

A typical school curriculum is designed to help us gain exposure to different subjects and disciplines. Education can involve practical and hands-on learning opportunities, like activities, internships and school projects. These opportunities allow us to gain direct experience in different areas. They also provide insight into what we are good at and what we like.

Education also commonly provides us with access to resources and an environment for exploration. These types of resources may include libraries, online databases or personal networks .

3. Opens Doors to Career Opportunities

In most cases, the more education you have, the more skills and knowledge you will learn. This can make you a more desirable job candidate and help put you in line for more opportunities. A 2021 study from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Studies shows that the more education a person has, their chances of unemployment decrease.

More opportunities can help boost economic growth and upward mobility, which can reduce poverty.

4. Increases Chances of Financial Stability

Having an education enables you to gain specialized knowledge directly related to employment. Through education, you will learn valuable skills that increase your earning potential. Since income is mostly linked to education, the higher your level of education, the more substantial your salary will likely be. As the doors to career opportunities open, so do opportunities for a higher income.

5. Helps the Economy

Education plays a pivotal role in economic growth, development and in stabilizing society. That is because national economic growth requires individual economic growth.

Education develops human capital by teaching individuals how to contribute to the workforce, which enhances their likelihood of getting a good job. More individuals working increases labor force participation and economic output and growth. More people making money and contributing to society creates a stabilizing force that reduces inequality and lifts individuals out of poverty.

Societies that have more people working are more productive and resilient.

Linkedin Exclusive

Aspire to be someone who inspires?

Get Industry leading insights from Robert F. Smith directly in your LinkedIn feed.

6. Encourages Community Giving

More education will give you more opportunities to give back to the community. One way is financially, but it can also be through lending your time and experience. Increasing your education will allow you to contribute more to the community, as you will have more knowledge to offer.

7. Makes Us Feel Safer

One of the first lessons we learn as children is the difference between right and wrong. Although this lesson may seem basic, it is a fundamental teaching that helps us understand how to protect ourselves as adults. This education is what sets the foundation for world peace.

8. Promotes Equality

Education is critical for us to achieve true equity. If everyone gained access to the same educational opportunities, it would even the playing field for access to career opportunities. Ultimately, this would help to close the gaps in socioeconomic status and wealth.

9. Gives Us Independence

Education can help you gain critical knowledge, which can make you more confident about sharing your ideas and opinions in personal and professional settings. Self-confidence can breed success, which can help you also become independent. Not only can this help with financial independence, it can help you feel more self-assured about making the best choices for you.

10. Helps Us Stay Healthy

Education can make you wiser about your health choices. Not only can it help you gain knowledge about accurate health beliefs and habits, but it can also teach you skills, such as self-advocacy. For example, you may be less likely to start smoking cigarettes if you are taught about their negative health effects.

11. Provides Advancement Opportunities

Given the rapid rate at which the world and job landscape change, there are many new skills and technological advancements to keep up with. Going back to school to complete a post-secondary education such as a college degree or continuing education program can make you a more competitive job candidate. This can provide you with advancement opportunities.

Robert F. Smith , the Founder, Chairman and CEO of Vista Equity Partners, is a staunch advocate for education. His passion for education started at an early age due to his parents, who were educational professionals. Throughout his career, Smith has donated $70 million to his alma maters, Cornell University and Columbia University . His philanthropic investments helped to create funds, scholarships and educational opportunities for students.

Smith also helped inspire Student Freedom Initiative , a program that provides financial, educational and professional support to students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). The inspiration for the Initiative stems from Smith’s 2019 gift to cover the student loan debt of the graduating class of Morehouse College.

Follow Robert F. Smith on LinkedIn to learn more about this and similar topics.

Learn how to become a better leader from philanthropist Smith.

Follow Robert F. Smith on social media for the latest on his work as a business and philanthropic leader.

Priority Initiatives

Across our Communities

Mbe entrepreneurship & supplier diversity.

1. Provide technical expertise: offer subject matter and technical expertise to catalyze and support community initiatives

E.g., tax/accounting experts to help MBEs file taxes

E.g., business experts to help MBEs better access capital and craft business plans to scale their teams and operations

Access to Capital (CDFI/MDI)

2. Fund modernization & capacity-building and provide in-kind subject matter experts – $30M: help 4-5 CDFIs/MDIs over 5 years modernize their core systems, hire and train staff, expand marketing and standup SWAT team of experts to conduct needs diagnostic, implement tech solution & provide technical assistance

Systems and technology modernization – $10M-15M: Add/upgrade core banking systems, hardware and productivity tools, train frontline workforce on new systems & technology and hire engineering specialists to support customization and news systems rollout – over 5 years

Talent and workforce – $10M: hire and train additional frontline lending staff and invest in recruiting, training, compensation & benefits and retention to increase in-house expertise and loan capacity – over 5 years

Other capacity-building and outreach – $8M: hire additional staff to increase custom borrower and technical assistance (e.g., credit building, MBE financing options, etc.) and increase community outreach to drive regional awareness and new pipeline projects – over 5 years

Education/HBCU & Workforce Development

3. Offer more paid internships: signup onto InternX and offer 25+ additional paid internships per year to HBCU/Black students

Digital Access

4. Issue digital access equality bonds: issue equality progress bonds and invest proceeds into SCI’s digital access initiatives

5. Fund HBCU campus-wide internet – up to $50M in donations or in-kind: Partner with the Student Freedom Initiative to deliver campus-wide high-speed internet at ~10 HBCUs across SCI regions

6. Be an advocate for SCI priorities: engage federal and state agencies to drive policy and funding improvements to better support SCI’s near-term priorities

E.g., Engage the Small Business Administration and Minority Business Development Agency to increase technical assistance programs and annual spend to better support Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) with capital and scaling needs

E.g., Ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to include multi-dwelling unit connectivity in its new broadband connectivity maps and ask the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to allow non-FCC data in state broadband plans to unlock ~$285M in potential government broadband funding for 5 SCI regions

Directly Fund SCI

7. Invest directly into SCI (coming soon): provide funding for SCI to pool and invest in community initiatives that are most well-positioned for funding and can drive direct community impact.

Memphis, Tennessee

Lead community organization: The Collective Blueprint

Our ambition:

Increase the volume and value of Black-owned businesses – through corporate MBE spend and MBE startups & scaling

1. Scale technical assistance – $15M: fund* to expand technical assistance through business coaches and wrap-around services for 500+ MBEs over 5 years to help them scale from <$1M to $5M+ in annual revenue

2. Standup MBE fund – $15M: standup/scale MBE fund* to offer more flexible access to capital arrangements 400-500 MBEs over 5 years

* Lead organization: The Collective Blueprint ; Contributing local organizations for community strategy include (but not limited to): Community Unlimited , Women’s Business Center South , Epicenter , others

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 2.3x increase in MBE value & 20K+ new jobs, boosting Black community’s net worth by ~$3B+

Modernize CDFI/MDI systems and tech as well as recruit and upskill talent to increase CDFI/MDI capacity and ability to inject more capital into Black communities

3. Provide loan guarantees – $15M: create a fund* to provide 80% loan guarantees over 5 years to encourage lender participation and inject more capital into the community

4. Conduct advocacy: ask US Treasury & Tennessee State to allow Tennessee CDFIs/MDIs to retain SSBCI capital & offer loan guarantees to boost loan issuance

5. Fund modernization & capacity-building and provide in-kind subject matter experts – $30M: help 4-5 CDFIs/MDIs** over 5 years modernize their core systems, hire and train staff, expand marketing and standup a SWAT team of experts to conduct needs diagnostic, implement tech solution & provide technical assistance

* Leading organizations for community strategy include (but not limited to): Community LIFT , Memphis CDFI Network , etc.

* In partnership with National Bankers Association and Appalachian Community Capital ; CDFIs/MDIs being considered include: Community Unlimited, Hope Credit Union, River City Capital, United Housing Inc, etc.

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): ~$330M+ in additional loans per year to support ~30K+ MBEs

Lower financial burden for Black students, increase number of Black college graduates, increase Black workforce and executive representation and their access to high-paying jobs

6. Standup training hub – $30M: fund* the establishment a world-class training hub that offers certificate-granting STEM and innovation programs in advanced manufacturing, health care, etc. to 10K+ youths

7. Fund SFI program – $7M: fund the Student Freedom Initiative’s Income Contingent Alternative to Parent Plus to support ~15 Black STEM students per year forever at 4 HBCUs**

* Lead organization: The Collective Blueprint ; Contributing local organizations for community strategy include (but not limited to): Greater Memphis Chamber and Workforce Midsouth

** Minority Serving Institutions / HBCUs with STEM programs being considered: Le Moyne-Owen, Baptist Memorial, University of Memphis, Rust College

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 8K+ additional college graduates and 10K workers with high-paying wages to drive ~$1B+ in economic growth

Increase accessibility, affordability and adoption of high-speed Internet

8. Accelerate digital access initiatives – $75M: partner with local orgs* to invest in setting up internet connections / installing hotspots, offering laptops and supporting adoption (through government subsidy technical assistance and digital literacy) to connect ~135K homes to high-speed internet in the Memphis region

9. Raise community awareness & adoption of Emergency Broadband Benefit: increase door-to-door and community outreach in low-income neighborhoods to get households onto EBB to help connect ~135K unconnected households

* Lead organization: The Collective Blueprint ; Contributing local organizations for community strategy include (but not limited to): CodeCrew

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): ~135K households connected to high-speed internet to unlock ~$2B+ in economic potential

Houston, Texas

Lead community organization: Greater Houston Partnership

1. Scale team – ~$3M: hire 3-4 FTEs over 5 years for One Houston Together * to help companies increase MBE spend from ~2% to 5-10%+ as well as BIPOC workforce advancement and BIPOC board representation

2. Increase MBE certification and scale technical assistance – ~$2M: partner with One Houston Together * and the Houston Minority Supplier Development Council (HSMDC) ** to certify additional MBEs, develop Minority Business Finder database tool and provide resources and services to help local MBEs scale and participate in Pathways to Excellence program

3. Commit to increase racial diversity in supply chain and procurement: increase MBE spend in Greater Houston region* to 5-10%+

* One Houston Together serves as lead (please contact if you are interested in funding these initiatives)

** Houston Minority Supplier Development Council (HSMDC) serves as a partner organization (please contact if you are interested in learning more about this initiative)

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 2.5x increase in MBE value & ~55K new jobs, boosting Black community’s net worth by ~$12B

* In partnership with National Bankers Association and Appalachian Community Capital ; CDFIs/MDIs being considered include: Unity National Bank, Unity Bank of Texas, PeopleFund, Houston Business Development Inc, etc.

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): ~$330M in additional loans per year to support ~30K MBEs

5. Fund SFI program – $120M: fund the Student Freedom Initiative’s Income Contingent Alternative to Parent Plus * to support ~1.2K Black STEM students per year forever at 7 HBCUs**

* Student Freedom Initiative serves as lead (main contact if you are interested in learning more and funding this initiative)

** Minority Serving Institutions / HBCUs with STEM programs being considered: Texas Southern University, University of Houston, Prairie View A&M University, Houston Baptist University, University of Houston-Clear Lake, University of Houston-Downtown, University of St Thomas.

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 5K+ additional college grads & ~600 workers with senior exec positions / high-paying wages to drive ~$0.2B in economic growth

6. Accelerate SCI’s digital access initiatives – up to $80M in donations or in-kind: invest in setting up internet connections / hotspots, offer laptops/Chromebooks and support adoption (through government subsidy technical assistance and digital literacy) to connect ~145K homes to high-speed internet in the Houston region*

7. Raise community awareness & adoption of Emergency Broadband Benefit: increase door-to-door and community outreach in low-income neighborhoods to get households onto EBB to help connect ~145K unconnected households

* Community organization(s) being identified

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): ~145K households connected to high-speed internet to unlock ~$3B in economic potential

Greater New Orleans, Louisiana

Lead community organization: Urban League of Louisiana

1. Scale Black Business Works Fund – $10M: grow the Urban League of Louisiana’s Black Business Works Fund to support ~3K-4K MBEs over 5 years with emergency working capital needs to support/sustain ~$1B+ in annual revenues

2. Scale technical assistance – $20M: fund the Urban League of Louisiana , New Orleans Business Alliance , Thrive New Orleans and Propellor to scale bookkeeping, B2C payment, marketing support & subsidized rent to scale 200+ MBEs from <$1M to $5M+ in annual revenue

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 2.5x increase in MBE value & 8K+ new jobs, boosting Black community’s net worth by ~$2B+

3. Fund modernization & capacity-building and provide in-kind subject matter experts – $30M: help 4-5 CDFIs/MDIs* over 5 years modernize their core systems, hire and train staff, expand marketing and standup SWAT teams to conduct needs diagnostic, implement tech solution & provide technical assistance

* In partnership with National Bankers Association and Appalachian Community Capital ; CDFIs/MDIs being considered include: New Orleans Business Alliance (community convener), Liberty, TruFund, LiftFund, NewCorp, etc.

4. Subsidize internships & apprenticeships – $40M: fund the New Orleans Youth Alliance , YouthForce NOLA and the Urban League of Louisiana to place and help subsidize apprenticeships, internships and other work-based learning experiences for ~20K young adults in high-pay sectors (e.g., energy)

5. Fund SFI program – $12M: fund the Student Freedom Initiative’s Income Contingent Alternative to Parent Plus to support ~120 Black STEM students per year forever at 3 HBCUs*

* Minority Serving Institutions / HBCUs being considered: Dillard University, Southern University – New Orleans and Xavier University of Louisiana

6. Scale career prep – ~$10M: scale the New Orleans Youth Alliance and YouthForce NOLA with 15-20 coaches over 5 years to equip ~20K young adults with skills for high-paying industries, job search & prep and subsidized transportation

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): ~2K additional college graduates and ~20K workers with high-paying wages to drive ~$1B in economic growth

7. Accelerate SCI’s digital access initiatives – up to $35M in donations or in-kind: partner with New Orleans’s Office of Information Technology & Innovation and Education SuperHighway to invest in setting up internet connections / hotspots, offering laptops/Chromebook and supporting adoption (through government subsidy technical assistance and digital literacy) to connect ~55K homes to high-speed internet in Greater New Orleans region

8. Raise community awareness & adoption of Emergency Broadband Benefit: increase door-to-door and community outreach in low-income neighborhoods to get households onto EBB to help connect ~55K unconnected households

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 55K households connected to high-speed internet to unlock ~$1B in economic potential

Charlotte, North Carolina

Lead community organization: Charlotte Regional Business Alliance

1. Offer in-kind FTEs: provide 2-5 in-kind FTEs to the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance (CRBA) over 5 years to convene corporate partners, assess their MBE spend, develop pipeline to increase MBE spend to 5-10%+

2. Offer technical assistance expertise: partner with the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance (CRBA) to advise/mentor ~200 MBEs on capital/loan access to help them scale from <$10M to $50M+

3. Commit to supplier diversity: increase MBE spend in Charlotte region to 5-10%+

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 3x increase in MBE value & ~13K new jobs, boosting Black community’s net worth by ~$2B+

4. Fund modernization & capacity-building and provide in-kind subject matter experts – $30M : help 4-5 CDFIs/MDIs* over 5 years modernize their core systems, hire and train staff, expand marketing and standup SWAT team of experts to conduct needs diagnostic, implement tech solution & provide technical assistance; in-kind experts to also help build out the MBE ecosystem through CDFIs/MDIs, market CDFI/MDI offerings and programs and help draft final loan agreements to qualify borrowers between investment fund(s) and CDFIs/MDIs

* CDFIs/MDIs being considered (examples and not exhaustive): Security Federal Bank, Institute / North Carolina Community Development Initiative, Sequoyah Fund Inc, Self-Help Credit Union, BEFCOR, Aspire Community Capital, etc.

* In partnership with National Bankers Association and Appalachian Community Capital ; CDFIs/MDIs being considered include: Security Federal Bank, Institute / North Carolina Community Development Initiative, Sequoyah Fund Inc, etc.

5. Fund SFI program – up to $10M: fund the Student Freedom Initiative’s HELPS program to support ~1.5K+ students per year at HBCUs* with emergency expenses – e.g., unexpected health costs, late rent payments, etc.

* Minority Serving Institutions / HBCUs in Charlotte that are being considered: Johnson C. Smith University, Johnson & Wales University – Charlotte, Charlotte Christian College

6. Provide in-kind staff: offer 2-5 FTEs to the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance (CRBA) over 5 years to track Black-/Brown-executive representation, convene corporate partners to develop executive pipeline and hiring plans and support corporate partners to increase representation from ~10% to 30%+

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 2.5K+ additional college graduates and 2.5K workers with high-paying wages to drive ~$0.2B in economic growth

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): ~35K households get connected to high-speed internet to unlock ~$700M in economic potential for Charlotte

Birmingham, Alabama

Lead community organization: Prosper Birmingham

1. Fund startups and give access to investor network – $70M: grow the Prosper Health Tech Fund – powered by Gener8tor – and offer venture capital technical assistance to scale 50+ startups from <$1M to $5M+ in annual revenue; near-term priority is to secure $4M in venture investment by end of May 2022

2. Fund technical assistance – $25M: fund Prosper Birmingham , Magic City Match , and Birmingham Business Alliance to establish/expand business advisory programs, renovate and subsidize retail/office space for MBEs and scale coaches & support services (e.g., digital footprint, B2C platforms, accounting & bookkeeping, recruitment, etc.) to help 100+ MBEs scale from <$1M to $5M+ in annual revenue

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 3x increase in annual MBE revenue & 8K+ new jobs, boosting Black community’s net worth by ~$2B+

3. Fund modernization & capacity-building and provide in-kind subject matter experts – $30M: help 4-5 CDFIs/MDIs* over 5 years modernize their core systems, hire and train staff, expand marketing and standup SWAT team of experts to conduct needs diagnostic, implement tech solution & provide technical assistance

* In partnership with National Bankers Association and Appalachian Community Capital ; CDFIs/MDIs being considered include: First Bancshares, Commonwealth National Bank, TruFund, Sabre Finance, Bronze Valley, etc.

4. Fund scholarships and hire coaches – ~$35M: scale Birmingham Promise fund to financially support 200-250 students per year over 4 years to increase college retention and graduation rates

5. Fund endowment – $2M: support 50 University of Alabama at Birmingham college students per year with housing to reduce their financial burden and increase college retention and graduation rates

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 6.5K+ additional college graduates & 35K workers with high-paying wages to drive ~$1.2B in economic growth

6. Raise community awareness & adoption of Emergency Broadband Benefit: increase door-to-door and community outreach in low-income neighborhoods to get households onto EBB to help connect ~35K unconnected households

Estimated impact (of all initiatives): 48K households get connected to high-speed internet to unlock ~$700M in economic potential for Jefferson County

KSAT Insider
KSAT Connect
Entertainment

WEATHER ALERT

A severe thunderstorm watch and a heat advisory in effect for 8 regions in the area

Common grounds: power of a voucher measured in texas house runoff between kuempel, schoolcraft, school vouchers are at the center of state representative district 44 gop runoff race.

Steve Spriester , Anchor

Myra Arthur , Anchor/Reporter

Bill Taylor , Producer

Dale L. Keller , Photojournalist

Joshua Saunders , Photojournalist

Valerie Gomez , Video Editor

The idea behind KSAT’s “ Common Grounds ” series hosted by anchors Myra Arthur and Steve Spriester is to take on events and issues that affect South Texas.

In this second episode (watch above), we focus on the school voucher issue in Texas and how it has Gov. Greg Abbott targeting members of his own party, by putting his money and reputation behind beating people like longtime Republican State Rep. John Kuempel, who represents District 44.

Abbott has put his support behind former state Rep. Alan Schoolcraft, who supports school vouchers, to help pay for private school tuition.

Spriester talks with both candidates about their stance on vouchers, and then our “Power Panel” of experts breaks down what vouchers could mean for Texas.

This episode was filmed at Gold on the South Side.

This series will be taped at different local coffee shops around our area, with the idea we can have different opinions but still have civilized conversations, with the help of a little caffeine!

Read the latest election and political headlines on the Vote 2024 page .

About the Authors

Steve spriester.

Steve Spriester started at KSAT in 1995 as a general assignments reporter. Now, he anchors the station's top-rated 5, 6 and 10 p.m. newscasts.

Myra Arthur

Myra Arthur is passionate about San Antonio and sharing its stories. She graduated high school in the Alamo City and always wanted to anchor and report in her hometown. Myra anchors KSAT News at 6:00 p.m. and hosts and reports for the streaming show, KSAT Explains. She joined KSAT in 2012 after anchoring and reporting in Waco and Corpus Christi.

CDC's Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings

At a glance.

Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Healthcare

Introduction

Adherence to infection prevention and control practices is essential to providing safe and high quality patient care across all settings where healthcare is delivered

This document concisely describes a core set of infection prevention and control practices that are required in all healthcare settings, regardless of the type of healthcare provided. The practices were selected from among existing CDC recommendations and are the subset that represent fundamental standards of care that are not expected to change based on emerging evidence or to be regularly altered by changes in technology or practices, and are applicable across the continuum of healthcare settings. The practices outlined in this document are intended to serve as a standard reference and reduce the need to repeatedly evaluate practices that are considered basic and accepted as standards of medical care. Readers should consult the full texts of CDC healthcare infection control guidelines for background, rationale, and related infection prevention recommendations for more comprehensive information.

The core practices in this document should be implemented in all settings where healthcare is delivered. These venues include both inpatient settings (e.g., acute, long-term care) and outpatient settings (e.g., clinics, urgent care, ambulatory surgical centers, imaging centers, dialysis centers, physical therapy and rehabilitation centers, alternative medicine clinics). In addition, these practices apply to healthcare delivered in settings other than traditional healthcare facilities, such as homes, assisted living communities, pharmacies, and health fairs.

Healthcare personnel (HCP) referred to in this document include all paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials, including body substances, contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment; contaminated environmental surfaces; or contaminated air.

CDC healthcare infection control guidelines 1-17 were reviewed, and recommendations included in more than one guideline were grouped into core infection prevention practice domains (e.g., education and training of HCP on infection prevention, injection and medication safety). Additional CDC materials aimed at providing general infection prevention guidance outside of the acute care setting 18-20 were also reviewed. HICPAC formed a workgroup led by HICPAC members and including representatives of professional organizations (see Contributors in archives for full list). The workgroup reviewed and discussed all of the practices, further refined the selection and description of the core practices and presented drafts to HICPAC at public meeting and recommendations were approved by the full Committee in July 2014. In October 2022, the Core Practices were reviewed and updated by subject matter experts within the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at CDC. The addition of new practices followed the same methodology employed by the Core Practices Workgroup but also included review of pathogen-specific guidance documents 21-22 that were created or updated after July 2014. These additions were presented to HICPAC at the November 3, 2022 meeting. Future updates to the Core Practices will be guided by the publication of new or updated CDC infection prevention and control guidelines.

Core Practices Table

Infection control.

CDC provides information on infection control and clinical safety to help reduce the risk of infections among healthcare workers, patients, and visitors.

For Everyone

Health care providers, public health.

IMAGES

10 Good Reasons Why Education is so Important
10 Good Reasons Why Education is so Important
Education: Meaning , Definition, types of education and characteristi…
The Advantages of Getting a Good Education
"A good education is a foundation for a better future."
Meaning and definition of education

VIDEO

What Makes a “Good College”
Meaning and definitions of EDUCATION
Learn English: What is education?
Education : Meaning , Definition and Nature of Education || B.ED, M.ED,ctet, net, teaching exam
GOOD Transparency: Education in America
Sermon: In Right Relationship

COMMENTS

Four Competing Definitions Of Good Education
Translated, there is a very dynamic equation, leading to a singular means to define the value of (good) education. Good education drives advancements. Good education develops ideas in how to ...
What Is Education? Insights from the World's Greatest Minds
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. — Nelson Mandela, 1918-2013, South African President, philanthropist. The object of education is to teach us to love ...
What makes a quality education?
Schools might help students find a good balance between effort, exercise and relaxation, and to define their personal priorities in life. This is not a debate for politicians and civil servants alone. Every single one of us is a decision-maker when it comes to education. None of us should debate how a quality education is best provided to ...
4 Core Purposes of Education, According to Sir Ken Robinson
Personal. Education should enable young people to engage with the world within them as well as the world around them. In Western cultures, there is a firm distinction between the two worlds, between thinking and feeling, objectivity and subjectivity. This distinction is misguided.
What you need to know about the right to education
The right to education is a human right and indispensable for the exercise of other human rights. Quality education aims to ensure the development of a fully-rounded human being. It is one of the most powerful tools in lifting socially excluded children and adults out of poverty and into society. UNESCO data shows that if all adults completed ...
What is education? A definition and discussion
A definition and discussion. Education is the wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning and change undertaken in the belief that we all should have the chance to share in life. Mark K Smith explores the meaning of education and suggests it is a process of being with others and inviting truth and possibility.
What is a "Good Education?"
Growing up, my parents told me "You need a good education if you want to get a good job. That means college or university.". When someone they knew was struggling in life, the explanation was simply, "Well, he never did get a degree.". The message: a university degree brings you wealth, happiness, opportunity, and success.
What you need to know about education for health and well-being
The link between education to health and well-being is clear. Education develops the skills, values and attitudes that enable learners to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, make informed decisions, and engage in positive relationships with everyone around them. Poor health can have a detrimental effect on school attendance and academic performance.
About education
About education. UNESCO believes that education is a human right for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality. The Organization is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to cover all aspects of education. It has been entrusted to lead the Global Education 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Development Goal 4.
Global Education
A good education offers individuals the opportunity to lead richer, more interesting lives. At a societal level, it creates opportunities for humanity to solve its pressing problems.. The world has gone through a dramatic transition over the last few centuries, from one where very few had any basic education to one where most people do.
Defining and measuring the quality of education
Finally, Schleicher emphasized that investment in education is not the only determining factor for quality, since good and consistent implementation of educational policy is also very important. The importance of cross-national cooperation. When reviewing the experience of SACMEQ, Mioko Saito, Head a.i of the IIEP Equity, Access and Quality ...
What makes a good education?
See all articles in the series >>
Philosophy of Education
Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so varied, and its influence so profound ...
Education
Education is a discipline that is concerned with methods of teaching and learning in schools or school-like environments as opposed to various nonformal and informal means of socialization (e.g., rural development projects and education through parent-child relationships).
Education
Education is the key that will allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved. When people are able to get quality education they can break from the cycle of poverty ...
What Makes a Great School?
The school has adopted a mindfulness program that helps students cope with stress and develop the skill of self-reflection. A new maker space is being used to bring hands-on science, technology, engineering, and math into classrooms. The school's drama club, offered free after school twice a week, now has almost 100 students involved.
Education
The term "education" originates from the Latin words educare, meaning "to bring up," and educere, meaning "to bring forth." The definition of education has been explored by theorists from various fields. Many agree that education is a purposeful activity aimed at achieving goals like the transmission of knowledge, skills, and character traits. However, extensive debate surrounds its precise ...
Education as a public and common good: reframing the ...
The concept of education as a common good highlights the purposes of education as a collective societal endeavor (UNESCO, 2015b; Deneulin and Townsend, 2007). This approach is based on the acknowledgment that relationships are the foundation of each process of 'production' or 'fruition' of education.
How do you define a good education?
Education is a partnership. When schools and parents work closely together, children are more likely to be successful. A great teacher cultivates the relationship with its parents. Parents don't ...
Education
Education in emergencies: Children living through conflict, natural disaster and displacement are in urgent need of educational support. Crises not only halt children's learning but also roll back their gains. In many emergencies, UNICEF is the largest provider of educational support throughout humanitarian response, working with UNHCR, WFP ...
EDUCATION
EDUCATION definition: 1. the process of teaching or learning, especially in a school or college, or the knowledge that…. Learn more.
What Makes A Good Education System?
A good education system fosters an environment conducive to learning, has a comprehensive curriculum, offers well-trained educators, and prioritizes the individual needs and strengths of students. It should be inclusive and accessible to all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.
Dictionary of Education
action research. Education is of relevance to everyone but it involves a specialised vocabulary and terminology which may be opaque or unfamiliar to those new to the field. The new UK-focused Dictionary of Education provides clear and concise definitions for 1,250 terms, from A* to zero tolerance, that anyone studying education or working in ...
What Is an Associate Degree? Requirements, Costs, and More
An associate degree is a two-year college degree that you can obtain from a community college, junior college, online university, or some four-year institutions in the US. In terms of education, an associate degree falls between a high school diploma and a bachelor's degree.
Education: The Great Equaliser or a Divider?
In meritocratic societies, like Britain, education policy typically focuses on creating "equal learning opportunities," where all children are taught the same curriculum, at the same pace, by the ...
Preparatory for Early College Graduation 2024
Preparatory for Early College Graduation 2024 at Joe R. Sanchez Stadium
Importance of Education: Top 10 Benefits
Having an education enables you to gain specialized knowledge directly related to employment. Through education, you will learn valuable skills that increase your earning potential. Since income is mostly linked to education, the higher your level of education, the more substantial your salary will likely be.
Common Grounds: Power of a voucher measured in Texas House runoff
Steve Spriester sits down with state Rep. John Kuempel and his runoff opponent Alan Schoolcraft as school vouchers has helped define their race for Kuempel's Texas House seat.
CDC's Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe
Methods. CDC healthcare infection control guidelines 1-17 were reviewed, and recommendations included in more than one guideline were grouped into core infection prevention practice domains (e.g., education and training of HCP on infection prevention, injection and medication safety). Additional CDC materials aimed at providing general infection prevention guidance outside of the acute care ...
Sustainability
A specific definition may never be possible. This is because sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure. That describes what human society regards as good or desirable. But some argue that while sustainability is vague and contested it is not meaningless.