write a article on the purpose of education

• 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.

John Dewey on the True Purpose of Education and How to Harness the Power of Our Natural Curiosity

By maria popova.

In How We Think ( free download ; public library ) — his timelessly stimulating 1910 treatise on the art of reflection and fruitful curiosity — John Dewey , one of the most influential minds of the twentieth century, distills the purpose and ideals of education with remarkable clarity and conviction. The enactment of these ideals today would produce nothing less than a radical, sorely needed transformation of our broken education system.

Dewey champions the role of education in equipping us with the sort of critical thinking necessary for questioning authority, deconditioning our “mental bad habits,” and dispelling false beliefs and illusory ideas bequeathed to us by society:

Causes of bad mental habits are social as well as inborn… Over and above the sources of misbelief that reside in the natural tendencies of the individual (like those toward hasty and too far-reaching conclusions), social conditions tend to instigate and confirm wrong habits of thinking by authority, by conscious instruction, and by the even more insidious half-conscious influences of language, imitation, sympathy, and suggestion. Education has accordingly not only to safeguard an individual against the besetting erroneous tendencies of his own mind—its rashness, presumption, and preference of what chimes with self-interest to objective evidence — but also to undermine and destroy the accumulated and self-perpetuating prejudices of long ages. When social life in general has become more reasonable, more imbued with rational conviction, and less moved by stiff authority and blind passion, educational agencies may be more positive and constructive than at present, for they will work in harmony with the educative influence exercised willy-nilly by other social surroundings upon an individual’s habits of thought and belief.

Arguing that “the office of education in forming skilled powers of thinking,” Dewey considers the essentials of “mental discipline” and articulates the basic tenets of critical thinking that Carl Sagan would come to outline in his now-legendary Baloney Detection Kit nearly a century later:

While it is not the business of education to prove every statement made, any more than to teach every possible item of information, it is its business to cultivate deep-seated and effective habits of discriminating tested beliefs from mere assertions, guesses, and opinions; to develop a lively, sincere, and open-minded preference for conclusions that are properly grounded, and to ingrain into the individual’s working habits methods of inquiry and reasoning appropriate to the various problems that present themselves. No matter how much an individual knows as a matter of hearsay and information, if he has not attitudes and habits of this sort, he is not intellectually educated. He lacks the rudiments of mental discipline. And since these habits are not a gift of nature (no matter how strong the aptitude for acquiring them); since, moreover, the casual circumstances of the natural and social environment are not enough to compel their acquisition, the main office of education is to supply conditions that make for their cultivation. The formation of these habits is the Training of Mind.

And yet this training, Dewey is careful to point out, isn’t a one-size-fits-all operation but, rather, should be tailored to finding each student’s element and harnessing his or her natural ability:

The very importance of thought for life makes necessary its control by education because of its natural tendency to go astray, and because social influences exist that tend to form habits of thought leading to inadequate and erroneous beliefs. Training must, however, be itself based upon the natural tendencies — that is, it must find its point of departure in them. A being who could not think without training could never be trained to think; one may have to learn to think well , but not to think . Training, in short, must fall back upon the prior and independent existence of natural powers; it is concerned with their proper direction, not with creating them.

Dewey makes an enormously important point — one that Adrienne Rich would come to echo decades later in her brilliant commencement address on why an education is something you claim, not something you get — arguing that “the one taught must take the initiative”:

Teaching and learning are correlative or corresponding processes, as much so as selling and buying. One might as well say he has sold when no one has bought, as to say that he has taught when no one has learned. And in the educational transaction, the initiative lies with the learner even more than in commerce it lies with the buyer. If an individual can learn to think only in the sense of learning to employ more economically and effectively powers he already possesses, even more truly one can teach others to think only in the sense of appealing to and fostering powers already active in them. Effective appeal of this kind is impossible unless the teacher has an insight into existing habits and tendencies, the natural resources with which he has to ally himself.

Two of our most important and most universal natural faculties essential for learning are curiosity and a “desire for fullness of experience.” Dewey writes:

The curious mind is constantly alert and exploring, seeking material for thought, as a vigorous and healthy body is on the qui vive for nutriment. Eagerness for experience, for new and varied contacts, is found where wonder is found. Such curiosity is the only sure guarantee of the acquisition of the primary facts upon which inference must base itself.

He later adds:

To the open mind, nature and social experience are full of varied and subtle challenges to look further.

Our ability to cultivate the powers of curiosity and reap its fruits, however, is predicated on our fragile willingness to embrace uncertainty and welcome the unknown . Lamenting “the open-minded and flexible wonder of childhood and of the ease with which this endowment is lost,” Dewey considers the various channels of this loss and how education, at its best, can rekindle curiosity:

If germinating powers are not used and cultivated at the right moment, they tend to be transitory, to die out, or to wane in intensity. This general law is peculiarly true of sensitiveness to what is uncertain and questionable; in a few people, intellectual curiosity is so insatiable that nothing will discourage it, but in most its edge is easily dulled and blunted. […] Some lose it in indifference or carelessness; others in a frivolous flippancy; many escape these evils only to become incased in a hard dogmatism which is equally fatal to the spirit of wonder. Some are so taken up with routine as to be inaccessible to new facts and problems. Others retain curiosity only with reference to what concerns their personal advantage in their chosen career. With many, curiosity is arrested on the plane of interest in local gossip and in the fortunes of their neighbors; indeed, so usual is this result that very often the first association with the word curiosity is a prying inquisitiveness into other people’s business. With respect then to curiosity, the teacher has usually more to learn than to teach. Rarely can he aspire to the office of kindling or even increasing it. His task is rather to keep alive the sacred spark of wonder and to fan the flame that already glows. His problem is to protect the spirit of inquiry, to keep it from becoming blasé from overexcitement, wooden from routine, fossilized through dogmatic instruction, or dissipated by random exercise upon trivial things.

Bemoaning education’s focus on mindless memorization rather than true understanding, Dewey pulls into sharp focus the central system failure that still plagues us today:

Pupils who in matters of ordinary practical experience have a ready and acute perception of the difference between the significant and the meaningless, often reach in school subjects a point where all things seem equally important or equally unimportant; where one thing is just as likely to be true as another, and where intellectual effort is expended not in discriminating between things, but in trying to make verbal connections among words. […] The depth to which a sense of the problem, of the difficulty, sinks, determines the quality of the thinking that follows; and any habit of teaching which encourages the pupil for the sake of a successful recitation or of a display of memorized information to glide over the thin ice of genuine problems reverses the true method of mind training.

In the remainder of How We Think , an immeasurably lucid and necessary read in its entirety, Dewey goes on to explore the most reliable strategies for cultivating the essential “mental discipline” of intellectual development and self-expansion, both in public formal education and in our private journeys of lifelong learning. Download it as a free ebook here , then revisit Kio Stark’s modern manifesto for lifelong learning beyond the classroom .

— Published September 19, 2014 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/09/19/john-dewey-purpose-of-education/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, books culture education history john dewey psychology public domain, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.2: What is the purpose of education?

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 86257

• Jennfer Kidd, Jamie Kaufman, Peter Baker, Patrick O'Shea, Dwight Allen, & Old Dominion U students
• Old Dominion University

By: Karen Herndon

Introduction

Have you ever asked yourself what the purpose of education is? It is believed to be a question that is highly thought about but in reality it is not. We tend to focus on the tasks at hand rather than the overall goal. Many will find that when asked specifically what education’s purpose is, the answer in return is nothing outside of the course curriculum (Bass, 1997). Well you may be questioning why this is. In order to provide an answer we need to consider both sides of the topic. On one hand the government controls the educational system which enforces the use of mandatory testing to evaluate each student as well as the educational institution. In other words, emphasis is placed on providing students with the skill that they will need to succeed. On the other hand, there is the belief that children should not only be presented with the abilities to learn but they should be able to expand what is given through individual growth and development beyond materials obtained from the classroom. Their inner talents need to be brought out and polished (Minor, 2007).

“Do not then train youth to learn by force and harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each." ~Plato (Minor, 2007)

Government Effects on Education’s Purpose

If one looks closely at the government’s heavy involvement in what to teach and what not to teach children it’s the administering of assessment tests. These tests do not allow a child to form opinions on subjects which in turn impedes social growth and development. The government forces school districts to meet certain minimal requirements so unfortunately the focal point has become mainly to teach material that students will need to know in order to obtain passing scores on standardized tests (Bass, 1997). This is attributed to the government’s implementation of laws such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (A Firsthand Look at NCLB, 2006). Students are expected to follow certain guidelines and curriculum; however teachers are pressed for time. In order to ensure they achieve all of the mandated guidelines and curriculum they teach only what they are required to. This leaves little time to introduce material to students that may be beneficial to them in the long run (Bass, 1997). For example the NCLB has received strict criticism for focusing too much on testing and not enough on actually teaching and allowing the student to further their knowledge. It has been brought up that the NCLB’s ignorance towards equity has caused problems. For instance one school system may possess funding which would make it easier to obtain the minimum passing score versus a school system that lacked funding. (A Firsthand Look at NCLB, 2006).

Social Development’s Role in Education

Education is not only being presented with material to learn but to also expand one’s knowledge of themselves and their surroundings. It appears that the growing trend today in school systems is to teach students particular course work with little to no regard to instruction on how this material could relate to life. Since most subjects utilize textbooks they are heavily relied upon and do not allow the student much freedom to think outside the box (Lim, 2005). Children will naturally form opinions from the material that is presented and being able to express these opinions will only help them to grow socially and eventually fit in with the rest of the world. Social growth is very important because when it is time for the child to become independent if they have not developed that part of their life then interaction with other people and situations could be quite daunting. Most parents and parental guardians do want their child to follow a structured curriculum; however, they still want their child to have time for recreation and family. Childhood is an important part of everyone’s life. It encourages social interaction and development as well as teaching them to be independent. People that are deprived of their childhood regret it when they grow up which could negatively impact their lives and the lives of others (Lim, 2005).

“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort. ~Ayn Rand

(Yero, 2001-2002. p. 1)

Thomas Jefferson’s View

With regard to the purpose of education Thomas Jefferson was one of the biggest advocates of the principle that ignorance and political liberty could not co-exist. Jefferson believed the purpose of education was to properly prepare young minds so they would be able to make educated decisions and uphold the integrity of the country. He insisted on providing four main subjects to elementary school students. Geography, arithmetic along with reading and writing made up these subjects. These subjects were deemed crucial for the proper development of children in order to function later in life. One example of this is that Jefferson believed that children needed to be given proper education in order to become informed voters. He supported free education through taxation as well as equal opportunity education. Jefferson believed the purpose of education was not to segregate but to educate (Jewett, 1997).

Evaluating Student Assessment

Getting back to assessment and student evaluation drives one to consider if whether we are going about education wrong as a country by placing so much importance upon standardized tests. As previously stated, it has been debated whether The No Child Left Behind Act does little to expand the constantly developing minds of our youth (A Firsthand Look at NCLB, 2006). A child’s mind can be compared to a sponge, in that they need to soak up information and substance in order for it to expand, otherwise, it dries out. If you observe the examinations and how students are generally evaluated in today’s school systems, you will see that the vast majority of them are made up of multiple choice questions. Since there is typically only one correct answer, it is almost impossible for the child to reflect upon the question and develop a view that they can grow from or share with others if they so choose (Yero, 2001-2002).

In Summation

When considering both sides of the purpose of education you may want to reflect on the words of Plato when he said: “Do not then train youth to learn by force and harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each (Minor, 2007).” However, the government’s involvement in education has had positive impacts on students since the NCLB has forced teachers and other school officials to focus on all children including those with special needs (A Firsthand Look at NCLB, 2006). No matter what side of the river you are on with regard to your opinion on this topic, it is hard to discredit the fact that one purpose (if not the main purpose) of education is to prepare the youth for their future and ours.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

1. Thomas Jefferson believed that

A. Awareness and political liberty could not co-exist.

B. Awareness and tyranny could not co-exist.

C. Ignorance and political liberty could not co-exist.

D. Ignorance and tyranny could not co-exist.

2. What does NCLB stand for?

A. No Child Left Backward

B. No Child Left Behind

C. No Children Left Backward

D. No Children Left Behind

3. Thomas Jefferson affirmed that the purpose of education was not to segregate but to?

B. Estimate

C. Intimidate

D. Procrastinate

4. What plays an integral part in everyone's life?

A. Childhood

B. Hapiness

C. Upbringing

5. Generally student evaluations in today's school systems are primarily made up of what?

A. Essay questions or topics

B. Multiple choice questions

C. Short answer questions

D. True and false questions

A First Hand Look at NCLB. (2006). Educational Leadership , (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ766269) Retrieved February 2, 2008, from ERIC database.

Bass, Randall V. (1997). The Purpose of Education. The Educational Forum 61. 128-32. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1e9c442f93fe94fd41479b00e75d7c18b3344ea852044009af47f7afa8bcd3df&fmt=H

Jewett, Thomas O. (1997). Thomas Jefferson and the Purposes of Education. The Educational Forum 61. 110-113. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1e9c442f93fe94fd41479b00e75d7c18b3344ea852044009ceb909ea41cb5644&fmt=H

Lim, Mike. (2005). What is Education? The All I Need . Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://www.theallineed.com/family/05032602.htm

Minor, Summer. (2007). The Purpose of Education is… Mom is Teaching Blog . Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://www.momisteaching.com/the-purpose-of-education-is/+purpose+of+education+summer+minor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Yero, Judith Lloyd. (2001-2002). The Meaning of Education. Teacher’s Mind Resources . 1-3. Retrieved February 2, 2008 from www.teachersmind.com/pdfdirectory/Education.PDF

The Purpose of Education—According to Students

Teens respond to questions about the role of schools and teachers in their lives.

Radio Atlantic recently examined a question that underpins many, if not most, debates about education in the U.S.: What are public schools for? Increasingly, it seems many American parents expect schools to first and foremost serve as pipelines into the workforce—places where kids develop the skills they need to get into a good college, land a good job, and ultimately have a leg up in society. For those parents, consistently low test scores are evidence that the country’s education system is failing. Conversely, other parents argue that public schools’ primary responsibility is to create an educated citizenry, to instill kids with the kinds of values integral to a democratic society—curiosity, empathy,  an appreciation for diversity, and so on.

Nuanced answers to that core question abound, shaping public policy and inciting PTA debates. But rarely do students get asked what they expect out of school. What does the promise of education mean to public-school students? Magdalena Slapik, a photojournalist working on an oral-history book project, has been interviewing public-school K-12 students across the country over the past several years to see what they have to say.

The Hechinger Report , which produced this project in partnership with The Atlantic , is running longer excerpts for 10 students, exploring questions such as: What do kids really think about school? How would they change it? Do they agree with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s conclusion that the U.S. school system is a “mess”? The Atlantic has published an abridged version of those excerpts to zero in on what students think their schools, teachers, and educations are for.

What role should school and teachers play in students’ lives?

I feel like the teacher and the school share a similar role. When a student goes to a certain school, they all come from different backgrounds, different upbringings: who was home, who took care of them, how much they saw them, what their occupation was. All these factors make them all different. I feel like school should be a place where I can learn about their culture and where they came from and them learn about mine. And, of course, you know, have your science and math, and learn how to write. But also be, not necessarily a culture shock, but a place to broaden your mind.

If you don’t do it young, then you’ll never do it, in my opinion. If we don’t start appreciating the kid next to you who has a completely different family style or family structure and life experience, then you won’t do it when you’re older. You’ll look at it in a single-track way. I feel like that’s the role of a teacher and school as an institution. Just to create a space where students can fail, and still be like, “OK, I’m gonna try again, but in a different way.” Instead of saying, “Ok, I failed. I’m not going to be anything. Let me just quit.”

What do you think is the purpose of education, and what role should school play in a student’s life?

The role of school is to educate me, so that when I go out into society I can become productive. I can be a functioning member of society who can work, who can educate someone else, who can be a role model. That’s what I always thought it was. Now, I’m seeing the role of school—of education—[as] basically a pastime, like a public babysitter for whoever feels their children should be here.

What is the role school and teachers should play in students’ lives?

The role of education and the role of teachers is to empower students not just to do what they want, but to make mistakes. The more often you make mistakes, the more likely you will be to do something important. Messing up is something that we have to foster. Because, that’s how expressing yourself works—it’s when you get the chance to be wrong and to, you know, just sort of have a go at random things.

That’s the problem with our education system now … mistakes are the worst things you can make. The reason that that’s bad is because it encourages students —when they take a test or when they study for something or when they do projects—to be dead inside. To sort of be sterilized. And music and the arts are about being fully alive, and about just being completely in the moment, where all your senses are enlivened and working. That’s the kind of experience that school should foster and harness and be focused on. Not in trying to get everyone to line up and just sort of follow the rules and take orders. That kind of environment is really destructive.

What do you think the teacher’s role should be in students’ lives?

I think the teacher’s role is to engage the student and find what makes the student interested in the subject. It’s about finding passion, and I think this school does a really good job of that—allowing you to really search out what you want to do and find your passion. They don’t care if that’s in academics or art or sports. If you can’t find something that you’re actually interested in, you’re going to be living a life of lack, just going by. It’s the same with how I think the public-school system really fails with standardized testing. You’re just learning to take a test. You’re not learning to actually be happy.

What do you feel is the purpose of education?

I think education is important, but it also depends. I don’t feel like you need to have an A+ in whatever, calculus, to just be able to work a normal job and make above minimum wage or anything. They teach you about all this stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, which, I like history, but they don’t really teach you about how to go and get a job, how to live on your own, pay this, pay that, when you actually have to do it. Or [they don’t] actually [prepare] you for college and dealing with that.

What role do you think school and teachers should play in students’ lives?

I think the role of teachers and education in general is to help us progress as a society. Not only in our smarts or technology, but to help us progress as a human race: preparing us to tackle the issues that [our predecessors] couldn’t defeat.

This post appears courtesy of The Hechinger Report .

The Purpose of Education

Morehouse College, 1948

As I engage in the so-called “bull sessions” around and about the school, I too often find that most college men have a misconception of the purpose of education. Most of the “brethren” think that education should equip them with the proper instruments of exploitation so that they can forever trample over the masses. Still others think that education should furnish them with noble ends rather than means to an end.

It seems to me that education has a two-fold function to perform in the life of man and in society: the one is utility and the other is culture. Education must enable a man to become more efficient, to achieve with increasing facility the ligitimate goals of his life.

Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one’s self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.

The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.

The late Eugene Talmadge, in my opinion, possessed one of the better minds of Georgia, or even America. Moreover, he wore the Phi Beta Kappa key. By all measuring rods, Mr. Talmadge could think critically and intensively; yet he contends that I am an inferior being. Are those the types of men we call educated?

We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character–that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living.

If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, “brethren!” Be careful, teachers!

"The Purpose of Education"

Author:  King, Martin Luther, Jr.

Date:  September 1, 1946 to January 31, 1947 ?

Location:  Atlanta, Ga. ?

Genre:  Published Article

Topic:  Martin Luther King, Jr. - Political and Social Views

This essay, written sometime during King’s junior year at Morehouse, may be an early draft of the article of the same name published in the  Maroon Tiger . He suggests that education should not only “teach man to think intensively” but also provide “worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.”

Last week we attempted to discuss the purpose of religion. This week our attention moves toward education. I will attempt to answer the question, what is the purpose of education?

To my mind, education has a two-fold function in society. On the one hand it should discipline the mind for sustained and persistent speculation. On the other hand it should integrate human life around central, focusing ideals. It is a tragedy that the latter is often neglected in our educational system.

Education should equip us with the power to think effectively and objectively. To think is one of the hardest things in the world, and to think objectively is still harder. Yet this is the job of education. Education should cause us to rise beyond the horizon of legions of half truth, prejudices and propaganda. Education should enable us to “weigh and consider,” to discern the true from the false, the relevant from the irrelevant, and the real from the unreal. 1  The first function of education, therefore, is to teach man to think intensively. But this is not the whole of education. If education stops here it can be the most dangerous force in society. Some of the greatest criminals in society have been men {who) possessed the power of concentration and reason, but they had no morals. Perhaps the most dangerous periods in civilization have been those periods when there was no moral foundation in society.

Education without morals is like a ship without a compass, merely wandering nowhere. It is not enough to have the power of concentration, but we must have worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. It is not enough to know truth, but we must love truth and sacrifice for it.

1.  “Read not to contradict and confute; nor yet to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider” (Francis Bacon, “Of Studies,” in  The Works of Francis Bacon , ed. James Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath [New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1877], p. 252). King used the phrase “weigh and consider” in three papers written at Crozer Theological Seminary (“Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” 14 September–24 November 1948, p. 180 in this volume; “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically,” 13 September–23 November 1949, p. 237; and Book review of  A Functional Approach to Religious Education  by Ernest J. Chave, 12 September–22 November 1950, p. 355).

Source:  MLKP-MBU, Martin Luther King, Jr., Papers, 1954-1968, Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, Boston University, Boston, Mass.

©  Copyright Information

• 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)

autonomy: personal | Dewey, John | feminist philosophy, interventions: ethics | feminist philosophy, interventions: liberal feminism | feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on autonomy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on disability | Foucault, Michel | Gadamer, Hans-Georg | liberalism | Locke, John | Lyotard, Jean François | -->ordinary language --> | Plato | postmodernism | Rawls, John | rights: of children | Rousseau, Jean Jacques

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.

Copyright © 2018 by Harvey Siegel D.C. Phillips Eamonn Callan

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

What is Next in Educational Research? pp 277–283 Cite as

What is the Purpose of Education?

• Robyn Reaburn  

1685 Accesses

1 Citations

What is the purpose of education? My parents used to talk about the Three Rs: Reading, Writing and ‘rithmetic’. Now I am a parent I would be most annoyed if I felt my children were not being taught these things while they are at school. If I were an employer I would be disappointed if the only staff available to me were illiterate.

• Initial Teacher Education
• Australian Curriculum
• Social Capability
• Youth Affair
• Ministerial Council

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Adkins, S., & Rajecki, D. (1999). Pet’s roles in parent’s bereavement. Anthrozoos , 12 (1), 33–41.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, K., Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64 , 727–739.

Google Scholar  

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). General capabilities . Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/overview/introduction

Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). The early years learning framework for Australia . Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf

Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2005). National framework for values education in Australian schools . Canberra, ACT: DEST. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Framework_PDF_version_for_the_web.pdf

Dewey, J. (1934). Individual psychology and education. The Philosopher, 12 . Retrieved from http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/dewey.htm

Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ewing, R. (2010). The arts and Australian education: Realising potential . Camberwell: ACER.

Ferreira, J., Ryan, L., & Tilbury, D. (2007). Mainstreaming education for sustainable development in initial teacher education in Australia: A review of existing professional development models. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33 (2), 225–239.

Fien, J., & Tilbury, D. (2002). The global challenge of sustainability. In D. Tilbury, R. Stevenson, J. Fien, & D. Schreuder (Eds.), Education and sustainability: Responding to the challenge . Cambridge: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Fiji Islands Education Commission. (2000). The report of the Fiji islands education commission . Suva: Government of Fiji.

Garritty, T., Stallones, L., Marx, M., & Johnson, T. (1989). Pet ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly. Anthrazoos, 3 , 35–54.

Halliday, M., & Mattiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Hart, L., Hart, B., & Bergin, B. (1987). Socializing effects of service dogs for people with disabilities. Anthrozoos , 1 , 31–44.

King, M. (1947). The purpose of education . Retrieved from http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_470200_000/

Lockwood, R., & Hodge, G. (1986). The tangled web of animal abuse: The links between cruelty to animals and human violence. Humane Society News, Summer , 10–15.

Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians . Canberra: MCEETYA. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Nixon, J. (2014). The interpretive tradition and its legacy. In D. Lewin, A. Guilherme, & M. White (Eds.), New perspectives in philosophy of education: Ethics, politics and religion (pp. 107–124). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Noddings, N. (2012). Philosophy of education (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Siegel, J. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The moderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 , 1081–1086.

Skilbeck, A. (2014). The personal and impersonal in moral education. In D. Lewin, A. Guilherme, & M. White (Eds.), New perspectives in philosophy of education: Ethics, politics and religion (pp. 59–76). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Treibenbacher, S. (2000). The companion animal within the family system: The manner in which animals enhance life within the home. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 357–374). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

White, M. (2014). Universities, citizens and the public. In D. Lewin, A. Guilherme, & M. White (Eds.), New perspectives in philosophy of education: Ethics, politics and religion (pp. 91–106). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Wills. R. (2014). Philosophical assessment of spiritual education. In D. Lewin, A. Guilherme, & M. White (Eds.), New perspectives in philosophy of education: Ethics, politics and religion (pp. 183–198). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Tasmania, Australia

Jill Fielding-Wells

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Reaburn, R. (2016). What is the Purpose of Education?. In: Fan, S., Fielding-Wells, J. (eds) What is Next in Educational Research?. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-524-1_24

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-524-1_24

Publisher Name : SensePublishers, Rotterdam

Online ISBN : 978-94-6300-524-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The "Why" of Education

Examining our expectations around sending children to school..

Posted August 24, 2021 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• Why Education Is Important
• Find a Child Therapist
• Martin Luther King, Jr. identified "the goal of true education" to be "intelligence plus character."
• Schools that do well in terms of test scores don’t always excel at developing character in their students.
• It's important to not simplify education and to get young people's perspective on its purpose.

By Angela Duckworth, Ph.D.

What do we hope for when we send children to school?

This is the question Martin Luther King, Jr. posed in an essay entitled “The Purpose of Education ,” published in the Morehouse student newspaper around the time of his 18th birthday.

King’s answer: “ Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.”

But what, then, is character?

This is the question child psychologist Diana Baumrind addressed, toward the end of an illustrious career , in an essay entitled “Reflections on Character and Competence.”

Character, Baumrind writes, “provides the structure of internal law that governs inner thoughts and volitions subject to the agent’s control under the jurisdiction of conscience .”

Baumrind then offers examples of character strengths recognized by diverse traditions across history and different cultures. Character is personal integrity, honesty, and social responsibility. But character is also persistence in the face of obstacles, self-discipline, and work ethic. The list of what constitutes admirable character goes on and on. In short, character is not one thing, but many.

In King’s prescient words: “The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education that stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.” As Baumrind put it: “It takes virtuous character to will the good, and competence to do good well.”

New research by economist Kirabo Jackson and colleagues shows that some schools are especially good at raising standardized achievement test scores. Some excel at improving interpersonal skills, like helping other people. Some improve intrapersonal skills, like setting aside time to study.

Jackson also found that the schools that do a wonderful job on the test-score front don’t always excel at developing aspects of character—and vice versa. But many schools do both.

Don’t oversimplify education. A great classroom is one in which young people thrive in every sense of the word. Schools play an essential role in helping young people develop socially, emotionally, physically, and academically.

Do ask the young people in your life what they think about the purpose of education. Share a story, perhaps, of a lesson you learned as a young person that you can’t put on your resume but hope will be remembered in your eulogy . As with so many endeavors in life, "Why?" is a very good place to start.

Angela Duckworth is the Rosa Lee and Egbert Chang Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance . She is also the co-host of the podcast No Stupid Questions .

Character Lab is a nonprofit whose mission is to advance scientific insights that help kids thrive.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION

• The University Of The People.
• Cite This Article as
• Corresponding Author

This paper identifies and thoroughly explains the diversity of educational experiences children have (examples are given). It goes on to identify and deeply explain how sociological functions of education affect education in their context (specific examples are given). Finally, it elucidates and comprehensively discusses the function and purpose of schooling and education.

• 2 Sociological Perspectives on Education. Retrieved 13 December 2019, from https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/16-2-sociological-perspectives-on-education/
• Ballantine, J. H., &Hammack, F. M. (2009).? The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Benefits of International Schooling. Retrieved 18 December 2019, from https://www.acs-schools.com/relocation-professionals/benefits-international-schooling
• Bonesronning, H. (2003). Class size effects on student achievement in Norway: Patterns and explanations.?Southern Economic Journal,?69(4), 952-965.
• Conflict Theory on Education | Sociology. (2019). Retrieved 18 December 2019, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/alamo-sociology/chapter/reading-conflict-theory-on-education/
• Freire, P. (2018).?Pedagogy of the oppressed.Bloomsbury publishing USA.
• Hurley, L. (2016). Stressed out: the psychological effects of tests on primary school children. Retrieved 18 December 2019, from http://theconversation.com/stressed-out-the-psychological-effects-of-tests-on-primary-school-children-58913
• Lenson, B. (2017). Standardized Testing in China: What It Says about American College Prep. Retrieved 18 December 2019, from https://www.straighterline.com/blog/standardized-testing-in-china-what-it-says-about-american-college-prep/
• Martimianakis, M. A., &Hafferty, F. W. (2016).Exploring the interstitial space between the ideal and the practised: Humanism and the hidden curriculum of system reform.
• Mongateko, z. (2016).Factors Influencing Education System Of Any Country. Retrieved 18 December 2019, from https://mwalimzakayomongateko.blogspot.com/2016/02/factors-influencing-education-system-of.html
• NCEE | Shanghai-China: System and School Organization. (2019). Retrieved 18 December 2019, from http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/shanghai-china/shanghai-china-system-and-school-organization/
• Schaffhauser, D. (2017). Data: Education Isn't Free Everywhere -- THE Journal. Retrieved 18 December 2019, from https://thejournal.com/articles/2017/06/12/data-education-isnt-free-everywhere.aspx
• Shawal, M. 4 Main Aims of Education as Advocated by John Dewey. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from? http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/education/4-main-aims-of-education-as-advocated-by-john-dewey/69151
• Veugelers, W. (Ed.). (2011).?Education and humanism: Linking autonomy and humanity. Springer Science & Business Media.

[ Gregory Michael Adam Macur (2020); THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION Int. J. of Adv. Res. 8 (Jan). 983-985] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/10391       DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/10391

Download Full Paper

Share this article.

• Article Writing
• Article On The Importance Of Education

Article on the Importance of Education

Are you educated? Do you think education is a waste of time? This article on the importance of education will give you the answer to that question.

Table of Contents

What can be considered good education, the power of being educated.

• How Can Your Education Benefit Your Society
• FAQs on the Importance of Education

To put it in simple terms, education is the process of acquiring knowledge and skills, building morals, values, and developing habits. Education does not just consist of these. The process of education can be said to be complete only if you are able to put the knowledge you acquire to good use. So, education is not just gaining knowledge and gathering information but developing the ability to apply what you have learned to daily life scenarios.

Is there good education and bad education? This is a question that has been asked for years now. Good education works towards the goal of preparing and empowering individuals to lead a productive life that definitely impacts the economic growth of the society and country they are a part of. Good education is meant to stimulate logical and critical thinking in individuals. Good education does not mean scoring high marks in your assessments. People usually perceive the notion that schooling and scoring good marks in examinations is education. Education is beyond all that. Schooling alone does not lead to learning. Getting a good education depends on a lot of factors, including the environment or society you are in, the social and economic background and the ability of the individual to understand, analyse and act according to the need of the hour.

It is a fact that quality education and skill development comes from strong education systems. Having trained and empathetic teachers is one of the prerequisites to availing good education. Education includes learning about different cultures, religions, communities, economic and social standards and grooming oneself to become a socially responsible individual. With the advancement of technology, teachers have been taken for granted because most children nowadays have their own mobile phones and internet access with which they can find answers to any questions, sometimes questions their parents, siblings, or teachers cannot explain. This is a huge drawback in the process of building a healthy society.

Being educated often makes you feel powerful. Why is that?

Imagine you did not know how to use a mobile phone, a laptop, a match stick or a bulb. What is the use of possessing something that you do not know how to use? In the beginning of time, it was found out that hitting two rocks together produces sparks that can start a fire. Every little thing you come across can teach you something or the other. The more you know, the more powerful you become.

Knowing how to drive a car would come in handy when you have to go somewhere with more people travelling with you. Knowing how to fix a pipe can help you when someone accidentally breaks off a pipe and water keeps flowing. Likewise, everything you learn will help you in one or the other way. Therefore, good education can be defined as the general and specific knowledge people gain by being taught or by experience.

“Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think”, according to Albert Einstein. Gathering a load of information is easily possible in the present age of the internet and technology. Being able to answer every question does not guarantee or prepare you for a life where experience and knowledge is accounted for.

How Can Your Education Benefit Your Society?

Society is an integral part of every nation. The growth and development of individuals help the betterment of the society they are a part of, which in turn helps the social and economic progress of the nation as a whole. The education system has been evolving from day one. The modes and means of education are improvised every now and then according to the changing times.

According to Benjamin Franklin, “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest”. Any amount of money or time spent on getting yourself educated never goes to waste. The more you learn, the more you benefit from it. Even if you think that something that you are learning is not what you are interested in or what you think you need, do not worry because everything you come across will help you in some stage of life. An educated individual has a lot more to give to a society and a nation than a rich person. Being educated shapes the characters and social behaviours of individuals. It changes the way people think and act. The way you look at your fellow beings and treat them varies with every day in the process of learning.

The ultimate goal of education should be action and not just knowledge. In order to attain this goal, it is important to let all kinds of people understand the importance of education and the benefits of being educated in this constantly changing world.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Importance of Education

Why is education important.

Education makes you a better person and gives you stability in life. You become a person people around you can rely on. You can become the hand that lifts up the lowly and provides solutions to all the problems they face. It can also boost your self-confidence and credibility as an individual.

What is the purpose of education?

The purpose of education is to help the development of an individual’s intellectual and emotional self. Education shapes the individual’s character and attitude towards life and fellow beings. It aims to promote the overall development of the individual’s personality.

Is education compulsory?

Most countries have the principle of providing free and compulsory education to all. In India, Article 21 A of the Constitution states that all children from ages six to fourteen should be provided with free and compulsory education and also reserves the right to education as a Fundamental Right.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Transforming education systems: Why, what, and how

• Download the full policy brief
• Download the executive summary
• Baixe o resumo executivo
• Baixar o resumo da política

تنزيل موجز السياسة

تنزيل الملخص التنفيذي

• Descargar el PDF en Español
• Descargar el resumen de políticas

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

Rebecca winthrop and rebecca winthrop director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @rebeccawinthrop the hon. minister david sengeh the hon. minister david sengeh minister of education and chief innovation officer - government of sierra leone, chief innovation officer - directorate of science, technology and innovation in sierra leone @dsengeh.

June 23, 2022

Today, the topic of education system transformation is front of mind for many leaders. Ministers of education around the world are seeking to build back better as they emerge from COVID-19-school closures to a new normal of living with a pandemic. The U.N. secretary general is convening the Transforming Education Summit (TES) at this year’s general assembly meeting (United Nations, n.d.). Students around the world continue to demand transformation on climate and not finding voice to do this through their schools are regularly leaving class to test out their civic action skills.      

It is with this moment in mind that we have developed this shared vision of education system transformation. Collectively we offer insights on transformation from the perspective of a global think tank and a national government: the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at Brookings brings years of global research on education change and transformation, and the Ministry of Education of Sierra Leone brings on-the-ground lessons from designing and implementing system-wide educational rebuilding.   

This brief is for any education leader or stakeholder who is interested in charting a transformation journey in their country or education jurisdiction such as a state or district. It is also for civil society organizations, funders, researchers, and anyone interested in the topic of national development through education. In it, we answer the following three questions and argue for a participatory approach to transformation:  

• Why is education system transformation urgent now? We argue that the world is at an inflection point. Climate change, the changing nature of work, increasing conflict and authoritarianism together with the urgency of COVID recovery has made the transformation agenda more critical than ever. 
• What is education system transformation? We argue that education system transformation must entail a fresh review of the goals of your system – are they meeting the moment that we are in, are they tackling inequality and building resilience for a changing world, are they fully context aware, are they owned broadly across society – and then fundamentally positioning all components of your education system to coherently contribute to this shared purpose.  
• How can education system transformation advance in your country or jurisdiction? We argue that three steps are crucial: Purpose (developing a broadly shared vision and purpose), Pedagogy (redesigning the pedagogical core), and Position (positioning and aligning all components of the system to support the pedagogical core and purpose). Deep engagement of educators, families, communities, students, ministry staff, and partners is essential across each of these “3 P” steps.    

Related Content

Rebecca Winthrop, Adam Barton, Mahsa Ershadi, Lauren Ziegler

September 30, 2021

Jenny Perlman Robinson, Molly Curtiss Wyss, Patrick Hannahan

July 7, 2021

Emiliana Vegas, Rebecca Winthrop

September 8, 2020

Our aim is not to provide “the answer” — we are also on a journey and continually learning about what it takes to transform systems — but to help others interested in pursuing system transformation benefit from our collective reflections to date. The goal is to complement and put in perspective — not replace — detailed guidance from other actors on education sector on system strengthening, reform, and redesign. In essence, we want to broaden the conversation and debate.

Download the full policy brief»

Download the executive summary»

Baixe o resumo executivo»

Baixar o resumo da política»

Descargar el PDF en Español»

Descargar el resumen de políticas»

Global Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

Darcy Hutchins, Emily Markovich Morris, Laura Nora, Carolina Campos, Adelaida Gómez Vergara, Nancy G. Gordon, Esmeralda Macana, Karen Robertson

March 28, 2024

Larry Cooley, Jenny Perlman Robinson

March 8, 2024

The Brookings Institution, Washington DC

9:00 am - 5:00 pm EDT

What Is the Purpose of Education?

A disjoint between ideals and actions, to each their own definition.

Premium Resource

Willona M. Sloan  is a freelance writer and former ASCD editor.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., related articles.

There’s Not Just One Path to Success

When It Comes to Teamwork, EI Outshines IQ

Taking Note

4 Pillars of School Mental Health

Proactive Steps for Anti-Bullying

To process a transaction with a purchase order please send to [email protected].

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Education /

Article on the Importance of Education in 100 to 350 Words

• Updated on  
• Jan 9, 2024

Education entails acquiring knowledge to have a greater understanding of the various disciplines that will be used in our everyday lives. ‘ Education ’ refers to the information we gain and experience outside of books or classrooms, as well as the knowledge that we receive and experience in schools, our homes, and as members of society. Our ideas on life alter as a result of learning, education is crucial for personal development and growth in society . In this blog, we will see why we need education for growth and will also look at some articles on the importance of education.

This Blog Includes:

Importance of education, mental aspect of education’s importance, the power of being an educated individual, how can your education benefit your society, articles on importance of education, article on importance of education: 100 words, article on importance of education: 200 words, article on importance of education: 350 words, article on importance of women’s education.

Also Read: Essay On Education System

Also Read: Importance of Education in Development

The value of education at a much younger age. Our first tryst with learning begins at home, and our first teachers are our parents, grandparents, and often siblings. The importance of education lies in its continuity, learning is a lifetime process that will stop with our death. It is the foundation for the development of a healthy individual and society. Our world cannot have a bright future if our culture lacks education.

Education is the key to change. It is an important tool that allows a person to understand his or her rights and responsibilities to his or her family, society, and nation. It improves a person’s ability to view the world and to fight against misdoings such as injustice, corruption, and violence, among other things.

Education is meant to hone talent, sharpen our mindsets and educate us on a myriad of things. In school, we cover a variety of topics such as history, arithmetic, geography, politics, and so on. These subjects sharpen children’s minds and allow the kid to absorb knowledge from all subjects, and his or her mental level is increased. Here are some cognitive benefits of learning and education that ensure growth and development in children:

Education’s importance in our lives provides us with stability in our everyday lives. Everything may be split, but not your education, you must be told. You can improve your chances of getting a better job with the aid of your degree and expertise.

Financial Security

Our financial stability is helped by education. Higher-qualified individuals receive higher-paying employment in this era, allowing them to guarantee their future.

Self-dependency

Education teaches us to be self-sufficient in our daily lives. A person’s education is his alone, and with it, he may feel safe and self-sufficient.

Equality is a right that everyone deserves. If everyone had the opportunity to pursue higher education, there would be a greater likelihood that everyone would earn a large sum of money, and there would be fewer disparities across social classes. It aids in the pursuit of equality.

Confidence is one of the finest aspects of success. Education boosts a person’s self-assurance. You can go further into a topic that you are already familiar with. With the information you’ve obtained through your schooling, you can converse about that issue far better than others.

If you are a Class 12 student, here are some important blogs for you:

Knowledge and education is power. Education enables individuals. Enables them to innovate, understand, adapt, and overcome. Everything we learn helps us in life in one way or the other. It helps make our life convenient and easy. Good education is basically the knowledge that gives people perspective and information about things which can range from being as simple as fixing a water pipe to building a rocket destined for moon. When we are educated, we can adapt to each and every aspect of life better and it also helps us overcome many hurdle of life and gives perspective about a lot things such as finance, planning, etc. All this can make any individual feel powerful because there remains nothing in life that they cannot tackle.

Every nation’s integral part is it’s society and the growth an development of the same is dependent upon the individuals which in turn helps the social and economic progress of the nation. The education system has been evolving from the very first day and now it has several mods and means of the same. It is quite correct to say that any amount or money spent of being educated never goes waste. The more you learn, the you will be able to grow in life. Every aspect of education will one way or the other, help you in your life. And when an individual is educated, he/she can significantly contribute to the growth of the society and the nation, much more than a rich person. Education helps develop characters, personalities and social behaviours. It helps shape the way people think and act. An ultimately it lead to how a society will grow. For this to happen, it is essential that all of the people understand the importance of education.

The process of learning and increasing abilities through courses, literature, training and other mediums is known as education. It assists us in developing our talents and seeking employment to suit our requirements and obligations.

Education is vital to one’s success in life. It is essential for an individual’s entire growth. The process of learning and improving one’s skills is referred to as education. Wisdom and the ability to handle challenges come with knowledge. Education enhances one’s quality of life while also granting social recognition. Though education is essential for everyone, the need for it is most acute during childhood. Starting with children under the age of 10, school education is critical. It serves as a solid basis for their life skills and goals. A person who lacks education is powerless and vulnerable. H/She will find it difficult to deal with life’s challenges.

Related Reads:

Education is a valuable tool for gaining learning and wisdom. Though books are essential to education, the notion encompasses more than just books and bookish knowledge. It isn’t required for education to be only based on books. 

The most important goal of education is to help people with how to read and write. The first step toward literacy is reading and writing. Education provides a person with endless opportunities for growth and advancement. People who have had an education tend to be more calm and self-assured. People who have been educated are disciplined and understand the importance of time. Education allows a person to be more expressive and opinionated. H/She was able to readily communicate his/her viewpoints, which were supported by a clear aim and rationale.

Education benefits not just the individual but also the community. The most important aspect of education is that it goes from one individual to another, then throughout society, and eventually throughout the country. An educated individual makes an effort to teach and inspire everyone with whom he or she comes into contact. Education brings one up to speed on technological advancements as well. A well-educated person can easily adjust to technological developments. Education, more than anything else, is a source of hope. The desire for a better life; the desire for a wealthy and poverty-free existence.

Must Read: Importance of School Education

Human education is a critical instrument in their lives. It is a significant distinction between a civilized and an undisciplined individual. Even if the country’s literacy rate has increased in recent years, more individuals need to be made aware of the importance of education. Every child, whether a male or a girl, must attend school and not drop out. Education is beneficial not just to the individual but also to society. A well-educated individual is a valuable asset to society, contributing to its social and economic development. Such a person is always willing to assist society and the country. It is true to say that education is a stairway to a person’s and a nation’s achievement.

Education makes a person productive, allowing him or her to contribute to society in a positive way. It teaches us how to face many challenges and conquer them. A well-educated individual understands how to act in a polite and non-offensive manner. It shows us how to live a disciplined life while yet making a respectable living. Our future is built on the basis of education. Education is also the sole weapon that may be used to combat numerous issues such as illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, and so on. A person’s education makes them more sensitive to the predicament of their fellow beings. A well-educated individual not only comprehends the issues but also possesses the essential abilities to address them.

An educated individual possesses competent skills and is more capable than someone who is uneducated. However, it is incorrect to think that education alone ensures success. Indeed, success necessitates a solid education, as well as devotion, attention, and hard effort. An educated individual is more sensible and capable of rational thought.

Education allows a person to become self-sufficient. An educated individual does not rely on others and is capable of meeting his or her own requirements. A well-educated person also educates their family, and education benefits, not just the individual but also society and the nation. Education has a significant influence on our outlook, making us more optimistic about life and its objectives.

Also Read: Importance of Education in Child’s Life

There was a period when it was considered that women didn’t need to be educated. We’ve now realized the importance of women’s education . The modern era is the phase of women’s awakening. In every aspect of life, women are striving to compete with males. Many individuals reject female education, claiming that women’s rightful domain is the home, and therefore that money spent on female education is squandered. This viewpoint is incorrect since female education has the potential to bring about a silent revolution in society.

Female education has numerous advantages; educated women may contribute significantly to the country’s growth by sharing the burdens of males in several fields. They may contribute to society as teachers, lawyers, physicians, and administrators, as well as play a key part in wartime. In this time of economic distress, education is a blessing for women. The days of wealth and prosperity are long gone. Middle-class families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet these days. Female education is important for a country’s growth, thus it should be supported.

Everyone has hope for a better life if they have an education. It’s a type of magic that works in a person’s life to make it far better than it would be if he didn’t have knowledge. To sum up the blog, we believe that everyone should be educated so that they can contribute to making our country proud. Increasing literacy rates can prevent tens of thousands of crimes. Every country should encourage its citizens to receive an education.

Also Read: Importance of Education for Growth and Betterment

Related Articles

Education is a valuable tool for gaining learning and wisdom. Though books are essential to education, the notion encompasses more than just books and bookish knowledge. It isn’t required for education to be only based on books.  The most important goal of education is to help people with how to read and write. The first step toward literacy is reading and writing. Education provides a person with endless opportunities for growth and advancement.

Education teaches us the importance of teamwork, communication, and interpersonal relationships. Education plays an important role in building intellectual and mental development. Education enhances creativity and allows us to express ourselves through various mediums and discover our unique talents. Education serves as a powerful tool for breaking the cycle of poverty

Moral education teaches us important values such as Respect, honesty, compassion, hard work, kindness, gratitude, sharing, cooperation, etc.

This was all about articles on the importance of education! We hope the information provided was helpful! For more information on such informative topics for your school, visit our school education page and follow Leverage Edu .

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Play Minecraft Games with Game Pass

ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

Minecraft is available to play on the following platforms:

*Mac and Linux are compatible with Java Edition only.

Poisonous Potato Update

The (s)mashing update you always asked for!

Imagine being a potato. Now imagine being the potato’s less popular sibling who didn’t inherit the tuber-licious looks the rest of your family possesses. What’s worse is – you're facing the impossible decision of what to do with all this starch? Since neither French fries nor couch potato sat right with you, there's only one option remaining. Congratulations friend, you’re a poisonous potato. 

For years, Minecraft’s own toxic tuber has been neglected and underappreciated, lacking both purpose and usefulness. For years, you – the community – tried to highlight this, working tirelessly to bring it to our attention and literally begging us for more functionality. As of today, your concerns are a thing of the past. 

Mojang Studios is proud to release our most well-boiled update to date that will add so much usability to the poisonous potato that even tater-haters will become devoted spud-buds. The Poisonous Potato Update – rich in both carbs AND features! You asked. We delivered. Or maybe you didn’t ask, but we delivered anyway? In any case, it is HERE! 

GET THE SNAPSHOT UPDATE 

Snapshots are available for Minecraft: Java Edition. To install the snapshot, open up the Minecraft Launcher and enable snapshots in the "Installations" tab. You can even play the snapshot on your own Java Realms together with your friends! 

Remember, snapshots can corrupt your world, so please back up your world and/or run the snapshot in a different folder from your main worlds.  

-> DOWNLOAD THE CROSS-PLATFORM SERVER JAR

Poisonous potato add-on.

The roots of the poisonous potato run deep within Minecraft and extends far beyond Java Edition. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the tuber-lar sensation has spread its influence to Bedrock Edition as well. With Jigarbov’s Poisonous Potato add-on , you’ll be able to experience the joy of the poisonous potato the way it was always intended – through blocks and furniture to weapons and armor.

-> GET THE ADD-ON

Gameplay & features.

• Poisonous potatoes – LOTS of poisonous potatoes! 
• A few normal potatoes too! 
• The homeland of all potato kind
• Five spud-tastic biomes: fields, hash, arboretum, corruption, and wasteland 
• Experience the life of a potato – from its inception as a raw potato picked from the fields, through cooked hash browns, to its eventual decay
• Local weather with a-mashing effects 
• Added the Colosseum, home to the lord of potato kind... 
• A whole sack of a-peeling new blocks 
• Rich in Vitamin C, Vitamin B6, and Niacin! 
• No new mineral blocks. No need! The blocks themselves contain minerals: Potassium, Magnesium, and Iron! 
• Added the frying table – everyone asked for it, so we added it. It fries potato things. It's a really nice model! 
• Added functionality to the fletching table. You can now fletch toxic resin into more refined versions of the resin. 
• Added impurities because purity is overrated 
• Added a whole bunch new gadgets that will tune your poisonous potato game up to eleven! 
• You get it by now. They’re all poisonous potatoes... 

TECHNICAL CHANGES 

• The flux capacitor integration now synergizes with quantum voxelization, which enables a 360-noscope enhancing real-time RTX terrain-rendering nightshade multibox spectrum acceleration while optimizing transdimensional entity synchronization for seamless vitelotte-king edwards-russel burbank experiences! 

WHAT HAPPENS IF I DOWNLOAD THE UPDATE?

Then you will be the proud owner of the file that contains the update. 

WHAT CAN I EXPECT IN TERMS OF GAMEPLAY?  

Poisonous potatoes. We hope this article has made that perfectly clear. 

I DON’T BELIEVE I ASKED FOR THIS UPDATE, IF I’M HONEST. 

You might not have – but your brain (or maybe belly) did! 

ARE THERE CURRENTLY ANY OTHER CARB-BASED UPDATES IN THE WORKS? 

Great question! Please look forward to the Radioactive Rice Update and Toxic Taro Update in the very distant future! 

SHARE THIS STORY

Community creations.

Discover the best add-ons, mods, and more being built by the incredible Minecraft community!

Block...Block...Block...

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Estelle Erasmus

How to Resist the Temptation of AI When Writing

Whether you're a student, a journalist, or a business professional, knowing how to do high-quality research and writing using trustworthy data and sources, without giving in to the temptation of AI or ChatGPT , is a skill worth developing.

As I detail in my book Writing That Gets Noticed , locating credible databases and sources and accurately vetting information can be the difference between turning a story around quickly or getting stuck with outdated information.

For example, several years ago the editor of Parents.com asked for a hot-take reaction to country singer Carrie Underwood saying that, because she was 35, she had missed her chance at having another baby. Since I had written about getting pregnant in my forties, I knew that as long as I updated my facts and figures, and included supportive and relevant peer-reviewed research, I could pull off this story. And I did.

The story ran later that day , and it led to other assignments. Here are some tips I’ve learned that you should consider mastering before you turn to automated tools like generative AI to handle your writing work for you.

Identify experts, peer-reviewed research study authors, and sources who can speak with authority—and ideally, offer easily understood sound bites or statistics on the topic of your work. Great sources include professors at major universities and media spokespeople at associations and organizations.

For example, writer and author William Dameron pinned his recent essay in HuffPost Personal around a statistic from the American Heart Association on how LGBTQ people experience higher rates of heart disease based on discrimination. Although he first found the link in a secondary source (an article in The New York Times ), he made sure that he checked the primary source: the original study that the American Heart Association gleaned the statistic from. He verified the information, as should any writer, because anytime a statistic is cited in a secondary source, errors can be introduced.

Jen Malia, author of  The Infinity Rainbow Club  series of children’s books (whom I recently interviewed on my podcast ), recently wrote a piece about dinosaur-bone hunting for Business Insider , which she covers in her book Violet and the Jurassic Land Exhibit.

After a visit to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Malia, whose books are set in Philadelphia, found multiple resources online and on the museum site that gave her the history of the Bone Wars , information on the exhibits she saw, and the scientific names of the dinosaurs she was inspired by. She also used the Library of Congress’ website, which offers digital collections and links to the Library of Congress Newspaper Collection.

Malia is a fan of searching for additional resources and citable documents with Google Scholar . “If I find that a secondary source mentions a newspaper article, I’m going to go to the original newspaper article, instead of just stopping there and quoting,” she says.

Boone Ashworth

Christopher Null

Chris Haslam

Adrienne So

Your local public library is a great source of free information, journals, and databases (even ones that generally require a subscription and include embargoed research). For example, your search should include everything from health databases ( Sage Journals , Scopus , PubMed) to databases for academic sources and journalism ( American Periodical Series Online , Statista , Academic Search Premier ) and databases for news, trends, market research, and polls (t he Harris Poll , Pew Research Center , Newsbank , ProPublica ).

Even if you find a study or paper that you can’t access in one of those databases, consider reaching out to the study’s lead author or researcher. In many cases, they’re happy to discuss their work and may even share the study with you directly and offer to talk about their research.

For journalist Paulette Perhach’s article on ADHD in The New York Times, she used Epic Research to see “dual team studies.” That's when two independent teams address the same topic or question, and ideally come to the same conclusions. She recommends locating research and experts via key associations for your topic. She also likes searching via Google Scholar but advises filtering it for studies and research in recent years to avoid using old data. She suggests keeping your links and research organized. “Always be ready to be peer-reviewed yourself,” Perhach says.

When you are looking for information for a story or project, you might be inclined to start with a regular Google search. But keep in mind that the internet is full of false information, and websites that look trustworthy can sometimes turn out to be businesses or companies with a vested interest in you taking their word as objective fact without additional scrutiny. Regardless of your writing project, unreliable or biased sources are a great way to torpedo your work—and any hope of future work.

Author Bobbi Rebell researched her book Launching Financial Grownups using the IRS’ website . “I might say that you can contribute a certain amount to a 401K, but it might be outdated because those numbers are always changing, and it’s important to be accurate,” she says. “AI and ChatGPT can be great for idea generation,” says Rebell, “but you have to be careful. If you are using an article someone was quoted in, you don’t know if they were misquoted or quoted out of context.”

If you use AI and ChatGPT for sourcing, you not only risk introducing errors, you risk introducing plagiarism—there is a reason OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, is being sued for downloading information from all those books.

Audrey Clare Farley, who writes historical nonfiction, has used a plethora of sites for historical research, including Women Also Know History , which allows searches by expertise or area of study, and JSTOR , a digital library database that offers a number of free downloads a month. She also uses Chronicling America , a project from the Library of Congress which gathers old newspapers to show how a historical event was reported, and Newspapers.com (which you can access via free trial but requires a subscription after seven days).

When it comes to finding experts, Farley cautions against choosing the loudest voices on social media platforms. “They might not necessarily be the most authoritative. I vet them by checking if they have a history of publication on the topic, and/or educational credentials.”

When vetting an expert, look for these red flags:

• You can’t find their work published or cited anywhere.
• They were published in an obscure journal.
• Their research is funded by a company, not a university, or they are the spokesperson for the company they are doing research for. (This makes them a public relations vehicle and not an appropriate source for journalism.)

And finally, the best endings for virtually any writing, whether it’s an essay, a research paper, an academic report, or a piece of investigative journalism, circle back to the beginning of the piece, and show your reader the transformation or the journey the piece has presented in perspective.

As always, your goal should be strong writing supported by research that makes an impact without cutting corners. Only then can you explore tools that might make the job a little easier, for instance by generating subheads or discovering a concept you might be missing—because then you'll have the experience and skills to see whether it's harming or helping your work.

You Might Also Like …

In your inbox: Introducing Politics Lab , your guide to election season

Google used her to tout diversity. Now she’s suing for discrimination

Our in-house physics whiz explains how heat pumps work

The big questions the Pentagon’s new UFO report fails to answer

AirPods Pro or AirPods Max? These are the best Apple buds for your ears

Michael Calore

Reece Rogers

WIRED COUPONS

Dyson promo code: 20% off all purchases + free shipping

GoPro Promo Code: 15% off Cameras and Accessories

Up to +30% Off with your Samsung promo code

10% Off Everything w/ Dell Coupon Code

Shop Grad Balloons w/ 30% off

15% off Sitewide - Newegg promo code

Microsoft customers complain Copilot doesn't work as well as ChatGPT. Microsoft says they're not using it right.

• A top complaint from Microsoft's customers is that Copilot doesn't perform as well as OpenAI's ChatGPT.
• Microsoft says customers aren't using its new artificial-intelligence tools properly.
• The company is paying a partner to produce videos to teach customers how to write better prompts.

One of the top customer complaints about Microsoft 's Copilot is that it doesn't seem to work as well as ChatGPT , according to employees with direct knowledge of customer feedback.

"Every time a customer starts using it, they start comparing it to ChatGPT and saying, 'Aren't you guys using the same technology?'" one of the people said.

ChatGPT, OpenAI 's artificial-intelligence chatbot, has set relatively high expectations for customers who are now trying out Microsoft Copilot tools for the first time. The software giant's efforts to meet those expectations is an important test as the AI industry attempts to switch users from free consumer chatbot offerings to something more valuable.

Microsoft is racing to add value to these AI tools before customers start asking whether they're getting a proper return from the extra money they're spending on this much-hyped technology.

Copilot vs. ChatGPT

Copilot for Microsoft 365 has reached the most customers so far after the company made it generally available in November. This is a version of the AI assistant that works alongside the company's suite of business applications such as Word, Outlook, and Teams.

Feedback for the tool has been mixed to leaning positive so far, according to the Microsoft employees who spoke with BI.

There are the usual Microsoft problems: Some customers are using older versions of products such as the Outlook email service, and they expect whizbang AI Copilot capabilities to work with this somewhat aging software.

But Microsoft employees told BI the comparisons with ChatGPT kept coming up. These sources asked not to be identified discussing private matters.

The "work" version of the Copilot tool uses internal customer data to help provide automated support to employees working on tasks such as summarizing meetings.

It queries this sensitive information from sources including Microsoft's SharePoint collaboration software. This sometimes means responses aren't as quick or thorough as a free and open web-based chatbot such as ChatGPT that's been trained on information from the entire internet.

Microsoft employees told BI that customers who were saying this Copilot tool didn't compare favorably with ChatGPT just didn't understand how the different products work.

This was confirmed by Jared Spataro, Microsoft's corporate vice president of AI at work, in an interview arranged by the company.

Microsoft's Copilot tools are built on what the company calls the Azure OpenAI model. This takes OpenAI's top GPT models and adds additional capabilities.

Related stories

These GPT models provide a broad foundation of knowledge. Copilots essentially sit on top of this and tap private customer data to provide bespoke support in specific work situations. The system naturally has more restrictions, according to Microsoft employees. For instance, it only temporarily accesses internal data and then deletes it after each query.

Teaching customers how to prompt

Another problem for Microsoft is that users are typically bad at writing prompts, the employees say. These are special instructions that get the most out of AI models and chatbots. There's even a new job for this emerging skill, known as prompt engineering .

"It's a copilot, not an autopilot, you have to work with it," one Microsoft staffer told BI.

The answer an AI tool gives can only be as good as the question asked. "If you don't ask the right question, it will still do its best to give you the right answer, and it can assume things," this person added.

One of the employees said Microsoft had hired its partner BrainStorm to create training videos to help customers create better prompts for Copilot. Microsoft and BrainStorm declined to comment on this.

Some Microsoft customers have even created their own internal teams to help train staff on how to make the best use of these AI tools.

Spataro said Microsoft had put a lot of work into providing support for prompt engineering within the Copilot for Microsoft 365 product itself, such as with FAQs and prompt examples.

'Work' Copilot vs. 'web' Copilot

A source of customer confusion is that there's a "work" version of Copilot for Microsoft 365 and a "web" version of the tool.

The web-based version generates similar outputs to ChatGPT and runs in a similar way. Meanwhile, the "work" version is the one that uses internal private customer data to provide more bespoke and specific responses.

For instance, a Microsoft customer may use the web version of Copilot to search publicly available information about a client. Then they could switch to the work version to find out what extra information is available about this client from internal corporate data.

Still, employees told BI that customers were getting confused about why the "work" version wasn't giving responses as quickly or as thoroughly as the web-based Copilot.

Spataro said Microsoft had been taking measures to help customers understand how these different Copilot offerings operate. For instance, the company is introducing a toggle switch so customers can swap between the "web" and the "work" version of Copilot to help them understand which dataset — the web or their internal files stored within SharePoint — is being queried.

"Copilot for Microsoft 365 is unlike any other AI experience at work, with a deep understanding of your job and organization that combines top of the line AI models, the web, and your business data to enable new scenarios that directly impact the bottom line in a way that wasn't possible before generative AI," Spataro said in a statement.

Are you a Microsoft employee or someone else with insight to share?

Contact Ashley Stewart via email ( [email protected] ), or send a secure message from a non-work device via Signal (+1-425-344-8242).

Axel Springer, Business Insider's parent company, has a global deal to allow OpenAI to train its models on its media brands' reporting.

Watch: What is ChatGPT, and should we be afraid of AI chatbots?

• Main content