Editing Philosophy of education (section)

== Main topics ==
=== Fundamental concepts of education ===
The starting point of many philosophical inquiries into a field is the examination and clarification of the fundamental concepts used in this field, often in the form of [[conceptual analysis]]. This approach is particularly prominent in the [[Analytic philosophy|analytic tradition]]. It aims to make ambiguities explicit and to uncover various implicit and potentially false assumptions associated with these terms.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

Theorists in this field often emphasize the importance of this form of investigation since all subsequent work on more specific issues already has to assume at least implicitly what their central terms mean to demarcate their field. For example, in order to study what constitutes good education, one has to have a notion of what the term "education" means and how to achieve, measure, and evaluate it.<ref name="Watson2016">{{cite journal |last1=Watson |first1=Lani |title=The Epistemology of Education |journal=Philosophy Compass |date=March 2016 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=146–159 |doi=10.1111/phc3.12316 |url=https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12316 |issn=1747-9991}}</ref> Definitions of education can be divided into thin and thick definitions. Thin definitions are neutral and descriptive. They usually emphasize the role of the transmission of knowledge and [[understanding]] in education. Thick definitions include additional normative components, for example, by stating that the process in question has to have certain positive results to be called education.<ref name="Watson2016"/> According to one thick definition, education means that the person educated has acquired knowledge and intellectual skills, values these factors, and has thus changed for the better. These characteristics can then be used to distinguish education from other closely related terms, such as "indoctrination".<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Other fundamental notions in the philosophy of education include the concepts of [[teaching]], [[learning]], [[student]], [[schooling]], and [[child rearing|rearing]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Watson2016"/>

=== Aims of education ===
A central question in the philosophy of education concerns the aims of education, i.e. the question of why people should be educated and what goals should be pursued in the process of education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="Schmitt2005">{{cite journal |last1=Schmitt |first1=Frederick |title=What Are the Aims of Education? |journal=Episteme |date=2005 |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=223–234 |doi=10.3366/epi.2004.1.3.223 |s2cid=144420008 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHWAT-3 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103113057/https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHWAT-3 |url-status=live }}</ref> This issue is highly relevant for evaluating educational practices and products by assessing how well they manage to realize these goals. There is a lot of disagreement and various theories have been proposed concerning the aims of education. Prominent suggestions include that education should foster knowledge, [[curiosity]], [[creativity]], [[rationality]], and critical thinking while also promoting the tendency to think, feel, and act morally.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/> The individual should thereby develop as a person, and achieve [[self-actualization]] by realizing their [[potential]]. Some theorists emphasize the cultivation of [[Liberalism|liberal ideals]], such as [[freedom]], [[autonomy]], and [[open-mindedness]], while others stress the importance of docility, [[Obedience (human behavior)|obedience]] to authority, and ideological purity, sometimes also with a focus on [[piety]] and [[religious faith]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/> Many suggestions concern the social domain, such as fostering a sense of community and solidarity and thus turning the individual into a productive member of society while protecting them from the potentially negative influences of society. The discussion of these positions and the arguments cited for and against them often include references to various disciplines in their justifications, such as [[ethics]], [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], and [[sociology]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Brighouse |first1=Harry |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-003 |language=en |chapter=Moral and Political Aims of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=27 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227154851/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-003 |url-status=live }}</ref>

There is wide consensus concerning certain general aims of education, like that it should foster all students, help them in the development of their ability to reason, and guide them in how to judge and act. But these general characteristics are usually too vague to be of much help and there are many disagreements about the more specific suggestions of what education should aim for.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Schmitt2005"/> Some attempts have been made to provide an overarching framework of these different aims. According to one approach, education should at its core help the individual lead a good life. All the different more specific goals are aims of education to the extent that they serve this ultimate purpose.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haack |first1=Robin |title=Education and the Good Life |journal=Philosophy |date=1981 |volume=56 |issue=217 |pages=289–302 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100050282 |jstor=3750273 |s2cid=144950876 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750273 |issn=0031-8191 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2022-04-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220407165937/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750273 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> On this view, it may be argued that fostering rationality and autonomy in the students are aims of education to the extent that increased rationality and autonomy will result in the student leading a better life.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

The different theories of the aims of education are sometimes divided into ''goods-based'', ''skills-based'', and ''character-based'' accounts. ''Goods-based'' accounts hold that the ultimate aim of education is to produce some form of epistemic good, such as truth, knowledge, and understanding. ''Skills-based'' accounts, on the other hand, see the development of certain skills, like rationality as well as critical and independent [[thinking]] as the goal of education. For ''character-based'' accounts, the character traits or virtues of the learner play the central role, often with an emphasis on moral and civic traits like [[kindness]], [[justice]], and [[honesty]].<ref name="Watson2016"/>

==== Epistemic ====
Many theories emphasize the epistemic aims of education.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological">{{cite book |editor1-last=Borchert |editor1-first=Donald |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=Philosophy Of Education, Epistemological Issues In |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Robertson2009">{{cite book |last1=Robertson |first1=Emily |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-002 |chapter=The Epistemic Aims of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=28 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211228183510/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-002 |url-status=live }}</ref> According to the epistemic approach, the central aim of education has to do with [[knowledge]], for example, to pass on knowledge accumulated in the societal effort from one generation to the next. This process may be seen both as the development of the student's [[mind]] as well as the transmission of a valuable heritage.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Such an approach is sometimes rejected by [[Pragmatism|pragmatists]], who emphasize experimentation and critical thinking over the transmission of knowledge.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Others have argued that this constitutes a [[false dichotomy]]: that the transmission of knowledge and the development of a rational and critical mind are intertwined aims of education that depend on and support each other.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> In this sense, education aims also at fostering the ability to acquire new knowledge. This includes both instilling true [[belief]]s in the students as well as teaching the methods and forms of [[evidence]] responsible for verifying existing beliefs and arriving at new knowledge. It promotes the epistemic autonomy of students and may help them challenge unwarranted claims by epistemic authorities.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological"/><ref name="Robertson2009"/> In its widest sense, the epistemic approach includes various related goals, such as imparting true beliefs or knowledge to the students as well as teaching dispositions and abilities, such as rationality, critical thinking, understanding, and other [[intellectual virtue]]s.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

==== Critical thinking and indoctrination ====
[[Critical thinking]] is often cited as one of the central aims of education.<ref name="Siegel">{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION, EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES IN |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> There is no generally accepted definition of critical thinking. But there is wide agreement that it is reasonable, reflective, careful, and focused on determining what to believe or how to act.<ref name="Ennis">{{cite book |last1=Ennis |first1=Robert H. |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=31–47 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |language=en |chapter=Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception |doi=10.1057/9781137378057_2 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230212201906/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Davies">{{cite book |last1=Davies |first1=Martin |last2=Barnett |first2=Ronald |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=1–25 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |language=en |chapter=Introduction |doi=10.1057/9781137378057_1 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2022-07-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220730081138/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Hitchcock">{{cite web |last1=Hitchcock |first1=David |title=Critical Thinking |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=1 November 2021 |date=2020 |archive-date=31 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |url-status=live }}</ref> It has clarity and rationality as its standards and includes a [[Metacognition|metacognitive]] component monitoring not just the solution of the problem at hand but also ensuring that it complies with its own standards in the process.<ref name="Davies"/> In this sense, education is not just about conveying many true beliefs to the students. Instead, the students' [[ability]] to arrive at conclusions by themselves and the disposition to question pre-existing beliefs should also be fostered, often with the goal of benefitting not just the student but society at large.<ref name="Siegel"/><ref name="Davies"/> But not everyone agrees with the positive role ascribed to critical thinking in education. Objections are often based on disagreements about what it means to reason well.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Some critics argue that there is no universally correct form of reasoning. According to them, education should focus more on teaching subject-specific skills and less on imparting a universal method of thinking.<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Monteiro |first1=Sandra |last2=Sherbino |first2=Jonathan |last3=Sibbald |first3=Matthew |last4=Norman |first4=Geoff |title=Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills |journal=Medical Education |date=2020 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |doi=10.1111/medu.13872 |pmid=31468581 |s2cid=201674464 |language=en |issn=1365-2923|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Other objections focus on the allegation that critical thinking is not as neutral, universal, and presuppositionless as some of its proponents claim. On this view, it involves various implicit biases, like egocentrism or distanced objectivity, and culture-specific values arising from its roots in the philosophical movement of the [[Age of Enlightenment|European Enlightenment]].<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

The problem of critical thinking is closely connected to that of [[indoctrination]].<ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Many theorists hold that indoctrination is in important ways different from education and should be avoided in education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> But others contend that indoctrination should be part of education or even that there is no difference between the two. These different positions depend a lot on how "indoctrination" is to be defined. Most definitions of indoctrination agree that its goal is to get the student to accept and embrace certain beliefs.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> It has this in common with most forms of education but differs from it in other ways.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to one definition, the belief acquisition in indoctrination happens without regard for the [[Evidence#Nature of the evidential relation|evidential support]] of these beliefs, i.e. without presenting proper arguments and reasons for adopting them.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to another, the beliefs are instilled in such a way as to discourage the student to question or assess for themselves the believed contents. In this sense, the goals of indoctrination are exactly opposite to other aims of education, such as rationality and critical thinking.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, education tries to impart not just beliefs but also make the students more [[open-minded]] and conscious of human [[fallibility]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Adler2009">{{cite book |last1=Adler |first1=Jonathan E. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |chapter=Why Fallibility Has Not Mattered and How It Could |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2021-12-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022523/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Petrik |first1=Kathryn Rose |title=A fallibilistic approach to education policy |date=2016 |url=https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121202707/https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |url-status=live }}</ref> An intimately related issue is whether the aim of education is to mold the mind of the pupil or to liberate it by strengthening its capacity for critical and independent inquiry.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

An important consequence of this debate concerns the [[Philosophy of testimony|problem of testimony]], i.e to what extent students should [[Trust (social science)|trust]] the claims of teachers and books.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=2018 |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |language=en |chapter=Epistemology of education |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-02-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240223030751/https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016">{{cite journal |last1=Taylor |first1=Rebecca M. |title=Indoctrination and Social Context: A System-Based Approach to Identifying the Threat of Indoctrination and the Responsibilities of Educators |journal=Journal of Philosophy of Education |date=2016 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=38–58 |doi=10.1111/1467-9752.12180 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Callan2009">{{cite book |last1=Callan |first1=Eamonn |last2=Arena |first2=Dylan |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |language=en |chapter=Indoctrination |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022547/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |url-status=live }}</ref> It has been argued that this issue depends a lot on the age and the intellectual development of the student. In the earlier stages of education, a high level of trust on the side of the students may be necessary. But the more their intellectual capacities develop, the more they should use them when trying to assess the plausibility of claims and the reasons for and against them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this regard, it has been argued that, especially for young children, weaker forms of indoctrination may be necessary while they still lack the intellectual capacities to evaluate the reasons for and against certain claims and thus to critically assess them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, one can distinguish unavoidable or acceptable forms of indoctrination from their avoidable or unacceptable counterparts. But this distinction is not always affirmed and some theorists contend that all forms of indoctrination are bad or unacceptable.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016"/><ref name="Callan2009"/>

==== Individual and society ====
A recurrent source of disagreement about the aims of education concerns the question of who is the primary beneficiary of education: the [[individual]] educated or the [[society]] having this individual as its member.<ref name="Reich2009">{{cite book |last1=Reich |first1=Rob |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-026 |language=en |chapter=Educational Authority and the Interests of Children |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=27 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227154804/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-026 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In many cases, the interests of both are aligned. On the one hand, many new opportunities in life open to the individual through education, especially concerning their career. On the other hand, education makes it more likely that the person becomes a good, law-abiding, and productive member of society.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Partington |first1=Geoffrey |title=Educating for a More Law-Abiding Society |journal=The Australian Quarterly |date=1990 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=346–360 |doi=10.2307/20635601 |jstor=20635601 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635601 |issn=0005-0091 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103014614/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635601 |url-status=live }}</ref> But this issue becomes more problematic in cases where the interests of the individual and society conflict with each other. This poses the question of whether individual [[autonomy]] should take precedence over communal welfare.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to ''comprehensive liberals'', for example, education should emphasize the self-directedness of the students. On this view, it is up to the student to choose their own path in life. The role of education is to provide them with the necessary resources but it does not direct the student with respect to what constitutes an ethically [[good]] path in life. This position is usually rejected by [[communitarians]], who stress the importance of [[social cohesion]] by being part of the community and sharing a common good.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Gordon |last2=Neufeld |first2=Blain |title=Political Liberalism, Civic Education, and Educational Choice |journal=Social Theory and Practice |date=2007 |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=47–74 |doi=10.5840/soctheorpract200733135 |jstor=23558510 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558510 |issn=0037-802X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558510 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Golby |first1=Micheal |title=Communitarianism and education |journal=Curriculum Studies |date=1 July 1997 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=125–138 |doi=10.1080/14681369700200010 |issn=0965-9757|doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Curriculum ===
An important and controversial issue in the philosophy of education concerns the contents of the [[curriculum]], i.e. the question of what should be taught to students. This includes both the selection of subjects to be taught and the consideration of arguments for and against the inclusion of a particular topic. This issue is intimately tied to the aims of education: one may argue that a certain subject should be included in the curriculum because it serves one of the aims of education.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

While many positions about what subjects to include in the curriculum are controversial, some particular issues stand out where these controversies go beyond the academic discourse to a wide public discourse, like questions about [[Sex education|sexual]] and [[religious education]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Allison">{{cite web |last1=Jones |first1=Allison |title=Ontario government releases new sex-ed curriculum, similar to scrapped version |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/5792416/ontario-new-sex-ed-curriculum/ |website=Global News |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-03-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322232715/https://globalnews.ca/news/5792416/ontario-new-sex-ed-curriculum/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Barnes2019">{{cite book |last1=Barnes |first1=L. Philip |title=Crisis, Controversy and the Future of Religious Education |date=5 December 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-73002-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EfvADwAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102231841/https://books.google.com/books?id=EfvADwAAQBAJ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Arragon2015"/> Controversies in sex education involve both biological aspects, such as the functioning of [[sex organs]], and social aspects, such as [[Human sexual activity|sexual practices]] and [[gender identities]]. Disagreements in this area concern which aspects are taught and in which detail as well as to which age groups these teachings should be directed.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Allison"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Khubchandani |first1=Jagdish |last2=Clark |first2=Jeffrey |last3=Kumar |first3=Raman |title=Beyond Controversies: Sexuality Education for Adolescents in India |journal=Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care |date=2014 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=175–179 |doi=10.4103/2249-4863.141588 |pmid=25374847 |pmc=4209665 |issn=2249-4863 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Debates on religious education include questions like whether [[religion]] should be taught as a distinct subject and, if so, whether it should be compulsory. Other questions include which religion or religions should be taught and to what degree religious views should influence other topics, such as [[ethics]] or sex education.<ref name="Barnes2019"/><ref name="Arragon2015">{{cite book |last1=Arragon |first1=Leo Van |last2=Beaman |first2=Lori G. |title=Issues in Religion and Education |date=1 January 2015 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-28981-9 |url=https://brill.com/view/book/9789004289819/B9789004289819-s002.xml |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=16 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220616032249/https://brill.com/view/book/9789004289819/B9789004289819-s002.xml |url-status=live }}</ref>

Another prominent topic in this field concerns the subject of [[moral education]]. This field is sometimes referred to as "educational ethics". Disagreements in this field concern which moral beliefs and [[Value (ethics)|values]] should be taught to the students. This way, many of the disagreements in moral philosophy are reflected in the field of moral education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Some theorists in the [[Kantianism|Kantian tradition]] emphasize the importance of [[moral reasoning]] and enabling children to become morally [[autonomous]] agents who can tell right from wrong.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Theorists in the [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian tradition]], on the other hand, focus more on moral [[habituation]] through the development of [[virtue]]s that concern both perception, affect, and judgment in regard to moral situations.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> A related issue, heavily discussed in [[ancient philosophy]], is the extent to which [[morality]] can be taught at all instead of just being an inborn disposition.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Desjardins |first1=Rosemary |title=Knowledge and Virtue: Paradox in Plato's "Meno" |journal=The Review of Metaphysics |date=1985 |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=261–281 |jstor=20128314 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20128314 |issn=0034-6632 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102231821/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20128314 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Gordon |first1=John-Stewart |title=Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics |url=https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=1 April 2022 |archive-date=25 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220325130203/https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Various discussions also concern the role of [[art]] and [[aesthetics]] in public education. It has been argued that the [[creativity]] learned in these areas can be applied to various other fields and may thereby benefit the student in various ways. It has been argued that aesthetic education also has indirect effects on various other issues, such as shaping the student's sensibilities in the fields of morality and politics as well as heightening their awareness of self and others.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heybach |first1=Jessica A. |title=Aesthetics and Education |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education |date=27 August 2020 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.413 |isbn=978-0-19-026409-3 |url=https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-413 |language=en |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930162756/https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-413 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Ralph A. |title=The Relations of Philosophy of Education to Aesthetic Education |journal=Journal of Aesthetic Education |date=1969 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=161–164 |doi=10.2307/3331533 |jstor=3331533 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331533 |issn=0021-8510 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183418/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331533 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Some researchers reject the possibility of [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]] in general. They use this claim to argue against universal forms of education, which they see as hiding particular [[worldview]]s, beliefs, and interests under a false cover.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> This is sometimes utilized to advance an approach focused on more diversity, for example, by giving more prominence in education to the great variety of cultures, customs, languages, and lifestyles without giving preference to any of them.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/>

Different approaches to solving these disputes are employed. In some cases, [[psychology]] in the field of [[child development]], [[learning]], and [[motivation]] can provide important general insights.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ogden |first1=Robert Morris |title=The relation of psychology to philosophy and education. |journal=Psychological Review |date=1913 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=179–193 |doi=10.1037/h0072120 |url=https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072120 |language=en |issn=0033-295X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092737/https://psycnet.apa.org/api/request/browsePA.getJournals |url-status=live }}</ref> More specific questions about the curriculum of a particular subject, such as [[mathematics]], are often strongly influenced by the philosophy of this specific discipline, such as the [[philosophy of mathematics]].<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ernest |first1=Paul |last2=Skovsmose |first2=Ole |last3=van Bendegem |first3=Jean Paul |last4=Bicudo |first4=Maria |last5=Miarka |first5=Roger |last6=Kvasz |first6=Ladislav |last7=Moeller |first7=Regina |series=ICME-13 Topical Surveys |title=The Philosophy of Mathematics Education |date=2016 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-40569-8 |pages=1–26 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-12-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209174341/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Power ===
The problem of [[Power (social and political)|power]] is another issue in the philosophy of education. Of specific interest on this topic is that the modern states compel children to attend school, so-called [[compulsory education]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Moss2012">{{cite book |last1=Moss |first1=Peter |title=Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the relationship |date=27 November 2012 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-16933-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-kYg1Uyxm1UC |language=en |chapter=1. The relationshipt between early childhood and compulsory education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183412/https://books.google.com/books?id=-kYg1Uyxm1UC |url-status=live }}</ref> The children and their parents usually have few to no ways of opting out or changing the established curriculum. An important question in this respect is why or whether modern states are justified to use this form of power.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Moss2012"/> For example, various liberationist movements belonging to the fields of [[deschooling]] and [[unschooling]] reject this power and argue that the children's welfare is best served in the absence of compulsory schooling in general. This is sometimes based on the idea that the best form of learning does not happen while studying but instead occurs as a side-effect while doing something else.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Dickerson |first1=Adam |title=John Holt: The Philosophy of Unschooling |date=17 May 2019 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-030-18726-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FQiZDwAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=1. Only the Experts Shall Speak or Be Heard}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Griffith |first1=Mary |title=The Unschooling Handbook: How to Use the Whole World As Your Child's Classroom |date=5 May 2010 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-307-48970-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qVFmz38KA8cC |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183412/https://books.google.com/books?id=qVFmz38KA8cC |url-status=live }}</ref> This position is often rejected by pointing out that it is based on overly optimistic presuppositions about the children's natural and unguided development of [[rationality]].<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> While some objections focus on compulsory education in general, a less radical and more common criticism concerns specific compulsory topics in the curriculum, for example, in relation to sexuality or religion. Another contemporary debate in the United States concerns the practice of standardized testing: it has been argued that this discriminates against certain racial, cultural, or religious minorities since the standardized test may implicitly assume various presuppositions not shared by these minorities.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Beuchert"/><ref name="Knoester2017"/> Other issues in relation to power concern the authority and responsibility teachers have towards their students.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

[[Postmodernism|Postmodern]] theorists often see established educational practices as instruments of power used by elites in society to further their own interests.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Important aspects in this regard are the unequal power relation between the state and its institutions in contrast to the individual as well as the control that can thus be employed due to the close connection between [[Power-knowledge|power and knowledge]], specifically the knowledge passed on through education.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Leonard |first1=Peter |title=KNOWLEDGE/POWER AND POSTMODERNISM: Implications for the Practice of a Critical Social Work Education |journal=Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social |date=1994 |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=11–26 |jstor=41669550 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41669550 |issn=0820-909X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183417/https://www.jstor.org/stable/41669550 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=RØMER |first1=THOMAS AASTRUP |title=Postmodern Education and the Concept of Power |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |date=January 2011 |volume=43 |issue=7 |pages=755–772 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00566.x |s2cid=219541268 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00566.x |issn=0013-1857 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183412/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00566.x |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Burbules |first1=Nicholas C. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-029?rskey=RMXvXj&result=4&q=action |language=en |chapter=Postmodernism and Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=31 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092737/https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28239/chapter-abstract/213341678?redirectedFrom=fulltext |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Equality ===
A recurrent demand on public education is that all students should be treated equally and in a fair manner.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> One reason for this demand is that education plays a central role for the child's path and prospects in life, which should not be limited by unfair or arbitrary external circumstances.<ref name="StanfordEquality">{{cite web |last1=Shields |first1=Liam |last2=Newman |first2=Anne |last3=Satz |first3=Debra |title=Equality of Educational Opportunity |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |date=2017 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092734/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/ |url-status=live }}</ref> But there are various disagreements about how this demand is best understood and whether it is applicable in all cases. An initial problem concerns what is meant by "[[Social equality|equality]]". In the field of education, it is often understood as [[equality of opportunity]]. In this sense, the demand for equality implies that education should open the same opportunities to everyone. This means, among other things, that students from higher social classes should not enjoy a competitive advantage over others.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordEquality"/> One difficulty with this demand, when understood in a wide sense, is that there are many sources of [[educational inequality]] and it is not always in the best interest to eliminate all of them. For example, parents who are concerned with their young children's education may read them bedtime stories early on and thereby provide them with a certain advantage over other children who do not enjoy this privilege. But disallowing such practices to level the field would have serious negative side-effects.<ref name="StanfordEquality"/> A weaker position on this issue does not demand full equality but holds instead that educational policies should ensure that certain factors, like [[Race (human categorization)|race]], [[native language]], and [[disabilities]], do not pose obstacles to the equality of opportunity.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/>

A closely related topic is whether all students, both high and low performers, should be treated equally. According to some, more resources should be dedicated to low performers, to help them get to an average level, while others recommend a preferential treatment for high performers in order to help them fully develop their exceptional abilities and thereby benefit society at large.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> A similar problem is the issue of specialization. It concerns the question of whether all students should follow the same curriculum or to what extent they should specialize early on in specific fields according to their interests and skills.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

[[Marxism|Marxist]] critiques of the school systems in [[Capitalism|capitalist]] societies often focus on the inequality they cause by sorting students for different economic positions. While overtly this process happens based on individual effort and desert, they argue that this just masks and reinforces the underlying influence of the preexisting [[Social class|social class structure]].<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="Cole2019">{{cite journal |last1=Cole |first1=Mike |title=Marxism and Educational Theory |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education |date=25 January 2019 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.105 |isbn=978-0-19-026409-3 |url=https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-105 |language=en |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=12 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112000118/https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-105 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Hickox1982">{{cite journal |last1=Hickox |first1=M. S. H. |title=The Marxist Sociology of Education: A Critique |journal=The British Journal of Sociology |date=1982 |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=563–578 |doi=10.2307/589362 |jstor=589362 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/589362 |issn=0007-1315}}</ref> This is sometimes integrated into a wider Marxist perspective on society which holds that education in capitalist societies plays the role of upholding this inequality and thereby reproduces the [[Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)|capitalist relations of production]].<ref name="Hickox1982"/><ref name="Cole2019"/>

Other criticisms of the dominant paradigms in education are often voiced by [[Feminism|feminist]] and postmodern theorists.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> They usually point to alleged biases and forms of discrimination present in current practices that should be eliminated. Feminists often hold that traditional education is overly man-oriented and thereby oppresses women in some form.<ref name="Noddings2009">{{cite book |last1=Noddings |first1=Nel |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-028 |language=en |chapter=Feminist Philosophy and Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=1 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220101041026/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-028 |url-status=live }}</ref> This bias was present to severe degrees in earlier forms of education and a lot of progress has been made towards more [[gender-equal]] forms of education. Nonetheless, feminists often contend that certain problems still persist in contemporary education. Some argue, for example, that this manifests itself in the prominence given to cognitive development in education, which is said to be associated primarily with [[masculinity]] in contrast to a more [[Femininity|feminine]] approach based on emotion and intuition.<ref name="Noddings2009"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> A related criticism holds that there is an overemphasis on abilities belonging to the [[public sphere]], like [[reason]] and [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]], in contrast to equally important characteristics belonging to the [[private sphere]], like [[compassion]] and [[empathy]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

=== Epistemology ===
The philosophy of education is also interested in the ''epistemology of education''.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> This term is often used to talk about the epistemic aims of education, i.e. questions like whether educators should aim at transmitting justified true beliefs rather than merely true beliefs or should additionally foster other epistemic virtues like critical thinking.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological"/><ref name="Robertson2009"/> In a different sense, the epistemology of education concerns the issue of how we arrive at knowledge on educational matters. This is especially relevant in the field of educational research, which is an active field of investigation with many studies being published on a regular basis. It is also quite influential in regard to educational policy and practice. Epistemological questions in this field concern the objectivity of its insights.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

An important methodological divide in this area, often referred to as the "paradigm wars", is between the ''quantitative'' or ''statistical approach'' in contrast to the ''qualitative'' or ''ethnographical approach''.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Pivovarova2020">{{cite journal |last1=Pivovarova |first1=Margarita |last2=Powers |first2=Jeanne M. |last3=Fischman |first3=Gustavo E. |title=Moving Beyond the Paradigm Wars: Emergent Approaches for Education Research |journal=Review of Research in Education |date=March 2020 |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=vii–xvi |doi=10.3102/0091732x20909400 |s2cid=219092623 |issn=0091-732X|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Galvez2019">{{cite journal |last1=Munoz-Najar Galvez |first1=Sebastian |last2=Heiberger |first2=Raphael |last3=McFarland |first3=Daniel |title=Paradigm Wars Revisited: A Cartography of Graduate Research in the Field of Education (1980–2010) |journal=American Educational Research Journal |date=9 July 2019 |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=612–652 |doi=10.3102/0002831219860511 |s2cid=199141723 |issn=0002-8312|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Gage1989">{{cite journal |last1=Gage |first1=N. L. |title=The Paradigm Wars and Their Aftermath: A "Historical" Sketch of Research on Teaching since 1989 |journal=Educational Researcher |date=1989 |volume=18 |issue=7 |pages=4–10 |doi=10.2307/1177163 |jstor=1177163 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1177163 |issn=0013-189X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183417/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1177163 |url-status=live }}</ref> The quantitative approach usually focuses on wide [[experimental studies]] and employs [[statistical method]]s to uncover the general causal factors responsible for educational phenomena. It has been criticized based on the claim that its method, which is inspired by the [[natural sciences]], is inappropriate for understanding the complex cultural and motivational patterns investigated by the [[social sciences]]. The qualitative approach, on the other hand, gives more weight to particular case studies for reaching its conclusions. Its opponents hold that this approach lacks the methodological rigor to arrive at well-warranted knowledge.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Pivovarova2020"/><ref name="Galvez2019"/><ref name="Gage1989"/> The ''mixed-method research'' is a recent contemporary approach in which the methods of both camps are combined. The question of the most promising approach is relevant to how funding budgets are spent on research, which in its turn has important implications for policymaking.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

=== Others ===
One question concerns how the learners are to be conceptualized. [[John Locke]] sees the mind as a blank slate or a [[tabula rasa]] that passively absorbs information and is filled with contents through [[experience]]. This view contrasts with a more [[Pragmatism|pragmatist]] perspective, which in its emphasis on practice sees students not as passive absorbers but as active learners that should be encouraged to discover and learn things by themselves.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Androne |first1=Mihai |title=Notes on John Locke's Views on Education |journal=Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences |date=9 July 2014 |volume=137 |pages=74–79 |doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.255 |language=en |issn=1877-0428|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Curren |first1=Randall |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-027 |language=en |chapter=Pragmatist Philosophy of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230032828/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-027 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Another disputed topic is the role of [[Test (assessment)|testing]] in public education. Some theorists have argued that it is counterproductive since it puts undue pressure on the students.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> But testing also plays various critical roles, such as providing feedback on the learning progress both to the student, their parents, and their teachers. Concrete discussions on the role of testing often focus less on whether it should be done at all and more on how much importance should be ascribed to the test results.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=William C. |last2=Holloway |first2=Jessica |title=School testing culture and teacher satisfaction |journal=Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability |date=1 November 2020 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=461–479 |doi=10.1007/s11092-020-09342-8 |s2cid=228904306 |language=en |issn=1874-8600|doi-access=free |hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30146806 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This also includes questions about the form of testing, for example, whether it should be [[Standardized test|standardized]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Beuchert">{{cite journal |last1=Beuchert |first1=Louise |last2=Eriksen |first2=Tine Louise Mundbjerg |last3=Krægpøth |first3=Morten Visby |title=The impact of standardized test feedback in math: Exploiting a natural experiment in 3rd grade |journal=Economics of Education Review |date=1 August 2020 |volume=77 |pages=102017 |doi=10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102017 |s2cid=225349085 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775719307642 |language=en |issn=0272-7757 |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183806/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775719307642 |url-status=live }}</ref> Standardized tests present the same questions and scoring system to all students taking the test and are often motivated by a desire for objective and fair evaluations both of students and schools. Opponents have argued that this approach tends to favor certain social groups over others and severely limits the creativity and effectiveness of teachers.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Knoester2017">{{cite journal |last1=Knoester |first1=Matthew |last2=Au |first2=Wayne |title=Standardized testing and school segregation: like tinder for fire? |journal=Race Ethnicity and Education |date=2 January 2017 |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1080/13613324.2015.1121474 |s2cid=146223396 |issn=1361-3324|doi-access=free }}</ref>