What is it about?
A technocratic model of curriculum design that has been highly influential since the middle of last century assumes that the aims of education can be, and should be: 1. Causally brought about by administering educational experiences; 2. Specified as objectives that can be attained, reached or completed; 3. Changes in students that are described in advance. Richard S. Peters argued against the first of these three tenets by making a distinction between aims that are causally brought about by the means and aims that are constituted by the means. I argue that further distinctions between ways in which ends and means can be related throw doubt on the remaining two tenets. My argument against the second one rests on a distinction between open aims that cannot be completed and closed aims that can be reached. I use a third distinction, between aims as principles of design and aims as principles of reform, to show that the third tenet of the technocratic model is also suspect. I conclude that a realistic view of educational aims must take into account that they are more multifarious than envisaged by the technocratic model of curriculum design.
Photo by Roman Mager on Unsplash
Why is it important?
A realistic view of educational aims must take into account that they are more multifarious than envisaged by the technocratic model of curriculum design.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Aims of Education: How to Resist the Temptation of Technocratic Models, Journal of Philosophy of Education, March 2016, Wiley,
You can read the full text:
The following have contributed to this page