{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026984126984126985, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010582010582010583, 'mean_word_length': 5.5432525951557095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Educational Goods: Values, Evidence, and Decision‐Making—A Summary

Educational decision-making involves value judgments. As decision makers aim for improvements, they need standards that tell them what counts as an improvement. However, they typically lack a rich and sophisticated language for talking about values and articulating trade-offs. The book aims to enrich the language available to, and to clarify the thinking of, both educational decision makers and the researchers whose work informs their deliberation, by offering a systematic framework for thinking about the goals of education. We have coined the term ‘educational goods’ to refer to the knowledge, skills, attitudes and dispositions that children develop both for their benefit and for the benefit of others. We identify, at a general level, six capacities that will tend to support the flourishing of both the agent herself and others in her society: the capacities for economic productivity, personal autonomy, democratic competence, healthy personal relations, regarding others as moral equals, and personal fulfilment. We think of these as the distinctive goods that education aims to produce. Decision makers typically care not only about the average level of educational goods that students acquire but also about how these goods are distributed. Distributive values typically have two components: (1) a distributive rule and (2) an object of distribution (a distribuendum), to which that rule applies. We identify three distributive values: adequacy of educational goods (adequacy), equality of educational goods (equality) and the distribution of educational goods that most benefit those with the worst prospects for flourishing (benefitting the less advantaged). The level and distribution of educational goods are not the only normative considerations at stake in educational decisions. Other values bear on