Why learn Education? 

Education is an important part of any person’s development. With education, individuals are equipped with the tools necessary to navigate through life’s opportunities and challenges. More specifically, it provides people with the skills to think critically, solve problems, develop effective communication skills, and reach their goals. Educators can play an important role in providing students with the knowledge and skills to succeed. 

为什么要学习教育？

教育是任何人发展的重要组成部分。通过教育，个人配备了必要的工具来应对生活中的机遇和挑战。更具体地说，它为人们提供了批判性思考、解决问题、培养有效沟通技巧和实现目标的技能。教育工作者可以在为学生提供成功的知识和技能方面发挥重要作用。

Is Education hard to learn? 

Learning how to become an educator requires dedication and effort. It requires time spent studying and understanding the material and then applying it in real life situations. It also requires a willingness to take risks, ask questions, and engage in meaningful conversations with teachers and peers.  

What’s the difference between a teacher and professor? 

A teacher typically works in a classroom setting, helping students understand and learn course material. They are generally responsible for preparing lesson plans, grading students' work, managing classroom behavior, and communicating with parents. Professors, on the other hand, typically work in higher education such as colleges and universities. They are often responsible for teaching courses, researching topics in their field of expertise, supervising undergraduate and graduate students, and publishing scholarly works.  

老师和教授有什么区别？

教师通常在课堂环境中工作，帮助学生理解和学习课程材料。他们通常负责准备课程计划、评分学生的作业、管理课堂行为以及与家长沟通。另一方面，教授通常在高等教育中工作，例如学院和大学。他们通常负责教授课程，研究其专业领域的主题，指导本科生和研究生以及出版学术著作。

Topics in education and teaching

Here offers a variety of topics for learners interested in the field. Sample topics of education matter include: 

• Introduction to Education: a comprehensive overview of education’s history, philosophy, and sociology that can examine education’s social and cultural foundations, as well as the roles of learners, teachers, and schools.

• Educational Psychology: an exploration of how students learn and develop cognitively, emotionally, and socially.

• Curriculum and Instruction: the fundamentals of designing, implementing, and evaluating educational curricula, with topics related to planning, instructional strategies, materials selection, diversity issues, assessment methods, and technology integration.

• Educational Technology: an introduction to the use of technology for teaching and learning, including emerging technologies, teaching with technology, digital media literacy, online learning tools, and security and privacy issues.

• Special education: topics related to special education including identifying learners with special needs, developing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), collaboration with families, laws and regulations governing special education services, and effective instructional strategies.

• Early childhood education: an indepth look into the development of children from birth to age eight, covering educational techniques used to foster learning. 

教育与教学主题

这里为对该领域感兴趣的学习者提供了各种主题。教育问题的示例主题包括：

    教育导论：对教育历史、哲学和社会学的全面概述，可以检查教育的社会和文化基础，以及学习者、教师和学校的角色。

    教育心理学： 探索学生如何在认知、情感和社交方面学习和发展。

    课程与教学：设计、实施和评估教育课程的基础知识，主题与规划、教学策略、材料选择、多样性问题、评估方法和技术集成相关。

     教育技术： 介绍技术在教学中的应用，包括新兴技术、技术教学、数字媒体素养、在线学习工具以及安全和隐私问题。

      特殊教育：与特殊教育相关的主题，包括识别有特殊需要的学习者、制定个性化教育计划 （IEP）、与家庭合作、管理特殊教育服务的法律法规以及有效的教学策略。

     幼儿教育： 深入了解儿童从出生到八岁的发展，涵盖用于促进学习的教育技术。

Jobs in education

Education is a broad field with many exciting career paths. Whether you want to pursue a career inside or outside of the classroom, many different options are available. 

Inside the classroom, teachers and professors provide instruction and prepare materials for their students. They are also involved in assessment, evaluation, and curriculum planning. As a teacher, you can focus on a specific subject, such as math, history, science, or language arts. You could also specialize in early childhood education or become a special education teacher. 

There are also many jobs for professionals outside the classroom, such as a school administrator, where you will be tasked with managing the operations of an educational institution which can involve hiring faculty, developing policies, and overseeing budgets. You can pursue a career as a consultant, advising organizations on educational topics; typical job activities include evaluating programs, creating reports, and suggesting potential improvements. And, you can work as a curriculum writer, crafting the material taught in the classroom, or an instructional designer, assessing existing training practices and developing online learning programs. 

No matter which job you choose, you'll be able to make a difference by shaping the minds of future generations. With the proper training and dedication, you can find a career that is both meaningful and rewarding.  

What we also ask.

What are the principles of education & learning?

What are the 7 principles of education?

What are the 10 principles of learning and teaching and explain each?

What are the 6 principles of learning and teaching?

4 THINGS THAT EDUCATORS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT  EDUCATION LAW AND ETHICS.

Ethics refers to the discipline of dealing with what is good and bad with moral duty and obligation.

The application of ethics in education is essential for students as well as teachers. It lets everyone

know the right thing to do, and provides a moral framework so that schools and students can

work together to pursue learning in the best possible manner. Ethical teaching practices create

a positive atmosphere for the growth of students and provide them with clear examples of how

to live ethical lives of their own.

Law and ethics go hand in hand. Law, however, is enforced based on written principles and

regulations by parties who have been given the power to do so, such as magistrates or judges.

Teachers are responsible to know their own rights and legal obligations as well as those of their

students and schools. This article discusses legal and ethical issues as they pertain to education

law and how they ought to be applied to ensure quality teaching and learning.

1.What are the ethics of education? In solving ethical issues, it is first important to be as

informed as possible. What is the situation? What are the students’ rights? What are your rights

as a teacher? It is important to be empathetic to all parties involved, but also to know the law and

the guidelines of the system within which you work. Codes of ethics vary, but useful codes may

be found both in the national sphere, such as the National Education Association, and at the state

level. The InTASC Standards may also be useful in discerning the correct procedure in a complex

ethical situation.

2.What are your legal rights as an educator? Laws vary from state to state, but there are

certain guidelines that should be followed. Teachers are liable for any harm that occurs to a

student under their care, if they personally harm the student, have not issued proper safety

guidelines, or are not adequately supervising the student. Title IX forbids discrimination

according to gender in the workplace. No teacher should feel discriminated against because of

gender issues.

3.What are the legal rights of school districts? Most school districts around the country now

ban corporal punishment (as of 2012, 39 states banned corporal punishment outright). Sexual

harassment continues to be a major issue in schools, and in particular for female and gay male

students. Over half of female students reported being sexually harassed (AAUW, 2011). The law

has taken an increasingly harder line against the use of religious elements such as school prayers,

though personal expression of religion is protected.

4.What are the legal rights of parents and students? Though parents have tried to sue schools

over the right to keep their children from learning about condoms, for example, the law generally

comes down on the side of the school. Students, on the other hand, sometimes complain that

their freedom is being infringed upon. For example, they chafe against wearing uniforms. Again,

the law generally sides with the schools in these situations.

Parents have the right to access information about their children, including school records, and

should have a say in who gets to view this information. Schools cannot discriminate against

pregnant students, and the law is increasingly siding with gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Students’ rights of free speech and protection from unreasonable searches are protected by law,

though schools have more leeway in this area than some other institutions in order to maintain

order within the school.

 教育工作者应该了解的关于教育法律和道德的 4 件事。

伦理学是指用道德责任和义务处理好坏的纪律。

道德在教育中的应用对学生和教师都至关重要。它让每个人都能 知道正确的事情，并提供道德框架，以便学校和学生能够 共同努力，以最好的方式追求学习。道德教学实践创造

为学生的成长营造积极的氛围，并为他们提供清晰的例子，说明如何 过自己的道德生活。

法律和道德是相辅相成的。但是，法律是根据书面原则和 由被赋予权力的当事方（如治安法官或法官）制定条例。教师有责任了解自己的权利和法律义务以及他们的权利和法律义务

学生和学校。本文讨论与教育有关的法律和道德问题 法律以及如何应用它们以确保高质量的教学和学习。

1.什么是教育伦理？在解决道德问题时，首先要 尽可能通知。什么情况？学生的权利是什么？您的权利是什么 作为老师？重要的是要同情所有相关方，但也要了解法律和

您工作的系统的准则。道德准则各不相同，但有用的准则可能会 在国家范围内，例如国家教育协会，以及在州 水平。InTASC标准也可用于识别复合体中的正确程序 道德状况。

2.作为教育工作者，您的合法权利是什么？法律因州而异，但有

应遵循的某些准则。教师对发生的任何伤害负责 他们照顾的学生，如果他们亲自伤害学生，没有出具适当的安全 准则，或对学生的监督不力。第九条禁止歧视 根据工作场所的性别。任何教师都不应因为以下原因而感到受到歧视 性别问题。

3.学区的合法权利是什么？现在全国大多数学区  禁止体罚（截至2012年，有39个州完全禁止体罚）。性的 骚扰仍然是学校的一个主要问题，特别是对女性和男同性恋者而言。 学生。超过一半的女学生报告受到性骚扰（AAUW，2011）。法律 对使用学校祈祷等宗教元素采取了越来越强硬的立场， 尽管个人的宗教表达受到保护。

4.家长和学生的合法权利是什么？尽管家长试图起诉学校  例如，关于阻止子女学习避孕套的权利，法律一般 落在学校这边。另一方面，学生有时会抱怨 他们的自由受到侵犯。例如，他们对穿制服感到恼火。再 在这些情况下，法律通常站在学校一边。 父母有权访问有关其子女的信息，包括学校记录，以及 应该对谁可以查看此信息有发言权。学校不能歧视 怀孕的学生，法律越来越多地站在男同性恋、女同性恋和双性恋学生一边。

学生的言论自由权和免受不合理搜查的权利受到法律保护， 尽管学校在这方面比其他一些机构有更多的回旋余地，以维持 校内秩序。

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.

Analytic Philosophy of Education and Its Influence

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.

教育哲学是应用哲学或实践哲学的一个分支，涉及教育的性质和目的以及教育理论和实践中产生的哲学问题。由于这种实践在人类社会中和在人类社会中无处不在，其社会和个人表现形式如此多样，其影响如此深远，因此该主题范围广泛，涉及伦理学和社会/政治哲学、认识论、形而上学、心灵和语言哲学以及其他哲学领域的问题。因为它既向内看母学科，又向外看教育实践及其发生的社会、法律和制度背景，所以教育哲学关注传统理论/实践鸿沟的两面。其主题既包括基本的哲学问题（例如，值得教授的知识的性质，教育平等和正义的性质等），也包括有关具体教育政策和做法的问题（例如，标准化课程和考试的可取性，具体供资安排的社会、经济、法律和道德方面，课程决定的理由。 等）。在这一切中，教育哲学家珍视概念的清晰性、论证的严谨性、对所有参与教育努力和安排或受其影响的人的利益的公正考虑，以及对教育目标和干预措施的知情和合理的估值。

教育哲学在西方哲学传统中有着悠久而杰出的历史，从苏格拉底与诡辩家的斗争到今天。该传统中许多最杰出的人物将教育问题纳入其更广泛的哲学议程（Curren 2000，2018;罗蒂1998）。虽然这段历史不是这里的重点，但值得注意的是，苏格拉底及其后代所倡导的理性探究的理想长期以来一直表明，教育应该尽可能地培养所有学生寻求理由的倾向和令人信服地评估理由的能力，并以他们对信仰问题的评价为指导， 行动和判断。这种观点，即教育的核心涉及理性或理性的培养，以不同的表达方式和资格被大多数历史人物所接受;当代教育哲学家也继续捍卫它（舍夫勒1973 [1989];西格尔 1988， 1997， 2007， 2017）。与任何哲学论文一样，它是有争议的;下文探讨了争议的一些方面。

教育分析哲学及其影响

概念分析，对论点的仔细评估，根除歧义，澄清区别 - 所有这些都至少是哲学工具包的一部分 - 从该领域的曙光开始就一直是哲学中受到尊重的活动。毫无疑问，它有点过于简化了思想史的复杂道路，认为二十世纪发生的事情——早期，在家庭学科本身，在教育哲学方面滞后了十年或更长时间——是哲学分析被一些学者视为主要的哲学活动（或一组活动）。 甚至作为唯一可行或有信誉的活动。无论如何，随着分析技术在二十世纪初分析哲学兴起期间获得突出地位并一度受到霸权影响，分析技术在该世纪中叶主导了教育哲学（Curren，Robertson，&Hager 2003）。

现代时期完全以分析模式的开创性工作是C.D.哈迪的短篇专著，教育理论中的真理与谬误（1941年;1962年再版）。在他的引言中，哈迪（曾与C.D. Broad和I.A. Richards一起学习）明确表示，他把所有的鸡蛋都放进了普通语言分析篮子里：

由摩尔、布罗德和维特根斯坦领导的剑桥分析学派试图分析命题，即哲学家之间的分歧是关于事实问题，还是关于词语使用的分歧，或者像经常发生的那样，纯粹是情感上的分歧，总是显而易见的。我认为，现在是时候在教育理论领域普遍采取类似的态度了。（哈迪 1962： 十九）

第二次世界大战结束大约十年后，闸门打开，出现了分析模式的一系列工作; 以下只是一个示例。 D. J. O'Connor出版了《教育哲学导论》（1957），其中他认为，在教育背景下使用的“理论”一词只是一个礼貌的标题， 因为教育理论与自然科学中的这个头衔完全不同。以色列·舍夫勒（Israel Scheffler）成为北美教育的最高哲学家，他创作了许多重要著作，包括《教育语言》（1960），其中包含对定义（他区分了报告型，规定型和纲领性类型）和口号逻辑的澄清和有影响力的分析（通常这些字面上毫无意义，他认为，应该被视为截断的论点）， 《知识条件》（1965），仍然是对教育哲学认识论方面的最佳介绍，以及《理性与教学》（1973 [1989]），在一系列广泛而有影响力的文章中，将培养理性/批判性思维作为基本的教育理想（参见西格尔2016）。 B. O. Smith和R. H. Ennis编辑了《教育中的语言和概念》一书(1961);R.D. Archambault编辑了《哲学分析与教育》（1965年），其中包括许多英国著名作家的文章，最著名的是R. S. Peters（他在英国的地位与美国的舍夫勒相似），Paul Hirst和John Wilson。Archambault卷中涵盖的主题是那些成为整个英语世界分析教育哲学（APE）的“面包和黄油”的主题的典型主题 - 教育作为一个启蒙的过程，通识教育，知识的本质，教学类型，教学与灌输。

APE最具影响力的产品之一是Hirst和Peters（1970）和Peters（1973）对教育本身概念的分析。使用“正常英语用法”作为试金石，得出的结论是，受过教育（而不是指导或灌输）的人已经（i）变得更好;（ii） 这一变化涉及知识和智力技能的获取以及理解力的发展;以及 （iii） 该人已经开始关心或致力于他或她所开始进入的知识和技能领域。赫斯特和彼得斯使用的方法在处理与“改革”概念的类比时表现得很清楚，他们有时出于说明目的而引用这个概念。一个被改造的罪犯已经变得更好了，并且已经发展出对新生活方式的承诺（如果这些条件中的一个或另一个不成立，说标准英语的人不会说罪犯已经改造了）。显然，与改革的类比在知识和理解条件方面是崩溃的。在其他地方，彼得斯发展了“教育作为启蒙”的富有成效的概念。

教育分析哲学家也对灌输的概念非常感兴趣，因为有人认为，明确什么是灌输也将有助于澄清将其与可接受的教育过程分开的界限。因此，教学事件是否是灌输的情况取决于所教授的内容、教师的意图、使用的教学方法、教学结果或这些的某种组合。不同分析的拥护者使用相同的一般论点来说明他们的观点，即诉诸正常和异常的用法。不幸的是，普通的语言分析并没有导致对这个边界位置的一致意见，并且提出了对该概念的竞争对手分析（Snook 1972）。舍夫勒很早就认识到将分析限制在普通语言（“正常英语用法”）的危险，他更喜欢分析的观点强调

第一，它在语言方面更加复杂，语言和探究的相互渗透，第二，它试图在经验精神、严谨、注重细节、尊重替代方案和方法的客观性方面遵循现代科学的榜样，第三，它对符号逻辑技术的使用直到最近五十年才得到充分发展......是的。。。这种科学精神和逻辑方法的结合，用于阐明当前分析哲学所特有的基本思想[也应该成为教育分析哲学的特征]。（舍夫勒 1973 [1989： 9–10]）

经过一段时间的统治，由于一些重要原因，APE的影响力开始下降。首先，越来越多的批评认为，分析教育哲学家的工作已经集中在细节上，基本上失去了实际意义。（值得注意的是，1966年的一篇文章 《时代》杂志在卢卡斯1969年重印，对主流哲学提出了同样的批评。其次，在1970年代早期，英国的激进学生指责彼得斯的语言分析是保守主义的，并默认支持“传统价值观”——他们提出了一个问题，即正在分析谁的英语用法？

第三，主流哲学中对语言分析的批评已经持续了一段时间，在滞后多年之后终于引起了教育哲学家的注意;早在1959年，英国的普通读者甚至产生了令人惊讶的兴趣，当时吉尔伯特·赖尔· 《心灵》杂志的编辑拒绝委托对欧内斯特·盖尔纳（Ernest Gellner）的《言语与事物》（Words and Things，1959）进行评论，这是对维特根斯坦哲学及其对普通语言分析的支持的详细而尖锐的批评。（赖尔认为盖尔纳的书太侮辱人了，这种观点将伯特兰·罗素拉入了盖尔纳一边的争论中——在每日媒体上，同样如此;罗素列出了一系列来自过去伟大哲学家著作的侮辱性言论。见梅塔1963。

理查德·彼得斯（Richard Peters）在1966年加拿大的一次会议上被警告说，APE并不好;在发表了一篇基于普通语言分析的“教育的目的：概念探究”的论文后，听众中的一位哲学家（William Dray）问彼得斯“我们分析谁的概念？德雷接着提出，不同的人和社会中的不同群体对教育有不同的概念。在激进学生提出同样问题的五年前，德雷指出，彼得斯打着“逻辑分析”的幌子所呈现的可能只不过是某一类人的青睐——彼得斯碰巧认同这一类人（见彼得斯1973年，编辑认为与德雷的互动被转载）。

第四，在七十年代的十年中，当这些对分析哲学的各种批评正在侵蚀其光彩的过程中，来自欧洲大陆的大量翻译刺激了英国和北美的一些教育哲学家开始新的方向，并采用新的写作和论证风格。伽达默尔、福柯和德里达的主要作品以英文出版，随后在1984年出版了利奥塔的《后现代状况》。海德格尔和胡塞尔的经典作品也找到了新的崇拜者;女权主义教育哲学家们也找到了自己的声音——马克辛·格林（Maxine Greene）在1970年代和1980年代发表了许多作品，包括《自由的辩证法》（The Dialectic of Freedom，1988年）;内尔·诺丁斯（Nel Noddings）颇具影响力的著作《关怀：伦理和道德教育的女性方法》（Caring： A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education）与利奥塔（Lyotard）的作品同年出版，一年后，简·罗兰·马丁（Jane Roland Martin）的《收回对话》（Reclaim a Conversation）出版。.近年来，所有这些趋势仍在继续。APE 过去和现在都不再是兴趣中心，尽管如下所述，它仍然保留着自己的声音。