This article reveals ambiguities in decision-making frameworks in education, suggesting needed normative guidance for ethical outcomes.
This article focuses on the four-step schema introduced by Harry Brighouse, Helen F. Ladd, Susanna Loeb, and Adam Swift for operationalizing the Educational Goods Framework and making ‘value-led and data-informed’ decisions in education. The four steps are (1) identify the main values at play; (2) identify the key decisions relevant to those values; (3) assess the options in light of the values and evidence; and (4) establish what is the best policy overall in the circumstances. In this article, we point out the ambiguities in this four-step approach and argue that its lack of clarity carries the danger of causing ethical problems in certain real-world educational contexts. We demonstrate our points through two cases in El Salvador, a country with non-ideal features that render it challenging to implement Brighouse and Swift’s idealized vision of rational, impartial, and informed decision-making processes. We conclude with a call for adding normative guidance on collective decision-making as an addendum to the Educational Goods Framework and note its potential utility in contexts beyond El Salvador.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: