Abstract

This paper argues that Christopher Winch's contribution to the debate on the aims of education contains some significant errors and omissions. His definition of work is problematic and leads to the conclusion that education should be directed towards very narrow vocational targets. His argument makes unstated and contestable assumptions about the source of educational aims. Lastly, he underplays the implications of the economic aims of education for the achievement of liberal aims. His programme would lead to less pluralism than the liberal alternative.