Abstract
The article examines the socio-philosophical foundations of the debate about the appropriateness of high-stakes exams and setting in general education systems. The arguments “for” and “against” that are most often used in the discussion are analysed. It is shown that the answer to the question of the appropriateness of high-stakes examinations and setting can be framed as an ethical choice between fairness and efficiency. D. Rawls’s mental argument “the veil of ignorance” and its logical consequences are presented as a possible universal argument in favour of justice. The conclusion emphasises the philosophical nature of key debates about the education policy.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call