The difficulty with a statement of aim in terms of the harmonious development of the abilities or capacities possessed by the individual is found in the lack of any criterion by which we may determine the desirability of any particular kind of development or action.  We may well ask for what purpose are the capacities or abilities of the individual to be developed.  It is possible to develop an ability or capacity for lying, for stealing, or for fighting without a just cause.  What society has a right to expect and to demand of our schools is that they develop or nourish certain tendencies to behave, and that they strive earnestly to eliminate or to have inhibited other tendencies just as marked.  Another difficulty with the statement of aim in terms of the harmonious development of the capacities is found in the difficulty of interpreting what is meant by harmonious development.  Do we mean equal development of each and every capacity, or do we seek to develop each capacity to the maximum of the individual’s possibility of training?  Are we to try to secure equal development in all directions?  Of one thing we can be certain.  We cannot secure equality in achievement among individuals who vary in capacity.  One boy may make a good mechanic, another a successful business man, and still another a musician.  It is only as we read into the statement of harmonious development meanings which do not appear upon the surface, that we can accept this statement as a satisfactory wording of the aim of education.

The narrow utilitarian statement of aim that asserts that the purpose of education is to enable people to make a living neglects to take account of the necessity for social cooeperation.  The difficulty with this statement of aim is that it is too narrow.  We do hope by means of education to help people to make a living, but we ought also to be concerned with the kind of a life they lead.  They ought not to make a living by injuring or exploiting others.  They ought to be able to enjoy the nobler pleasures as well as to make enough money to buy food, clothing, shelter, and the like.  The bread-and-butter aim breaks down as does the all-around development aim because it fails to consider the individual in relation to the social group of which he is a member.

To declare that knowledge is the aim of education is to ignore the issue of the relative worth of that which we call knowledge.  No one may know all.  What, then, from among all of the facts or principles which are available are we to select and what are we to reject?  The knowledge aim gives us no satisfactory answer.  We are again thrown back upon the question of purpose.  Knowledge we must have, but for the individual who is to live in our modern, industrial, democratic society some knowledges are more important than others.  Society cannot afford to permit the school to do anything less than provide that equipment in knowledge, in skill, in ideal, or in appreciation which promises to develop an individual who will contribute to social progress, one who will find his own greatest satisfaction in working for the common good.