communication of knowledge." His curriculum proposals eithei do not follow from his view of teaching or simply reiterate it. He has, to be sure, shown us what we may not hope to teach when teaching is viewed in this way. Skills, habits, attitudes, and the like are excluded from ttardie's view of teaching. Insofar as they are also excluded from the curriculum, he has built an educational program into 'his account of teaching. It is important to realize, however, that the worthiness of such a program cannot be decided solely by reference to a definition or view of teaching. There are any number of ways to view teaching. How are we to choose among them except by reference to the programs they suggest? The worthiness of an educational program is a practical matter which is to be decided in light of such things as our purposes, the alternatives which we envision, and the consequences which we expect the program will have. In his paper Hardie has not explicitly argued for an educational program excluding skills and the like. Yet in view of the account of teaching he has adopted, it is only natural for us to wonder ff this is what he intends. If it is, then his curriculum proposals are more noteworthy for what they tell us not to do than for what they tell us to do. They are deficient even in this negative function, however, in that we are given no reasons in support of the program of exclusion.