Because educational decision makings are most frequently decided according to highly subjective or personal beliefs, it is important that a decision technique dependent upon subjective judgments be investigated. A general overview of Bayesian approach as a method of making a group decision for educational problems is considered in this article through numeric presentation. The objective of Bayesian analysis of decision milking is to identify a course of action that is logically consistent with the decision maker’s own preferences for consequences, as expressed by numerical utilities, and with the weight he attaches to the possible states of the world, as expressed by numerical probabilities. One of the most important contributions of the Bayesian approach to statistics is the formal mechanism which it provides’ by the application of Bayes’ theorem to take account to the decision maker’s “a priori” knowledge. As in the situations of a committee setting or a conference, group judgments or decisions using a group of individuals or experts are common practice in Bayesian decision making. The Bayesian view of group decisions assumes that a group of individuals chooses a given course of action. At the same time. the technique recognizes that they can differ in their personal probability assessments for different possible events. A number of approaches to aggregate personal probability assessments for a group decision have been suggested by Bayesian theorists. These are weighted-average methods, natural-conjugate methods, and calibration methods. If a set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive alternatives is considered possible in an educational decision making, the Bayesian process begins by assigning a probability to each alternative based on whatever prior’ evidence is available. When additional evidence is obtained, the first set of probabilities is revised through Bayes’ theorem. One advantage Bayes’ theorem brings to educational decision makings such as program evaluation and planning is the systematic updating of value judgments. A systematic method of frequent assessment is more desirable than a “one shot” approach.