Miroslav Beblavy (CEPS), Anna-Elisabeth Thum (CEPS) and Marcela

Veselkova (Slovak Governance Institute)

1

Brussels, 15.10.2012

Introduction "Because of differences in climate, energy,

tastes and age, equality among people is a physical impossibility. But civilized man can render this inequality harmless, just as he has done with swamps and bears." (in ‘Three Years’ by Anton Chekhov)

Equality of chances in education are object to a scientific and political debate

How can they be obtained? Pre-primary education, late tracking,...

But these pro-equality measurs are not an isolated element: they are embedded in a social policy model, there are different interest groups involved in their

implementation and their effects on equality might differ for different

pupils2

These considerations lead to three steps in thinking pro-equality education policies:

1. Analysis of the context: Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context

2. Effect: Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

3. Implementation: The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

3

Introduction

1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context

Can we identify consistent policy clusters? Clusters of countries with similar education and social policies.

Is there a trade-off between intervention in education and welfare?

Do countries intervene in both education and welfare – driven by a ‚stratification culture‘?

Are countries prioritising one over the other? What are the ideological problems in terms of

social policy models when changing education policies?

4

Key Questions

2. Equality: Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

Do pro-equality features of the education system have the same effect for all pupils?

Are there differences across the performance distribution? Are children at the high end affected differently than those at the low end?

Are there country differences?

5

Key Questions

3. Political economy of pro-equality educational reform

How can pro-equality education policies be pushed forward? What are barriers and drivers?

Why do different countries adopt or do not adopt pro-equality educational policies?

What is the political and social balance of forces?

Under what conditions are these reforms economically stable?

6

Key Questions

1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context

Conceptualisation of how policies influence stratification based on (basic ideas behind the clusters):

Explicit stratification of the public system („statification vs equalisation“)

Boundary between family/market and the state provision of education („family/market vs state provision“)

Clustering of both dimensions above combined7

1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context

KEY FINDING: Stratification vs equality:2 pure clusters, 2 mixed„the role of public policy is to promote equality“

(equalisation)„there is a proper place for everyone in society“

(stratification)

8

1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context

KEY FINDING: Family/market vs. state provision clusters: 2 pure clusters and 1 mixed

9

1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context

Some country findings:

10

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution? We examine the association between pro-

equality education policy measures with the socio-economic gradient (a measure of equality of eduational inequality) and with the PISA score in OECD countries

Does this association vary across the PISA score distribution?

Less able students might benefit less from ability grouping since peer-effects are found to be stronger for the more able (‚non-linear peer effects‘)

11

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

KEY FINDING: In most countries the difference in the effect of the pro-equality policy measures across countries is comparably small. Countries with relatively strong differences across the distribution however are: AT, BE, HU, LV, ES, US

Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Latvia and the USA in terms of ability grouping

Belgium and Spain in terms of pre-primary education 12

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

13

The distributional association of ability grouping and inequality in the US: positive but more so for the more able students

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

14

The distributional association of ability grouping and inequality in Belgium: positive but more so for the less able students

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

15

The distributional association of pre-primary education and inequality in Belgium: positive for the less able students and negative for the more able students

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

16

The distributional association of pre-primary education and inequality in Spain: negative for the less able students and positive for the more able students

2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution?

In a country with an “equalizing” education policy culture, early childhood education is associated with more equality for the less able (Spain)

In a country with a “stratifying” education policy culture, early childhood education is associated with more equality for the more able; ability grouping is associated with lower equality for the less able(Belgium) or higher equality for the more able (Hungary)

17

3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

In case of highly stratified educational systems (early tracking, low mobility between tracks), the future of the child may be decided as early as the age of 10 (Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia).

18

3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

Where do ideas about educational equality come from?

Turn of the century - spillover of U.S. progressivist ideas about organization of schooling that would not meet "needs of only a few groups"

1940s – Soviet “unified school” model1960s – civil rights movements + Becker’s

“human capital” approach to education2000s – PISA shock

19

3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

In 1945, students were typically tracked at the age of 10-11. In 2012, the age of tracking varies from 10 to 16.

20

3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

21

Balance of Forces

3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

Routes of EscapeImplementation may be hampered by:1. existence of dual systems – transfer of

selection to private or church schools2. free school choice – white flight3. residential segregation

22

3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

Some country findingsParents with low socio-economic status may

have other concerns than equalityFraming mattersDisseminate the research results!Later tracking – necessary but not sufficient

condition for equality?

23

Conclusion

"Because of differences in climate, energy, tastes and age, equality among people is a physical impossibility. But civilized man can render this inequality harmless, just as he has done with swamps and bears." (in ‘Three Years’ by Anton Chekhov)

=> What do policy makers thinking about pro-equality education policies need to know?

24

ConclusionInternational policy makers should take into

account when thinking about pro-equality educational reform Context and acceptabilityResults/EffectsImplementation

In particular, our messages to them are:1. culture of egalitarianism/stratification are

rooted in long-term factors (see the splitting into clusters according to historical factors); a reform concentrating purely on the education system may not overcome these factors

2. countries facing a trade-off an egalitarian education system might result in a more stratified welfare system

25

Conclusion

26

Conclusion

Thank you very much for your attention.

27