c e p s Journal
Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal
Revija Centra za študij edukacijskih strategij
Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016
Editor in Chief / Glavni in odgovorni urednik	Mojca Peček Čuk - Pedagoška fakulteta,
Slavko Gaber - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	ANa Pešikan-Avramovič - Filozofski fakultet,
	Univerzitet u Beogradu, Beograd, Srbija
Deputy Editor in Chief /	Karmen Pižorn - Pedagoška fakulteta,
Namestnik glavnega in odgovornega urednika	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Iztok Devetak - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Igor Radeka - Odjel za pedagogiju,
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar, Hrvatska
	Pasi Sahlberg - Harvard Graduate School of
Editorial Board / Uredniški odbor	Education, Boston, usa
Michael W. Apple - Department of Educational	Igor Saksida - Pedagoška fakulteta,
Policy Studies, University of Wisconsin- Madison,	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Madison, Wisconsin, usa	Michael Schratz - School of Education, University
Branka Baranovic - Institut za društvena	of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
istraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska	Keith S. Taber - Faculty of Education,
César Birzea - Faculty of Philosophy,	University of Cambridge, Cambridge, uk
University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania	Shunji Tanabe - Faculty of Education,
Vlatka Domovic - Učiteljski fakultet, Zagreb,	Kanazawa University, Kakuma, Kanazawa, Japan
Hrvatska	Beatriz Gabriela Tomšič Čerkez - Pedagoška
Grozdanka Gojkov - Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet	fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad, Srbija	Jon Torfi Jonasson - School of Education,
Jan De Groof - Professor at the College of Europe,	University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Bruges, Belgium and at the University of Tilburg,	Nadica Turnšek - Pedagoška fakulteta,
the Netherlands; Government Commissioner for	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Universities, Belgium, Flemish Community; President	Milena Valenčič Zuljan - Pedagoška fakulteta,
of the „European Association for Education Law and	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Policy"	Zoran Velkovski - Faculty of Philosophy, SS.
Andy Hargreaves - Lynch School of Education,	Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Skopje,
Boston College, Boston, usa	Macedonia
Tatjana Hodnik Čadež - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Janez Vogrinc - Pedagoška fakulteta,
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Janez Jerman - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Robert Waagenar - Faculty of Arts,
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Mojca Juriševič - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Pavel Zgaga - Pedagoška fakulteta,
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija
Jana Kalin - Filozofska fakulteta,	
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	Current Issue Editors / Urednika številke
Alenka Kobolt - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Mitja Sardoč in Slavko Gaber
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	Revija Centra za študij edukacijskih strategij
Janez Krek - Pedagoška fakulteta,	Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	issn 2232-2647 (online edition)
Bruno Losito - Facolta di Scienze della Formazione,	issn 1855-9719 (printed edition)
Universita' degli Studi Roma Tre, Roma, Italy	Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Lisbeth Lundhal - Umeá Universitet,	Subject: Teacher Education, Educational Science
Umeá, Sweden	Publisher: Faculty of Education,
Ljubica Marjanovič Umek - Filozofska fakulteta,	University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija	Managing editor: Lea Vrečko / English language
Silvija Markic - Institut für Didaktik der	editing: Neville John Hall / Slovene language editing:
Naturwissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Bremen,	Tomaž Petek / Cover and layout design: Roman
Deutschland	Ražman / Typeset: Igor Cerar / Print: Tiskarna
Mariana Moynova - University of Veliko Turnovo,	Formatisk, d.o.o. Ljubljana
Veliko Turnovo, Bulgary	
Hannele Niemi - Faculty of Behavioural Sciences,	© 2016 Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland	
c-E-p-s Journal
Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal Revija Centra za študij edukacijskih strategij
The CEPS Journal is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal devoted to publishing research papers in different fields of education, including scientific.
Aims & Scope
The CEPS Journal is an international peer-reviewed journal with an international board. It publishes original empirical and theoretical studies from a wide variety of academic disciplines related to the field of Teacher Education and Educational Sciences; in particular, it will support comparative studies in the field. Regional context is stressed but the journal remains open to researchers and contributors across all European countries and worldwide. There are four issues per year. Issues are focused on specific areas but there is also space for non-focused articles and book reviews.
About the Publisher
The University of Ljubljana is one of the largest universities in the region (see www.uni-lj.si) and its Faculty of Education (see www.pef.uni-lj.si), established in 1947, has the leading role in teacher education and education sciences in Slovenia. It is well positioned in regional and European cooperation programmes in teaching and research. A publishing unit oversees the dissemination of research results and informs the interested public about new trends in the broad area of teacher education and education sciences; to date, numerous monographs and publications have been published, not just in Slovenian but also in English.
In 2001, the Centre for Educational Policy Studies (CEPS; see http://ceps.pef.uni-lj.si) was established within the Faculty of Education to build upon experience acquired in the broad reform of the
national educational system during the period of social transition in the 1990s, to upgrade expertise and to strengthen international cooperation. CEPS has established a number of fruitful contacts, both in the region - particularly with similar institutions in the countries of the Western Balkans - and with interested partners in EU member states and worldwide.
Revija Centra za študij edukacijskih strategij je mednarodno recenzirana revija z mednarodnim uredniškim odborom in s prostim dostopom. Namenjena je objavljanju člankov s področja izobraževanja učiteljev in edukacijskih ved.
Cilji in namen
Revija je namenjena obravnavanju naslednjih področij: poučevanje, učenje, vzgoja in izobraževanje, socialna pedagogika, specialna in rehabilitacijska pedagogika, predšolska pedagogika, edukacijske politike, supervizija, poučevanje slovenskega jezika in književnosti, poučevanje matematike, računalništva, naravoslovja in tehnike, poučevanje družboslovja in humanistike, poučevanje na področju umetnosti, visokošolsko izobraževanje in izobraževanje odraslih. Poseben poudarek bo namenjen izobraževanju učiteljev in spodbujanju njihovega profesionalnega razvoja.
V reviji so objavljeni znanstveni prispevki, in sicer teoretični prispevki in prispevki, v katerih so predstavljeni rezultati kvantitavnih in kvalitativnih empiričnih raziskav. Še posebej poudarjen je pomen komparativnih raziskav.
Revija izide štirikrat letno. Številke so tematsko opredeljene, v njih pa je prostor tudi za netematske prispevke in predstavitve ter recenzije novih publikacij.
The publication of the CEPS Journal in 2015 and 2016 is co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency within the framework of the Public Tender for the Co-Financing of the Publication of Domestic Scientific Periodicals.
Izdajanje revije v letih 2015 in 2016 sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije v okviru Javnega razpisa za sofinanciranje izdajanja domačih znanstvenih periodičnih publikacij.
2
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 3
Contents
5 Editorial
— Mitja Sardoč and Slavko Gaber
Focus
9 Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
Enakost možnosti in enakost rezultatov — Zdenko Kodelja
25 Equality of Opportunity, Cultural Diversity and the Claims of Fairness
Enake možnosti, kulturna različnost ter zahteve pravičnosti
—	Mitja Sardoč
43 Coleman's Third Report
Colemanovo tretje poročilo
—	Marjan Šimenc and Mojca Štraus
61 Age of Studies and Reports - Selected Elements Concerning Background of the Encounters Defining the Power of Education
Obdobje študij in poročil - izbrani elementi ozadij spoprijemov, ki določajo moč edukacije — Veronika Tašner and Slavko Gaber
81 Social Capital and Educational Achievements: Coleman vs. Bourdieu
Socialni capital in izbraževalni dosežki: Coleman: Bourdieu — Silvia Rogošic and Branislava Baranovic
101 The Sources of Inequity in the Education System of Serbia and How to Combat Them
Viri nepravičnosti v edukacijskem sistemu Srbije in kako se z njimi spopasti
— Ana Pešikan and Ivan Ivic
4 contents
Varia
125 Comics as a Literary-didactic Method for Reducing Gender Differences in Reading Literacy
Strip kot literarnodidaktična metoda dela in njegova uporaba za zmanjšanje razlik med spoloma v bralni pismenosti na razredni stopnji šolanja
— Maja Kerneža and Katja Košir
151 An Analysis of Critical Issues in Korean Teacher Evaluation Systems
Analiza ključnih problemov v korejskem evalvacijskem sistemu učiteljev
— Hee Jun Choi and Ji-Hye Park
173 Reviews
Fishkin, Joseph (2014). Bottlenecks. A New Theory of Equal Opportunity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 267 p., ISBN 9780199812141.
— Darko Strajn
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 5
Editorial
In 1966, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare commissioned a study to assess the availability of equal educational opportunities to children of different race, colour, religion and national origin. This study, carried out under the leadership of Prof. James Coleman, was undertaken in response to provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, as Coleman himself emphasised, was designed to assess "the amount and sources of inequality of educational opportunity by race in the schools of America". The survey's important findings have had a major impact on all significant subsequent education policy initiatives dealing with the education of students from non-dominant minority groups, e.g., students with special educational needs, etc. At the same time, its publication has had a decisive influence on a wide range of theoretical, empirical and policy aspects associated with equality of opportunity and public education in the US and abroad. As Robert W. Heller emphasised around the time of its publication, the "Coleman" Report is "one of the most significant sociological research endeavors of our times". Several decades later, as Geoffrey Borman and Maritza Dowling have succinctly pointed out, it is generally accepted as one of "the most important studies on schooling ever performed".
Fifty years on, both the survey's topic and its major research findings continue to inspire - as well as to divide - both scholars and policy-makers on a wide range of questions associated with equality of educational opportunity, e.g., What are the major obstacles to achieving equality of educational opportunity? How should the process of equalising individuals' opportunities (levelling the playing field) be carried out? What is a fair starting position to compete for advantaged social positions? What type of disadvantage is eligible for compensation? etc.
This focus edition of the Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal brings together six articles that examine both the legacy and the impact of the Coleman Report in educational research and policy-making, on issues as diverse as inclusive education, education of students from a minority and migrant background, Roma education, etc. Moreover, these articles deal with conceptual, normative and practical issues associated with equality of educational opportunity and related issues.
The edition starts with the article "Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome" by Zdenko Kodelja. The introductory part of his paper contextual-ises the Coleman Report and challenges the interpretation of "Coleman's redefinition of equality of opportunity, which abandoned the then prevailing conception of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and
6 editorial
replaced it with the concept of equality of educational opportunities as equality of educational outcomes". The article then argues for a distinction dividing authors working in this area of scholarly research, i.e., that equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are two different types of equality. If they are different, Kodelja argues, "then the interpretation that Coleman has redefined the concept of 'equality of educational opportunity' turns out to be incorrect".
"Equality of Opportunity, Cultural Diversity and Claims for Fairness", authored by Mitja Sardoč, examines some of the tensions, problems and challenges associated with claims for equality of opportunity. The introductory part identifies three separate forms of justification for public education, including that associated with equality of opportunity. The author then identifies two basic questions stemming from any conception of equal opportunity: (2) what an opportunity is, and (2) when individuals' opportunities are equal. This is followed by a presentation of the two basic principles of equality of opportunity: (1) the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) the "levelling the playing field" principle. The next part takes up the multiculturalist hypothesis advanced by minority groups for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity. This is followed by the identification of a set of claims composing the "fairness argument". The last section of this paper focuses on the "currency problem" associated with cultural diversity as a form of "unfair disadvantage". Sardoč then examines two of the major shortcomings associated with the multicultural conception of equality of opportunity, while the concluding part identifies a set of questions to which any conception of equal opportunities needs to provide an answer.
In their article "Coleman's Third Report", Marjan Šimenc and Mojca Štraus analyse the (third) Coleman Report on private and public schools. As the authors emphasise, this article suggests "that there appear to be two reasons for the narrow interpretation of the relationship between public and private schools in Coleman's third report". The first reason is associated with "Cole-man's notion of contemporary society as a constructed system in which every individual actor holds a place in the structure and requires incentives in order to act to the benefit of society". The second reason, Šimenc and Štraus argue, "is Coleman's vision of sociology as a discipline aiding the construction of an effective society".
In the first part of their article "The Age of Studies and Reports: Selected Elements Concerning the Background of Encounters Defining the Power of Education", Slavko Gaber and Veronika Tašner discuss the historical context in which the Coleman Report, as well as other reports and studies, appeared as mechanisms considering the power of education in the Western world to reduce inequalities in societies. This contextualisation is, in the second part of
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 7
the article, extended by the authors' considerations of the reach of the socialist positioning of simple equality at the centre of the socialist project of education as one of the main promoters of socialist equity and equality. Their (somewhat provocative) conclusion is that simple equality as a regulative idea of the socialist education project in Yugoslavia, and in particular in Slovenia, significantly diminished the possible reach of the comprehensive education inaugurated as the first step towards a more equal education for all of the strata in the supposedly more just society as early as in 1958.
In their article "Social Capital and Educational Achievements: Coleman vs. Bourdieu", Silvia Rogošic and Branka Baranovic compare some elements of the two most influential accounts of social capital by James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu. The basic aim of this paper, as the authors emphasise, is to "establish appropriate research contexts for researching and explaining the influence of social capital on an individual's educational achievements under Bourdieu's theoretical concepts and through Coleman's theoretical concepts, and to determine whether combining the approaches is possible".
In the final article published in this focus edition of the CEPS journal, "The Sources of Inequity in the Education System of Serbia and How to Combat Them", Ana Pešikan and Ivan Ivic discuss the impact that the Coleman Report has had in Serbia. In particular, the authors argue that the Coleman Report was linked to "a wave of optimism that some educational measures" would help to achieve the aim that each and every student would "have an opportunity to receive quality education". The central part of this article analyses the "systemic sources of inequity in the education system of Serbia".
The Varia section of this edition of the CEPS Journal includes two articles. The article by Maja Kerneža and Katja Košir examines the effects of the systematic use of comics as a literary-didactic method on pupils' reading literacy and reading motivation, as well as its impact on the reduction of gender differences in reading literacy. Based on a survey carried out by the authors, "no reduction of gender differences in reading literacy and reading motivation was found"; however, as the authors emphasise, "when the four-way structure of the research (taking into account the age and gender of the pupils) was considered, some subgroups showed a statistically significant increase in reading interest and attitude towards reading". The authors highlight the complexity of the use of comics at the primary level of education, as well as providing some guidelines for further investigation.
The article "An Analysis of Critical Issues in Korean Teacher Evaluation Systems" by Hee Jun Choi and Ji-Hye Park analyses the three different teacher evaluation systems that Korea has implemented since the 1960s. Based on the
8 editorial
findings of their survey, the authors propose an improved system of teacher evaluation that is both effective and efficient.
This focus edition of the Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal ends with Darko Strajn's book review of Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity authored by Joseph Fishkin. Here the book is examined from the perspective of its alternative outline of a theory of equal opportunities, i.e., opportunity pluralism. While, as the reviewer succinctly points out, the book offers a valuable intellectual tool to examine equality of opportunity in a wide variety of contexts, it would have been even more useful if it had taken into account some of the other contemporary approaches in sociology and political theory. Nevertheless, as Darko Strajn concludes his review, the book "demonstrates the power of an analytical methodology, which makes particular social situations, the legal system, individual institutions, a range of practices in a multitude of policies, and social controversies and conflicts better visible in their detail".
Mitja Sardoc and Slavko Gaber
focus
C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 9
Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
Zdenko Kodelja1
^^ The report on the findings of extensive empirical research on equality of educational opportunities carried out in the US on a very large sample of public schools by Coleman and his colleagues has had a major impact on education policy and has given rise to a large amount of research and various interpretations. However, as some interpreters have highlighted, even more important than the findings of the survey themselves has been Coleman's redefinition of equality of opportunity, abandoning the then prevailing conception of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and replacing it with the concept of equality of educational opportunities as equality of educational outcomes. The question is, therefore, whether equality of outcomes really is one of the two types of equality of opportunity. The purpose of the present article is to show that equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are two different types of equality. If they are different, the interpretation that Coleman has redefined the concept of "equality of educational opportunity" turns out to be incorrect.
Keywords: equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, education, education policy, justice
1 Educational Research Institute, Slovenia; zdenko.kodelja@guest.arnes.si.
10 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
Enakost možnosti in enakost rezultatov
Zdenko Kodelja
^^ Poročilo o ugotovitvah obsežne empirične raziskave o enakosti izobraževalnih možnosti, ki jo je v ZDA na zelo velikem vzorcu javnih šol izvedel Coleman s sodelavci, je imelo velik vpliv na šolsko politiko; sprožilo je številne nove raziskave in različne interpretacije. Toda še pomembnejša od samih ugotovitev raziskave je bila - kot poudarjajo nekateri interpreti - Colemanova redefinicija enakosti možnosti, s katero naj bi opustil do takrat prevladujoče pojmovanje enakosti izobraževalnih možnosti kot enakosti izhodišč in ga nadomestil s pojmovanjem enakosti izobraževalnih možnosti kot enakostjo izobraževalnih rezultatov. Vprašanje pa je, ali je enakost rezultatov res ena izmed dveh zvrsti enakosti možnosti. Namen tega članka je pokazati, da sta enakost možnosti in enakost rezultatov dve različni vrsti enakosti. Če sta različni, je razlaga, da je Coleman redefiniral pojem »enakost izobraževalnih možnosti«, napačna.
Ključne besede: enakost možnosti, enakost rezultatov, izobraževanje, šolske politike, pravičnost
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 11
Introduction
Half a century ago, a famous report on the findings of extensive empirical research on equality of educational opportunities, carried out on a very large sample of public schools by James Coleman and his colleagues on the initiative of the educational authorities in the United States, was published (Coleman et al., 1966).2 The results of the study were surprising, as they were contrary to the expectation that the main cause of unequal learning achievements of white and black children resided in the inequalities (financing, equipment, curriculum, etc.) between schools frequented by whites and schools in which blacks were educated. Given the fact that the measurable disparity between these highly racially segregated schools was surprisingly small, it was not possible to explain the large differences in the learning achievements of children using these variables. In addition, it was shown that these differences were already present at the beginning of education, and that they increased by the end of elementary education irrespective of the fact that there was no increase in the difference between the schools that the students attended,3 as well as the fact that the differences within individual schools were greater than the differences between schools.4 The differences in the educational achievements of the children studied - differences that were identified among both whites and blacks - were attributed in the survey primarily to differences in the material and educational status of their parents. The conclusion therefore followed that the family has a stronger influence on the learning achievements of children than school. This ultimately means that educational inequalities can be neither eliminated nor significantly reduced by levelling the material status of schools or by increasing the investment in schools attended primarily by blacks.5 These and other research findings, which were valid for the situation at that time and
2	This study is also known as "The Coleman Study" or "The Coleman Report". However, it remains unclear whether in the cases of naming the report after its principal investigator this is an eponym (as a form of expressing the highest awards for individual achievements in science) or not. The study, which included 4,000 schools and 600,000 children, was a response to a legal requirement (Civil Rights Act 1964, sec. 402) in considering unequal educational opportunities in public schools as a result of an individual's race, religion or nationality (Coleman, 1966, p. 70).
3	Two issues arise here: first, that the black students included in the survey have a "serious educational deficit at the start of education which is obviously not the result of school" and, secondly, that "they even have a more severe deficit at the end of schooling, which is apparently at least partly the effect of education" (Coleman, 1966, p. 73).
4	These - albeit small - differences in learning between schools were attributed to the social environment provided by each school, that is to say, the nature of the educational level and aspirations of non-black children and the education of teachers in schools (ibid., pp. 73-74).
5	This is why Coleman initially supported the controversial measures of school policies aimed at greater racial and socioeconomic integration of schools, as well as racially and socially mixed school classes bringing black students from families belonging to the lower stratum together with middle class white students in order to ensure stronger peer pressure to achieve better learning.
12 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
should therefore not be uncritically generalised, have had a significant impact on school policy and have initiated a series of criticisms as well as new research - particularly in the context of the sociology of education - that has attempted to verify the methodological adequacy of Coleman's research, based on the so-called "input-output" model. At the same time, an attempt has been made to determine whether the findings of Coleman's research also apply to schools in other countries (mainly in poor and developing countries), and in subsequent time periods.6 The research examined includes two surveys carried out by Coleman and his colleagues in the 1980s that focused on a comparison between public and private schools in the United States.7 However, as some eminent interpreters have highlighted, even more important than the actual findings of Coleman's first survey of 1966 was the redefinition of equality of opportunity, the most significant aspect being the shift of emphasis from the equality of schools to the equality of students. To put it even more precisely, from equality of access to equally well-equipped schools, to equality of students' achievements in standardised tests of knowledge (Bell, 1977, p. 619).8 Such operationalisation of the idea of equal educational outcomes is certainly controversial. Nevertheless, the actual idea of equality of educational opportunity is clear: it does not matter to the student how "equal" his or her school is in comparison with others; what counts is whether at the end of schooling he or she is adequately prepared to compete with others, to obtain the desired position in society irrespective of his or her social background. At the same time, it is not important to society to "equalise schools" in a formal sense, but rather to ensure that every child - irrespective of his or her social background - enters adulthood
6	As part of the fortieth anniversary of the publication of the Coleman Report, Adam Gamoran and Danies A. Long analysed and presented the most important studies of this kind and their results in their article "Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-year retrospective" (Gamoran & Daniels, 2006).
7	Coleman, Hoffer ,& Kilgore (1982), Coleman & Hoffer (1987). In these studies, where Coleman and his colleagues also compared the findings with regard to the (non)impact of schools on the educational achievement of pupils from the first survey of 1966, the authors came to two important conclusions: first, that private secondary schools have a positive impact on students' learning achievements (the learning achievements of pupils are higher than in public schools), and, secondly, that learning achievements - if they are judged according to the socioeconomic status of pupils - are more fairly distributed in Catholic and other private schools than in public schools. One consequence of these findings was political support from conservatives for the neoliberal idea of the right of parents to freely choose schools, and the related request for the introduction of school vouchers.
8	Later, in 1975, in his article "Equal Educational Opportunity: A Definition", Coleman denied the usefulness of the distinction between the two perceptions of equal educational opportunities for the purpose of conducting education policies (Karabel &. Halsey, 1977, p. 21). Nevertheless, the interpretation of equality of educational opportunity as equality of outcomes had an impact on education policy. This is materialised in the "No Child Left Behind Act" from 2001, which planned and expected from schools that, within a period of 12 years, all pupils, irrespective of their social origin, would successfully pass the national examination of knowledge.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 13
as well prepared as possible, in order to be granted the opportunity for full participation. Consequently, according to Coleman, a school is successful only if there is a reduction in the degree to which the child's access to opportunities is dependent on his or her social origin. Therefore, equality of educational opportunities, as understood by Coleman, "does not imply only 'equal schools'", but equally effective schools whose effects will outweigh any differences that exist between children of different social origin at the beginning of schooling (Coleman, 1966, p. 71). In taking this stance, Coleman actually abandoned the hitherto dominant understanding of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and, according to some interpretations, replaced it with the concept of equality of educational opportunity as equality of outcome. This was clearly an important act, the consequences of which were evident both on the level of school policies as well as theory. Nevertheless, this did not provide a satisfactory answer to the question of how to understand equality of educational opportunities. The question is in fact whether equality of outcomes is really one of the two types of equality of educational opportunities. This is the case if equality of educational opportunities is understood as a generic term comprising two species of concept: equality of starting points and equality of outcome. However, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome can also be interpreted as two different types of equality. In this case, the aforementioned claim that with the definition of equality of educational opportunities as equality of outcome Coleman redefined the concept of "equality of educational opportunity" is actually incorrect, because "equality of opportunity", as Alain Renaut points out, "is not equality of outcome" (Renaut, 2007, p. 166).
However, the purpose of the present short article is neither to advance a more detailed analysis of Coleman's notion of equal educational opportunities, nor to present any of the other more extensive and comprehensive conceptions articulated by other authors.9 The article is instead limited to a brief analysis of some arguments that call into question the well-established and widespread interpretation of equality of educational opportunity as equality of outcome, an interpretation that the present author also used to accept uncritically. The first step in this direction is to rethink some of the problems associated with the understanding of what these conceptions of equality of educational opportunities presuppose; specifically, the idea of equal opportunities. It is assumed that equality of educational opportunities is just a specific example of equal opportunities, while, on the other hand, supporters of meritocracy remain firmly
9 There is extensive literature available on this topic. The book by the present author entitled O pravičnosti izobraževanja illustrates in detail the different conceptions of equality of educational opportunities (Kodelja, 2006, pp. 29-56).
14 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
convinced that equality of educational opportunities is a prerequisite of equal opportunities in general (Stevens & Wood, 1992, p. 5). But what is equality of opportunity? How should it be understood?
Equality of Opportunity
These questions may seem bizarre and unnecessary - as if their answers were already known - but there are in fact several answers. This fact alone is proof that equality of opportunities - whatever this may be - is not something to be taken for granted. Problems with the understanding of what the syntagma "equality of opportunity" denotes are evident both on the linguistic and the conceptual level. On the conceptual level, there are differences in the understanding of both equality and opportunity, while, on the linguistic level, there are differences of use: either the same terms are used to denote different conceptions of equality of opportunity, or different terms are used to denote one and the same conception. Thus, for example, John Rawls, in the definition of his second principle of justice, uses the term "equality of opportunity", which has been translated into other languages using various terms: for example, into Italian as egualianza di opportunità, into French as égalité des chances,10 and into Slovene mainly as enakost moznosti (literally: equality of chances/possibilities). In all of these cases, it is a question of terms that in various languages refer to one and the same issue: to Rawls' definition of equality of opportunity.11 Sometimes, however, there are two different terms in the same language, such as égalité des opportunités and égalité des chances. In such a case, it is expected that those who prefer the use of the term égalité des opportunités instead of the generally accepted égalité des chances can justify doing so, as the use of different words to denote the same thing does not bring any benefits from the cognitive perspective; on the contrary, it often only complicates the understanding
10	Individual cases in which an author translates the English term into French as égalité des opportunités are more of an exception than a rule. The reason why, for example, Marc-Antoine Dilhac picked such an unusual translation was that for him the understanding of the word chance in the phrase égalité des chances is over determined with the idea of probability (probabilité), whereas the definition of an opportunity (chance) as a probability to achieve a goal is just one of the possible theoretical definitions of the concept of opportunity (Dilhac, 2007/1, p. 12-13).
11	Rawls' conception of equal opportunities is actually a conception of "fair equality of opportunity", which he introduced in order to correct the deficiencies of formal equality of opportunity: "To this end, fair equality of opportunity is said to require not merely that public offices and social positions be open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair chance to attain them. To specify the idea of a fair chance we say: supposing that there is a distribution of native endowments, those who have the same level of talent and ability and the same willingness to use these gifts should have the same prospects of success regardless of their social class of origin, the class into which they are born and develop until the age of reason. In all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed" (Rawls, 2011, p. 68).
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 15
of the very concept to which the word refers. It is a different case altogether, however, if the terms refer to different concepts of equality of opportunity. In order to define equality of opportunity, as cited by André Comte-Sponville, it is probably necessary to use the term égalité des chances, as in his interpretation of equal opportunities it is important that the word "chances" means both "opportunities" as well as "luck", in the sense of a happy or unhappy coincidence.12 In fact, Comte-Sponville emphasises the paradoxical nature of equality of opportunity (égalité des chances), because a possibility (chance), if meant as a happy coincidence or luck (chance), is "always unequal" as soon as it is revealed (Comte-Sponville, 2004). This can be clearly seen in the case of gambling. As a matter of fact, before the publication of the outcome of a lottery or any other form of gambling, the person who wins the prize is certainly luckier than the other players. If each player won, it would cease to be a gamble. The same is true of other kinds of lucky or unfortunate coincidences, which Rawls calls the "natural lottery": natural talent. This is unevenly distributed among individuals and nobody deserves - in the moral sense - to have more talent, as it is a result of brute luck, i.e., pure coincidence. On the other hand, those who do not have this luck and are born less talented are not to be blamed for this. So why talk about equality of opportunity (luck) - as both Comte-Sponville and Renaut emphasise - if luck is by definition unequal? How can we be equal in relation to something that is by definition unequal? Their response is that what equal opportunities refers to is the fact that in a society - where people are never equally gifted, as they have not all had the same luck in the natural lottery -everyone is equally entitled to use all of their talents. In this case, it is no longer about a chance, but justice (Renaut, 2007, pp. 192-193). This is very clearly emphasised by Comte-Sponville, when he says that it would be unacceptable if a child were unable to develop his or her skills and succeed in life because his or her parents were too poor or undereducated. Of course, this does not mean that he or she should be as successful as others, but that he or she could be as successful if he or she had the same capabilities and came from a different environment (Comte-Sponville, 2004). Hence it follows that, as Renaut emphasises, there is a need "to compensate, particularly in schools, for inequalities that are constantly maintained by nature, society and culture" (Renaut, 2007, p. 193). Therefore, for Renaut, equality of opportunity is necessarily a matter of justice,
12 The word itself comes from the Latin cadentia, and this from the Latin cadere, which means "to fall". In this case, it refers to the fall of the dice, and it is from here that the meanings of the word "chance" derive, such as in "a happy coincidence, luck, hope of success". However, since this word, when used in the plural, also means "possibilities, hope, prospects", the words égalité des chances include both meanings: opportunities and a lucky chance.
16 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
or more precisely, compensatory justice (ibid., p. 193).13 In this context, equality of opportunity is to be understood, which Comte-Sponville defines as "a right to not depend solely on luck or lack of luck". This right is nothing other than "an equal right of everyone to prove themselves, to make use of their talents and to overcome - at least partially - their weaknesses". In other words, "it is one's right not to remain a prisoner of one's origin, one's environment, one's status", i.e., "the right to succeed as far as we can and as far as we deserve". In this sense, equal opportunities are a right, the essence of which is to protect everyone's future, "as far as possible from the injustices of the past" (Comte-Sponville, 2004). So understood, equality of opportunity is therefore not a matter of luck, but of justice; not just any justice, but compensatory justice, which corrects the wrongs that have occurred to someone in the past (Renaut, 2007, p. 194).
One of the best-known ways to correct such injustices is the implementation of so-called policies of positive discrimination or affirmative action.14 This is one way to - at least to a certain extent - "compensate or repair the inequalities that are the result of the natural or the social lottery and offer equal opportunities to everyone so that their lives will not depend solely on luck or bad luck" (Renaut, 2007, p. 194). Equality of opportunity is therefore not a matter of luck but a matter of compensatory justice, which establishes equality in such a way as to eliminate inequalities caused by fortunate or unfortunate coincidences (ibid.). Based on these considerations, we can see that equality of opportunity (chances), as interpreted by Comte-Sponville, does not mean equal luck in the race to achieve a specific result, but equal opportunities in the sense of an equal probability of the specific result being achieved. It is about the
13	In advancing the idea of compensatory or restorative justice, Renault takes as his starting point Aristotle's distinction between distributive and countervailing justice. In the case of countervailing justice, it is essential that acting voluntarily or involuntarily in mutual relations comes to the forefront, when "one side does injustice, the other suffers, one party is doing damage and the other is being damaged" (Aristoteles, 1964, pp. 1131a-1132b). In such cases, the judge must re-establish the equality that an unjust act has upset by unjustly creating inequality (Renaut, 2007, p. 117).
14	Sometimes the two terms are used as synonyms and sometimes as terms that refer to a variety of education policies, as well as to employment, health and social care. Those who do not use them as synonyms emphasise a number of conceptual differences between the two types of policies. Some of them see the basic difference between a policy of positive discrimination and a policy of positive or affirmative action as residing in the fact that the objects of the former are people from poor backgrounds, regardless of their racial, ethnic or religious affiliation; in contrast, the object of the latter are individuals as members of specific social groups or minorities (racial, ethnic, religious). In the context of education policies, the multifaceted term "positive discrimination" is used primarily to indicate two similar yet distinct policies: positive action (the removal of barriers, which puts disadvantaged minorities in an equal position compared to the majority), and compensatory education (an increase in the education of deprivileged members of minorities and improvement in the quality of education offered by schools in socially deprivileged environments). Some authors believe that, despite their differences, these two policies are both policies of "preferential treatment", which discriminate in order to eliminate unfair differences and to re-establish equal opportunities for all.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 17
same understanding of equal opportunities as in the gambling mentioned above, where all players placing the same bet have an equal opportunity "to win: all are equal before the results appear. The probability calculus states this. The rules of the game guarantee this. Equal opportunities cannot depend on luck. That is to say, it depends on us to be predetermined, organised and verified, i.e., 'institutionalised'. It does not depend on luck, but on justice. Not on nature, but on society. Not on a happy coincidence, but on policies and laws. It is only one of the various forms of equality" (Comte-Sponville, 2004).
In this respect, the equality referred to in equality of opportunity would be in the same position as equality in the generic concept, as in other forms of equality, such as equality before the law or the equality of rights (Bobbio, 1995, pp. 13-30). This means that equality of opportunity does not differ from other forms of equality in response to the question "Equality between whom?", as in all of these cases there is equality between human beings.15 With regard to the question "Equality of what?", however, the answer is, of course, equality of opportunities. But equality of opportunity in relation to what? Usually it means equality of opportunity in education, employment, health care and other important public goods, and - as we have seen - in the development of personal skills and talents. The important thing, on the one hand, as indicated by Peter Westen, is that each of these opportunities is similar to others insofar as it reflects the specific relationship between the subjects to which opportunities belong, the objectives towards which the opportunities are oriented, and the obstacles that prevent the subjects from achieving these objectives. On the other hand, each of these opportunities differs from other opportunities in that it represents a "relationship between particular subjects, particular obstacles and particular objectives" (Westen, 1990, p. 171).
The key to assessing the correctness or incorrectness of the thesis that Coleman has redefined the concept of "equality of educational opportunity" is Westen's explanation of a subject's opportunity to achieve a particular objective. This opportunity is not a guarantee that the subject will achieve the goal, if he
15 This idea of equality between people, which is expressed by the maxim "All human beings are (born) equal" is present in Western political thought from the Stoics onwards, and is found in early Christianity, the Reformation, Rousseau and the utopian socialists, as well as in the various declarations on Human Rights (ibid., pp. 16-19). One of the central contemporary interpretations of this idea can be found in Dworkin. Its essence can briefly be presented with the idea that the basic moral premise of our time is that every person is of equal moral value and equal dignity, and should therefore be treated with the same respect and have equal rights (Dworkin, 1973, p. 532). Similar views can be found in several other well-known political theories (Nozick, Rawls, Singer, Nielsen), whose authors - despite a number of differences - share the common notion that every person has intrinsic value and that this value is equal. What, in Dworkin's opinion, distinguishes most modern egalitarian theories from older conceptions of natural law is that the justification of equality of people has no reference to God or any other metaphysical entity (Pojman, 1997, p. 282).
18 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
chooses to pursue it. An opportunity is therefore not the same as a guarantee; it cannot be, because an opportunity does not imply "the absence of all obstacles between a given subject and a given objective" (Westen, 1997, pp. 24-25). Therefore, an opportunity is less than a guarantee, but at the same time - as we have seen - more than mere luck or a lucky coincidence. Hence, it follows that equality of opportunity is not and cannot be the same as equality of outcomes. This is yet another argument in favour of the initially introduced thesis set to the incorrect interpretation, according to which Coleman would have redefined the concept of "equality of educational opportunities" with the definition of equality of educational opportunity as equality of results.
The same conclusion can also be reached via a different route. Let us assume that we proceed from equality of opportunity as a principle. This principle, which is one of the foundations of a social democratic state - just as the principle of equality before the law is the foundation of a liberal state - is in essence nothing more than the application of the classical rules of fairness (equals must be treated equally and unequals differently) in the case where more than one person is competing to achieve the same objective, which can only be achieved by one or just a few of the competitors, and certainly not by all of them, as the objective they want to achieve is a limited quantity of goods, such as, winning a contest, gaining admission to a prestigious university, securing a good job, obtaining a scholarship, etc. Hence we can see that this way of perceiving equality of opportunity, as quoted by Norberto Bobbio, is not and cannot be equality of outcome. It is therefore logical that equality of opportunity is equated with equality of starting points (Bobbio, 1995, pp. 24-25).
Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
Equality of starting points is often associated with equal accessibility, but there is an important difference between the two. Equal access was derived from the principle of equality before the law.16 It was therefore initially conceived as equal access to all public services on the basis of individual merit -one's abilities and virtues - and not on the basis of birth and inherited privileges. In this case, we can see that equal opportunities were understood as equality of access, and are thus similar to that which is characteristic today of the liberal
16 The principle of equality before the law has its origins in both the concept of "isonomia", which is the result of ancient Greek political thought as well as of the Enlightenment ideas of freedom and equality that inspired the French Revolution. The impact of these ideas can also be seen in the sixth article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which - inter alia -reads as follows: "All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents."
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 19
notion of equal opportunities (Sartori, 1996, p. 181). However, equality of access to something for all on the basis of merit is one thing, but ensuring a level playing field that gives everyone equal initial opportunities is another altogether. Equality of access requires a form of access (the right procedures, modalities), the same starting point as well as material conditions and circumstances. Equal starting points also presuppose the prohibition of discrimination, etc. (Sartori, 1996, pp. 181-182). If we want to put individuals who are different by nature in the same starting position, then it is necessary to favour the disadvantaged or disadvantage the advantaged. This means to artificially create differences and discrimination that previously did not exist. In this way, inequality becomes a means of achieving equality, as it corrects prior inequality: the new equality is therefore the result of levelling two inequalities (Bobbio, 1995, p. 26).
This equality is not, however, equality of outcome; it is not equality in the sense that all individuals achieve the same success, that everyone can enrol in a prestigious university, obtain a well-paid job, etc. On the contrary, it is equality of opportunity that is to be understood in the sense that everyone should have an equal opportunity to become the best, and only the best obtain the social goods - because they are limited - not everyone. But what does it mean that everyone should have an equal opportunity to become the best? According to one interpretation, everyone must start from the same starting position, while, on the other hand, everyone must have access to the same amount of resourc-es.17 In no case is there merely formal equality, requiring that everyone is subject to the same rules. That this is the case here stems from the different interpretations of equality of opportunity. Mark Cavanagh emphasises something else that often remains overlooked, as we take it for granted, i.e., that equality of opportunity is the objective of education policies and other policies because it is one of the forms of equality that has been most appreciated in Western societies, along with freedom. However, in the aforementioned interpretations of equality of opportunities - such as equality of starting points and equality of resources - the focus is not on equality as a specific value. In both cases, the starting point in the argument in favour of equal opportunities lies in a belief in competition, while equality is apparent from the very idea of competition itself. In both cases, this reasoning is based on an analogy with a race. In the first case, equality is conceived in the sense that all of the runners start the race from the same starting position, whereas, in the second case, each runner starts the race
17 The weak side of the argument regarding the equality of resources lies in the fact that the same amount of money spent on education of individuals with a different level of giftedness does not give the less capable equal opportunities compared to the opportunities that those who are more capable have at their disposal. At the same time, investing more money in the education of those who are less capable cannot lead to the same results in education.
20 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
with the same equipment. This race metaphor is very popular in the treatment of equal opportunities, as many people think of life in a similar way.18 There are two main reasons why people see the process of education or seeking employment as a race. These reasons correspond, as Cavanagh has shown, to two concepts of meritocracy. The first assumes that a competition is the only way for us to successfully recognise that someone deserves his or her success. From here, it is only a short step to the idea that everyone should start a race as an equal. If not, it looks like the winner does not deserve his or her success. The other concept of meritocracy does not see competition as a means of enabling people to deserve their own success, but as a way of identifying an individual's natural talents. In this case, the focus is on the fact that the result of the competition is morally important in itself, but only insofar as it enables us to distinguish between those who are talented and those who are not. But even in this case, initial equality, or ensuring that the competitors originate from the same environment, is the only way to recognise their natural talents. However, neither of these two ways of understanding the race metaphor includes any reference to equality as a particular value. In neither the first nor the second case does the argument begin with a reference to equality; on the contrary, it starts with a reference to competition, while equality is taken into account only as a means to an end, i.e., as a way to recognise an individual's potentials or to ensure that winners get what they deserve. Furthermore, this goal is antiegalitarian, as it does not emphasise the equality between people, but rather promotes and recognises quite the opposite: the differences between them. Such a conception of equality of opportunity differs from one that emphasises that people must have more than a mere possibility of applying for a job in a meritocratic competition: they should be offered some sort of assistance prior to the competition itself. However, this support must be given because the competitors themselves benefit from it, and not the effectiveness of competition (Cavanagh, 2003, pp. 85-86).
Hence, it can be seen, as Onora O'Neill also emphasises, that for a society that recognises the principle of equality of opportunity, equal results are not typical: the same income, the same education and the same standard of living. Equality of opportunity, at least when it comes to its formal or liberal understanding, does not bring about equal success and equal status, but only fairness of the rules that regulate efforts to obtain such goods. This is equality of opportunity in a society in which there are winners and losers, and where it looks like the winners have earned their success and the losers their defeat, as both have
18 Such a conception of equality of opportunity and the use of this metaphor was opposed by Robert Nozick with the simple but convincing argument that life is not a race (Nozick, 1974, pp. 235-238).
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 21
had an equal chance to win (O'Neill, 1977, p. 180). According to advocates of the formal or liberal conception of equality of opportunity, members of a society can be extremely unequal in their achievements, e.g., in education and employment. However, this inequality is justified only if it is a consequence of differences in the ability, will and desires of those who, in the process of education and seeking employment, have undergone a selection procedure. If these procedures are just, and if they are fair and impartial, there is nothing to complain about (ibid., p. 180). In this context, equality of opportunity is unambiguously perceived as being contrary to equality of results. Equality of opportunity is addressed here from the perspective of justice. Although justice is often defined as equality, inequality is not always unjust. Inequality is perceived as fair when it is the result of an individual's capacity, individual merit and the effort involved. This is why equality of opportunity goes beyond the equality of rights that belong to all people irrespective of their social or ethnic origin, gender, material status, place of birth, creed or any other important characteristic, such as a disability, as it favours people who are subject to discrimination, so that they are guaranteed fair and equitable treatment. This means that the differences related to the individual's origin and the environment need to be eliminated. In short, the liberal conception of equality of opportunity is typically associated either with equality of starting points or resources, and not with equality of outcome.
However, there is - or should be - a different conception of equality of opportunity, which Onora O'Neill labels as egalitarian: the society - as seen from an egalitarian position - that can be interpreted as one in which the level of success of the main social groups is the same. Such a conception of equality of opportunities requires that each under-representation of certain groups in the fields of education, employment, etc., may be the result of the mere freedom of choice of the members of these groups. According to the egalitarian understanding, equality of opportunity is achieved when the level of success of certain social groups that differ according to gender, ethnicity, etc. is equalised. Significant differences between the success of the most successful and the least successful individuals within the same social groups are not important if there are similar differences in other social groups as well. Nor is it required that all individuals have an equal opportunity for a particular kind of success. The egalitarian conception of equality of opportunity aims for something different: to bridge the gap between social groups (ibid., pp. 181-183). The achievement of this objective - primarily in the United States - is the aim of the aforementioned policies of positive discrimination or affirmative action, "which have often assumed the form of quota policies" (Renaut, 2007, p. 15). These policies, which promote the idea of collective rights, have been - and still are - the
22 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
subject of numerous controversies, mainly because, according to some authors, they call into question the highest values of modern democratic societies, i.e., "individual rights" (ibid., p. 15).19 Since it is each individual who - according to the usual notion of equality of opportunities - should have the same opportunities as everyone else falling into the same category, it is clear that the egalitarian conception of equality of opportunity is not - at least regarding individuals -the same as equality of outcome.
Conclusion
If, after this brief and rudimentary analysis, we return to the initial interpretation, according to which Coleman, with his definition of equality of educational opportunities as equality of outcome, redefined the concept of "equality of educational opportunity", we can see that this interpretation is incorrect. It is incorrect because equality of outcomes is not one of the genres of equal opportunities; it is a special kind of equality. Consequently, Coleman's redefinition of the concept of equality of educational opportunity - or the concept attributed to him - is not and cannot be a redefinition of this notion. It is a redefinition of something else: the objective of education policy. Instead of equalising schools, the objective is to equalise the educational achievements of children in these schools. The condition for this is that the educational opportunities of these children should be as equal as possible. However, this can not be achieved by ensuring an equal level of resources for individuals or social groups, as equality of resources is contrary to the aim: equal results. At least approximately equal educational outcomes can only be achieved if more educational resources are devoted to the less talented and those from a socially and culturally impoverished background. Such a redistribution of educational resources presents a major political problem, which the introduction of compensatory programmes attempted, more or less successfully, to solve. However, even if we ensured almost equal educational achievements, individual choices would have only a minor role in the education system (O'Neill, 1976, p. 287).
As Onora O'Neill emphasises, an individual's choice is an essential element of his or her opportunity. In fact, one has a chance to do something only when one can do it - if he or she chooses to do it - or if one can do what one
19 Perhaps the most famous controversy of this kind developed in relation to the regulation of admittance to university as advocated by Ronald Dworkin. In fact, he defended the policy of affirmative action and quotas, particularly regarding entry to medicine and law, i.e., the kinds of study that function - or are the most likely to function - as an effective means of achieving desirable social goals: to increase the presence of blacks and members of other minorities in these socially strategic professions, and therefore to potentially reduce the significance of racial differences in American society (Dworkin, 1977, p. 11).
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 23
has freely chosen to do. This being the case, if one faces an obstacle that can be overcome, one is less likely to proceed (ibid., p. 287). However, if the obstacles are insurmountable and one has no chance of proceeding no matter what one chooses, then one has no opportunity to proceed. In the case that something happens to someone irrespective of his or her choice or decision, it would be misleading to describe the individual as someone who has had the opportunity to proceed (ibid., p. 276). This interpretation of opportunities, according to O'Neill, also applies to the aforementioned compensation programmes and other measures aimed at equality of educational attainment, as these measures do not take sufficient account of the free choice of those for whom the measures are intended. Therefore, in her view, it is misleading - although this is quite often the case - to identify the objective of equality of educational outcomes or results (for different social groups) as an "interpretation of equal educational opportunities" (ibid., p. 287). Such a conclusion is correct if we accept the interpretation that an individual's freedom of choice is a necessary condition of his or her opportunities. Hence it follows that it is wrong to equate equality of educational outcome with equality of educational opportunities, as Coleman did - or as he was alleged to do.
Translated by Mitja Sardoč
References
Aristoteles (1964). Nikomahova etika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.
Bell, D. (1977). On Meritocracy and Equality. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology
in Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bobbio, N. (1995). Eguaglianza e libertà. Torino: Einaudi.
Cavanagh, M. (2003). Against Equality of Opportunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Coleman J. S., et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington: US Government
Printing Office.
Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High School Achievement: Public, Catholic and Private Schools Compared. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J. (1975). Equal Educational Opportunity: A Definition, Oxford Review of Education, 1(1),
25-29.
Coleman, J. (1966). Equal Schools or Equal Students?, The Public Interest, 2(4), 70-75. Comte-Sponville, A. (2004). Égalité des chances. In: Guide républican. Paris: Delagrave. Dilhac, M.-A. (2007). Discriminations systématiques et égalité des opportunités, Revue de
24 equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
Philosophie Économique, 1.
Dworkin, R. (1973). The Original Position, University of Chicago Law Review, 40(3), 500-533. Dworkin, R. (1977). Why Bakke has no case, New York Review of Books, November 10, 1977. Gamoran, A., & Long D. A. (2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-year retrospective, WCER Working Paper No. 2006-9, University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison 2006. Retrieved 15. 12. 2015 from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/ workingPapers/index.php.
Karabel J., & Halsey, A. H. (1977). Educational Research: A Review and an Interpretation. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 1-85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kodelja, Z. (2006). O pravičnosti v izobraževanju. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
O'Neill, O. (1976). Opportunities, Equalities and Education, Theory and Decision 7, 275-295.
O'Neill, O. (1977). How Do We Know When Opportunities Are Equal?, In M. Vetterling-Braggin,
F.A. Elliston, & J. English (Eds.), Feminism and Philosophy (pp. 177-189). Totowa: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Pojman, L. (1997). On Equal Human Worth: A Critique of Contemporary Egalitarianism. In L. P.
Pojman & R. Westmoreland (Eds.), Equality (pp. 282-298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (2011). Pravičnost kot poštenost: reformulacija. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Renaut, A. (2007). Égalité et discriminations. Un essai de philosophie politique appliquée. Paris:
Seuil.
Sartori, G. (1996). Democrazia. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli. Stevens, E. & G. H. Wood (1992). Justice, Ideology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Westen, P. (1997). The Concept of Equal Opportunity. In L. P. Pojman & R. Westmoreland (Eds.), Equality (pp. 158-166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westen, P. (1990). Speaking of Equality: An Analysis of the Rhetorical Force of Equality in Moral and Legal Discourse. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Biographical note
Zdenko Kodelja, Ph.D., senior researcher, Head of the Centre for Philosophy of Education, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 25
Equality of Opportunity, Cultural Diversity and Claims for Fairness
Mitja Sardoč1
^^ The present paper examines some of the tensions, problems and challenges associated with claims for equality of opportunity (the fairness argument). The introductory part identifies three separate forms of justification for public education, including the argument associated with equality of opportunity. Part II examines in detail two questions that reveal part of the anatomy of equality of opportunity: (1) what an opportunity is, and (2) when individuals' opportunities are equal. This is followed by a presentation of the two basic principles of equality of opportunity: (1) the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) the "levelling the playing field" principle. The next part takes up the multiculturalist hypothesis advanced by minority groups for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity. This is followed by the identification of a set of claims comprising the "fairness argument". The last section focuses on the "currency problem" associated with cultural diversity as a form of "unfair disadvantage". Part V examines two of the major shortcomings associated with the multicultural conception of equality of opportunity, while the concluding part discusses some of the questions that must be answered by any conception of equal opportunities.
Keywords: equality of opportunity, opportunity, equality, cultural diversity, the fairness argument, multiculturalism, education
1 Educational Research Institute, Slovenia; mitja.sardoc@pei.si.
26
equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
Enake možnosti, kulturna različnost in zahteve pravičnosti
Mitja Sardoč
^^ Prispevek obravnava nekatere izmed napetosti problemov in izzivov, ki so povezani z zahtevo po zagotavljanju enakih možnosti [argument poštenosti]. Uvodni del poudari tri ločene utemeljitve javnega izobraževanja, vključno z utemeljitvijo, ki je povezana z zagotavljanjem enakih možnosti. Drugi del podrobneje obravnava dve vprašanji, ki razkrivata del anatomije enakih možnosti, in sicer i) kar je priložnost in ii) kdaj so priložnosti posameznikov enake. Temu sledi še predstavitev dveh osnovnih načel zagotavljanja enakih možnosti, in sicer i) načelo nediskriminiranja in ii) načelo »izenačitve igralnega polja«. Sledi analiza hipoteze multikulturalizma po pripoznanju kulturne raznolikosti, ki jo zagovarjajo manjšinske skupine. Temu sledi opredelitev sklopa trditev, ki sestavljajo t. i. »argument poštenosti« ter analizo t. i. »problema valute«, ki je povezana z utemeljitvijo kulturne raznolikosti kot oblike »nepoštene prikrajšanosti«. Peti del obravnava dve glavni pomanjkljivosti, ki sta povezani z multikulturnim pojmovanjem enakih možnosti. Sklepni del identificira nekatera izmed osnovnih vprašanj, na katera mora odgovoriti vsako pojmovanje enakih možnosti.
Ključne besede: : enake možnosti, priložnost, enakost, kulturna različnost, argument poštenosti, multikulturalizem, vzgoja in izobraževanje
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 27
Equality of opportunity: some preliminary considerations2
Over the last few decades, discussions about public education have been centred around the three separate functions that public education carries out in contemporary societies: (1) the identity-related function; (2) the knowledge-related function, and (3) the status-related function. Each of the three aspects performs a distinctive function. The dominant feature of the first function is largely socio-integrative, as it links public education with the establishment of the "national" character of a population (Anderson, 1983; Gellner, 1983). As Ernest Gellner emphasises, "education is by far his most precious investment, and in effect confers his identity on him" (Gellner, 1983, p. 36), adding that the monopoly over public education has become, "more important than the monopoly of legitimate violence" (ibid., p. 33). The second basic function carried out by public education focuses on its role as an "ideological state apparatus" (Althuss-er, 2014). As part of this function, its basic role is to reproduce existing relations of production. The central role played here is by "official knowledge". As Michael W. Apple emphasises, [w]hat counts as knowledge, the ways in which it is organized, who is empowered to teach it, what counts as an appropriate display of having learned it, and - just as critically - who is allowed to ask and answer all of these questions are part and parcel of how dominance and subordination are reproduced and altered in this society. There is, then, always a politics of official knowledge, a politics that embodies conflict over what some regard as simply neutral descriptions of the world and others regard as elite conceptions that empower some groups while disempowering others. (Apple, 1993, p. 222)
This function is based on the assumption that public education serves as a primary tool in the reproduction of existing social relations related to the reproduction of an existing social order. The third function of public education focuses on the provision of equal opportunities in the process of competition for advantaged social positions to all individuals irrespective of their social or cultural background, gender, race, creed, national origin, physical and mental constitution, etc. As John Rawls states, those who have the same level of talent and ability and the same willingness to use these gifts should have the same prospects of success regardless of their social class of origin, the class into which they are born and develop until the age of reason. (Rawls, 2001, p. 44)
From the perspective of justice, it is the latter function that is crucial, as the individual's social status and social mobility depend largely on his/her
2 Parts of this paper are based on a couple of papers published in Slovene language (Sardoc 2013a, 2013b).
28
equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
success in the process of education. Equal (educational) opportunities - so their advocates argue - are one of the basic mechanisms for a fair distribution of advantaged social positions and the related social mobility. The importance of providing equality of opportunity within public education has therefore achieved a kind of a general consensus among both experts and policy makers (Husen, 1975). In fact, equality of opportunity has been at the very heart of various discussions about public education (Brighouse, 2007, 2010; Howe, 1989; Jencks 1988). This is evidenced by the fact that a key survey on equal educational opportunities (The Equality of Educational Opportunity Study), the so-called "Coleman Report", has been generally accepted - as pointed out by Geoffrey Borman and Maritza Dowling - as the single "most significant research on schooling, which has ever been conducted" (Borman & Dowling, 2010). Since its publication, the analysis of equality of opportunity - as Torsten Husen pointed out - has been "raised to a higher level of sophistication" (Husen,
1975, p. 18).
As in other scholarly discussions, opinions regarding the role, importance and effects of equality of opportunity remain largely divided. On the one hand, there are those who place the idea of equality of opportunity alongside other classical liberal ideas, such as justice, freedom and tolerance. As Charles Frankel emphasises, equality of opportunity occupies "a central role in the pantheon of modern political ideals" (Frankel, 1971, p. 193).3 Nevertheless, the idea of equality of opportunity is far from being either unquestionable or unproblematic. For example, John Rawls defines it as a "difficult and not altogether clear idea" (Rawls, 2001, p. 43). In fact, the only solid assumption that different conceptions of equality of opportunity share, as Richard Arneson points out (2002), is their rejection of fixed social relations, not a rejection of hierarchy itself.
The main aim of the present paper is to identify some of the basic controversies dominating the discussion regarding equality of opportunity. It consists of four sections. Part II examines in detail two questions associated with the anatomy of equal opportunities: (1) what an opportunity is, and (2) when individuals' opportunities are equal. This is followed by a presentation of the two basic principles of equal opportunities: (1) the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) the "levelling the playing field" principle. Part III takes up the mul-ticulturalist invocation of equality of opportunity. The first section presents the standard multiculturalist hypothesis for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity. This is followed by an identification of a set of claims composing the "fairness argument". The focus then shifts to the "currency problem"
3 For a historical overview of changes in the concept of equal opportunities, see Gomberg (2007, pp.
2-5) and Husen (1975 (Chapter 1)).
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 29
associated with cultural diversity as a form of "unfair disadvantage". Part V examines two of the major shortcomings associated with the multicultural conception of equality of opportunity, while the concluding part discusses some of the questions that must be answered by any conception of equal opportunities.
The anatomy of equal opportunities
The basic premise of any conception of equal opportunities is that individuals' opportunities in the process of competing for advantaged social positions should be equal. Despite the clear-cut message of this idea, a basic question arises: When are individuals' opportunities equal? In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to provide an adequate response to the substantive question: "What is an opportunity?". Without further clarification of this concept and its basic characteristics, the question of when individuals' opportunities are equal cannot adequately be addressed. In fact, as Sven Ove Hansson emphasises, discussions on equality of opportunity have often been "hampered by insufficient attention to the very notion of opportunity itself" (Hansson, 2004, p. 315). Any discussion regarding equality of opportunity therefore needs to address two separate - but interrelated - questions: (1) What is an opportunity? (substantive question), and (2) When are individuals' opportunities equal? (referential question).4
What is an opportunity?
Any conception of equal opportunities, as Peter Westen points out, consists of four basic elements: (1) agent or agents of equal opportunities, (2) objective or objectives to which equal opportunities are directed, (3) the relationship between the agent and the objective of equal opportunities, and (4) obstacles to the realisation of equal opportunities (Westen, 1997, pp. 837-838). The first element primarily brings together the individuals who are entitled to equal treatment, which implies - at least formally - the same conditions. The second aspect, as Peter Westen emphasises, defines the objective of the opportunities, which can be "a job, or an education, or medical care, or a political office, or land to settle, or housing, or a financial investment, or a military promotion, or a life of 'culture', or the development of natural ability or whatever" (ibid., 1997,
4 This distinction is an invaluable tool for identifying differences between various conceptions of equal opportunities. For example, the difference between egalitarian and multicultural conceptions primarily revolves around the substantive question (What is an "opportunity"?), whereas the difference between egalitarian and libertarian conceptions of equal opportunities revolves around the referential question (When are individuals' opportunities equal?).
30
equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
p. 838). The third element (the relationship between the agent and the objective of opportunities) is not yet a guarantee that the objective of equal opportunities will be achieved.
The concept of opportunity may therefore be defined in two separate ways: (1) as the absence of obstacles to the attainment of a particular objective (negative justification) and (2) as the ability of an individual to attain a particular goal using his or her efforts (positive justification). An opportunity, as Peter Westen states, "is a chance of an agent X, to choose to attain a goal, Y, Z without the hindrance of obstacle Z" (Westen, 1985, p. 849) or - as Alan H. Goldman argues - "the lack of some obstacle or obstacles to the attainment of some goal(s) or benefit(s)" (Goldman, 1987, p. 88).5 Having an opportunity, as Brian Barry claims, means that "there is some course of action lying within my power such that it will lead, if I choose to take it, to my doing or obtaining the thing in question" (Barry, 2005, p. 37). At the same time, opportunity has also been closely linked to the issue of the risk an individual is exposed to when aiming to achieve a particular goal. In fact, as John Roemer emphasises, the individual is actually "responsible for turning that access into actual advantage by the application of effort" (Roemer, 1998, p. 24). If an individual is responsible for the outcome of the process of competing for advantaged social positions, it is therefore necessary to ensure that only those factors an individual may be responsible for should be taken into account. This is consistent with the "control principle", as articulated by Thomas Nagel (Nagel, 1979). So: When are individuals' opportunities equal?
Equality of opportunity
As a form of "fair competition among individuals for unequal positions in society" (Fishkin, 1983, p. 1), the idea of equality of opportunity is composed of two separate and allegedly incompatible principles: (1) the principle of nondiscrimination, and (2) the principle of levelling the playing field.
Equality of opportunity and non-discrimination
The principle of non-discrimination gives every individual equal access to advanced social positions, irrespective of any morally arbitrary factors such as gender, social and cultural background, religion, national origin, physical and mental constitution, etc. In this regard, as Lesley A. Jacob points out,
5 For a detailed presentation of the different dimensions of the concept of opportunity (e.g., openness), see Hansson (2004).
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 31
at the very centre of understanding equal opportunities lies a concept that in competitive procedures designed for the allocation of scarce resources and the distribution of the benefits and burdens of social life, those procedures should be governed by criteria that are relevant to the particular goods at stake in the competition and not by irrelevant considerations such as race, religion, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other factors that may hinder some of the competitors' opportunities at success. (Jacobs, 2004, p. 10)
The principle of non-discrimination therefore ensures that the set of potential candidates includes "all individuals who possess the attributes relevant for the performance of the duties of the position in question, [...] and that an individual's possible occupancy of the position be judged only with respect to those relevant attributes" (Roemer, 1998, p. 1). By choosing candidates exclusively on the basis of merit, as George Sher argues, we abstract from all facts about the applicants except their ability to perform well at the relevant tasks. By thus concentrating on their ability to perform, we treat them as agents whose purposeful acts are capable of making a difference in the world . . . [S]electing by merit is a way of taking seriously the potential agency of both the successful and the unsuccessful applicants. (Sher, 1988, pp. 119-120)
According to this interpretation, as James Fishkin emphasises, "the assignment of persons to unequal positions according to a fair competition" (Fishkin, 1983, p. 6) is fulfilled as long as three basic conditions are met:
(1)	each individual should have equal access to the process of competition for advantaged social positions;
(2)	the rules are (a) the same for everyone, (b) known in advance, and (c) connected to the process of competition for advantaged social positions (e.g., carrying out a particular task or performing a job);
(3)	the best/most qualified candidate wins.6
6 The difference between libertarian and egalitarian conceptions of equal opportunities also concerns the validity of the underlying assumptions of the idea of equal opportunities, i.e., that "the best candidate always gets the job". For advocates of the libertarian conception, this principle is absolute: the best candidate always has priority over everyone else. In contrast, for advocates of egalitarian conceptions of equality of opportunity, this principle is applicable only under certain conditions. The best candidate has priority only in cases where all individuals have fair access to qualifications. For the former, fairness of access is satisfied as soon as all individuals have access to qualifications, whereas for the latter, equality of access is genuine once all individuals who compete for an advantaged social position face (at least approximately) the same obstacles. For a detailed comparison of the different conceptions of equal opportunities, see Cavanagh (2002), Squires (2006, pp. 473-477) and Swift (2001).
32
equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
Equality of opportunity and compensation for inequality
The basic objective of the second principle associated with the idea of equality of opportunity (the "levelling the playing field" principle) is to neutralise, reduce, mitigate or even eliminate both the potential benefits of those who might be in an advantaged position as well as the potential barriers to those who might be disadvantaged. In an egalitarian interpretation, equal opportunities should enable any individual, irrespective of any morally arbitrary factors, to achieve a fair starting point in the process of competing for advantaged social positions, as it would be both unjust and unfair, as Larry Temkin points out, to have a situation "when one person is worse off than another through no fault or choice of her own" (Temkin, 1993, p. 13).7
This principle therefore has two separate objectives, which are connected with ensuring the fairness of the non-discrimination principle: (1) the negative objective, and (2) the positive objective. On the one hand, the levelling the playing field principle aims to neutralise, reduce, mitigate or eliminate potential benefits of those individuals who are in a better or privileged position, as well as the potential barriers of those who are - one way or another - disadvantaged; on the other hand, the positive objective associated with the levelling the playing field principle ensures that any individual - regardless of morally arbitrary factors such as gender, race, religion, socioeconomic status, etc. - achieves a fair starting point in the process of competition for advanced social positions. According to this interpretation, as T. M. Scanlon states, inequality should "not disrupt the fairness of on-going competition" (Scanlon, 2003, p. 205).
Moreover, the ideal of equal opportunities needs to distinguish between two of its basic elements: (1) the political element, and (2) the social element. Providing access based on the principle of non-discrimination is part of the "political" element of civic equality, while the compensation programmes we associate with the principle of levelling the playing field are part of the "social" element of civic equality. The political element of equal opportunities is negative, as it does not require any material or financial resources from wider society for its provision. In this sense, its value lies in the absence of formal obstacles, e.g., non-discrimination. Unlike the political or formal element of equality of opportunity, where the basic criterion is that careers are open to talent, the
7 The relationship between the two principles of equal opportunities remains open here. Are the principle of non-discrimination and that of levelling the playing field overlapping, complementary, in tension with each other, or even mutually exclusive? In any case, the relationship between the two principles cannot be thought of as a "weak" or "robust" ideal of equality of opportunity, but as two separate principles, given the fact that the non-discrimination principle deals with the issue of universal access, while the levelling the playing field principle ensures fair access to the process of competition for advanced social positions.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 33
"social" element of equal opportunities is associated with redistribution and various compensatory programmes. Fair equality of opportunity, as Rawls emphasises, "is said to require not merely that public offices and social positions be open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair chance to attain them" (Rawls, 2001, p. 43).
The compensatory programmes most commonly associated with fair equality of opportunity are usually justified with two separate arguments: (1) the argument regarding initial positions (the equidistance argument), and (2) the argument regarding the results of a process of advantaged social positions (the equivalence argument). The first argument is essentially a classical argument associated with a broadly liberal conception of equality of opportunity. Given the fact that individuals' initial positions are unequal, compensatory programmes are primarily aimed at the reduction of initial inequality or at equalising the initial conditions associated with equidistance. The second argument associated with compensatory programmes is primarily focused on the compensation for inequality that arises out of the process of competition for advanced social positions. The first group of compensatory programmes is justified by the arbitrary nature of moral criteria for selection, e.g., talent, while the second group aims to reduce, neutralise, mitigate or eliminate inequalities arising from the process of competing for advantaged social positions. Whereas the principle of non-discrimination ensures that morally arbitrary factors have no impact on or do not limit individuals in the process of competing for advanced social positions, the levelling the playing field principle aims to ensure fair conditions for the implementation of the non-discrimination principle. However, things are further complicated with the introduction of multiculturalist claims for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity, which are premised on compensating for inequality arising out of cultural diversity.
Equality of opportunity and cultural diversity
The standard multicultural hypothesis
Over the last two decades, advocates of multiculturalism have successfully challenged the liberal orthodoxy in its three core assumptions associated with civic equality: (1) that (national) cultures are largely homogeneous; (2) that culture is irrelevant in considerations of the justice of the basic institutional framework of a plurally diverse polity; and (3) that equal treatment and civic equality are coextensive. However, despite a new sensitivity towards considerations of cultural diversity, advocates of multiculturalism have largely ignored a
34
equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
number of tensions, problems and challenges stemming from their invocation of equality of opportunity as the basis for the recognition and accommodation of diversity. Two basic dimensions neglected by the advocates of multicultural-ism can be identified here: (1) the distributive specification of accommodation (how accommodation is to be carried out); and (2) the agent-relative specification of accommodation (who is the primary target of accommodation). As Bhikhu Parekh emphasises, [...] the concept of equal opportunity [...] needs to be interpreted in a culturally sensitive manner. Opportunity is a subject-dependent concept in the sense that a facility, or resource, or a course of action is only a mute and passive possibility for an individual if she lacks the capacity, the cultural disposition or the necessary cultural background to take advantage of it. (Parekh, 2000, p. 241)
At the same time, the standard liberal view also entails a normative commitment to equal civic respect for diversity, i.e., respect for different conceptions of the good that citizens, as free and equal members of a polity, might hold and that arise from their exercising their basic rights. Part of this commitment is the acknowledgement of individuals' different conceptions of the good, including values, ideals and other doctrinal beliefs. The fact of reasonable pluralism, writes Rawls, refers to circumstances "that reflect the fact that in a modern democratic society citizens affirm different, and indeed incommensurable and irreconcilable, though reasonable, comprehensive doctrines in the light of which they understand their conceptions of the good" (Rawls, 2001, p. 84). The commitment to equal civic respect for diversity presupposes that all citizens within a particular political community should treated as equals, regardless of their ascriptive or conscience-based characteristics, such as race, class, sex, language, religion or any other differentiating characteristic (the requirement of equal consideration).
To summarise: the standard liberal conception of civic equality and its commitment to equality of opportunity can be subsumed under the assertion that equal opportunities associated with the uniform treatment approach are a sufficient requirement of justice. In this interpretation, equal treatment and civic equality are coextensive. As Brian Barry points out, "justice is guaranteed by equal opportunities" (Barry, 2001, p. 32). In this respect, Nils Holtug claims that "if a certain rule applies equally to everyone and gives them identical choice sets, then people have equal opportunities" (Holtug, 2008, p. 84).
Nevertheless, advocates of multiculturalism have maintained that standard conceptions of citizenship are either insensitive towards differences stemming from individuals' cultural identity or outright discriminatory and oppressive. The standard multiculturalist position is based on a number of interrelated claims over the recognition and accommodation of cultural diversity: (1) that
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 35
national minorities, immigrants and indigenous peoples have a legitimate interest in a secure and stable cultural context; (2) that claims for accommodation of cultural diversity are based on justice; and (3) that group rights are the most viable means to assist non-dominant minority groups in their claims for the recognition and accommodation of their cultural differences.
As proponents of multiculturalism have argued (e.g., Kymlicka, 1995; Modood, 2007; Parekh 2000), neither the expansion of status nor the expansion of entitlement associated with the classical liberal egalitarian conception of civic equality has been sufficiently inclusive in confronting claims for the recognition and accommodation of cultural diversity. As they have emphasised, the liberal egalitarian conception of civic equality and its uniform treatment approach towards cultural diversity is insensitive to the claims of minority groups for recognition and accommodation of their cultural differences, as it (1) fails to recognise the legitimate interest of national minorities, immigrants and indigenous peoples in a stable cultural context, (2) lacks the means to compensate adequately for individuals' unequal circumstances, and (relatedly) (3) insufficiently protect the interests of culturally disadvantaged minority groups.
This leads to the assertion that members of non-dominant minority groups are undeservedly disadvantaged in terms of access to a stable and secure cultural environment, which is instrumental for the cultivation of a "context of choice" (the context of choice requirement). One of the main devices used to substantiate claims for the accommodation and recognition of diversity has been built on the idea of fairness. Multiculturalist claims for the accommodation of diversity have been argued largely as compensation for the underserved disadvantages of members of minorities or of immigrants, and have rested on a specific form of argument based on fairness, i.e., "the fairness argument".
The fairness argument
The standard conception of fair equality of opportunity is therefore based on a set of (interconnected) commitments that are intertwined with one another in the construction of an argument that would legitimate the compensation for individuals' unequal initial positions within the process of competition for advantaged social positions:
(ci) an advantaged social position is to be granted to the best candidate (the
assumption of a meritocracy-based conception of excellence); (c2) the distribution of an advantaged social position according to merit is mutually beneficial to both the winner and the loser (the assumption of mutual advantage);
36	equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
(c3) the process of competition for advantaged social positions should only take into account those aspects of an individual's characteristics that are the result of his or her effort or choices, and not those factors for which s/he has no merit or is not responsible (the voluntaristic assumption of the nature of the currency of equality); (04) the individual is solely responsible for the outcome of the process of competing for an advantaged social position and the associated transformation of an opportunity into an advantage (the assumption of the instrumental nature of transitivity); (c5) the rules of competition should be associated exclusively with the performance of tasks associated with the process of competition for advantaged social positions (the assumption of the excellence of the process of competition for advantaged social positions); (c6) inequality arising from the process of competition for advantaged social positions is legitimate insofar as access to the process of competition is open (the assumption of the legitimacy of resulting inequality); (c7) the result of the process of competition for advantaged social positions is just as fair as the process of competition is fair (the assumption of the fairness of the process of competition for advantaged social positions); (c8) differences between individuals that are independent of individuals' choices should be neutralised and the undeserved disadvantages (somehow) compensated for (the assumption of the equality of the process of competition).
The validity of any conception of equal opportunities that claims to be fair therefore depends on a number of interconnected assumptions, as the basic challenge of equal opportunities is therefore how to ensure that competition for advantaged social positions is fair, and that inequalities resulting from the process of competition are legitimate. This assertion opens up a range of separate questions that any conception of equal opportunities must answer.
The nature of cultural diversity and the "currency problem"
Among the most important aspects distinguishing different conceptions of equality of opportunity is the very nature of cultural diversity and the forms of potential inequality associated with it: (1) those forms of inequality that are beyond the individual's will (the involuntary aspect of inequality), and (2) those forms of inequality that are part of the individual's choices. The distinction of factors that should be counted among individuals' circumstances and those
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 37
that can be included within the category of individuals' choices is one of the basic theoretical foundations of egalitarian liberalism, as it distinguishes between different conceptions of equality and equal educational opportunities, distinguished primarily by two separate disagreements: (1) "which aspects of individual behavior are beyond one's control and can be attributed to the effect of circumstances", and (2) "whether the same conditions should be provided in part or in its entirety" (Roemer, 1998).
While there are a number of different versions of the fairness argument, they all share a common ideal, as Samuel Scheffler argues, i.e., "inequalities in the advantages that people enjoy are acceptable if they derive from the choices that people have voluntarily made, but that inequalities deriving from uncho-sen features of people's circumstances are unjust" (Scheffler, 2003, p. 5). This idea, as Shlomi Segall emphasises, is based on the assumption that it is "unfair for one person to be worse off than another due to reasons beyond her control" (Segall, 2008, p. 10). In this interpretation, as Andrew Mason points out, a person can legitimately be required "to bear the costs (or allowed to enjoy the benefits) of those consequences of her behavior the production of which lies within her control but not those the production of which lies beyond it" (Mason, 2001, p. 763). A basic problem that arises here is to determine "which factors should be counted among people's circumstances and which should be subsumed within the category of choice" (Scheffler, 2005, p. 6).
The fundamental question therefore revolves around the distinction between two normative sources of diversity: (1) chance-based diversity, and (2) choice-based diversity. The former is a matter of chance or circumstance, i.e., the unchosen natural and social conditions associated with one's identity, while the latter is a matter of individual choice. As Will Kymlicka firmly points out, "[t]he distinction between choices and circumstances is in fact absolutely central to the liberal project" (Kymlicka, 1989, p. 186). Multiculturalist claims for equality of opportunity emphasise that cultural diversity needs to be compensated for as a matter of fairness. They substantiate this claim with the assertion that cultural diversity of non-dominant minority groups qualifies as a form of "unfair disadvantage" compared to members of the majority culture. Given the fact that this is a central controversy between liberal and multiculturalist conceptions of equal opportunities, it needs further clarification.
Objections to multiculturalist claims for fairness
Both the fairness argument and the classification of cultural diversity as a form of "unfair disadvantage" have been severely criticised by advocates of
38	equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
egalitarian liberalism. Two prevailing objections have been advanced: (1) that a differentiated conception of civic equality is inconsistent with an egalitarian conception of citizenship as free and equal membership in a polity (the civic equality objection), and (2) that cultural differences cannot be equated with disadvantages stemming from brute bad luck, e.g., a handicap (the non-equivalence objection).
The civic equality objection revolves around the criticism that multicul-turalist claims for both recognition and accommodation of cultural differences leads to a de-universalisation of civic equality. The multiculturalist conception of civic equality includes - in some interpretations - a decisive rejection of citizenship as free and equal membership in a polity. In particular, the politics of difference and the conceptions of citizenship that go beyond a conception of civic equality based on the uniform treatment approach, e.g., the conception of differentiated citizenship (Young, 1990) and the conception of multicultural citizenship (Kymlicka, 1995), are inconsistent with a conception of civic equality that grants each and every member of a polity an equal set of entitlements. While advocates of the politics of difference claim that differentiated rights are a corrective to the uniform treatment approach, its critics decisively argue that this move is a significant departure from a conception of citizenship as free and equal membership in a polity.
The second set of objections revolves around the characterisation of cultural diversity as "unfair disadvantage". As Brian Barry emphasises in Culture and Equality, A disability - for example, a lack of physical mobility due to injury or disease - supports a strong prima facie claim to compensation because it limits the opportunity to engage in activities that others are able to engage in. In contrast, the effect of some distinctive belief or preference is to bring about a certain pattern of choices from among the set of opportunities that are available to all who are similarly placed physically or financially. The position of somebody who is unable to drive a car as a result of some physical disability is totally different from that of somebody who is unable to drive a car because doing so would be contrary to the tenets of his or her religion. (Barry, 2001, pp. 36-37)
In this interpretation, equating the two forms of diversity is both logically unacceptable and morally wrong. It turns out to be logically unacceptable because we cannot equate a dietary limit to eating foods that include gluten with the religious observation of not eating foods containing gluten. By equating a chance-based form of diversity with a choice-based form of diversity we commit the fallacy of equivalence. In fact, this equation is morally wrong as it is premised on the non-voluntaristic nature of cultural diversity. This observation emphasises the fact that disability and cultural diversity are not equivalent,
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 39
as well as the fact that the liberal conception of civic equality and its model of citizenship as a political conception of the person is premised on the volunta-rist understanding of religious and other forms of conscience-based diversity. Nevertheless, an interesting trend can be discerned in controversies over cultural diversity. On the one hand, there has been little disagreement over the centrality of cultural diversity in contemporary discussions of multicultural-ism: it seems that both liberalism and multiculturalism share the assumption that inequalities in the advantages people share are acceptable if they result from individuals' deliberate choices, whereas inequalities arising from individuals' unchosen circumstances and conditions are unjust. On the other hand, despite the convergence of opinion on the injustice of inequalities that stem from individuals' circumstances, it remains of crucial importance to determine which aspects can be subsumed under chance-based diversity and which under choice-based diversity.
Conclusion: the paradox(es) of equal opportunity
Disagreements over the fundamental principles associated with equality of opportunity, criticism of the inefficiency of policies and strategies aiming to ensure a fair process of competition for advantaged social positions, as well as the various objections regarding its alleged unfairness, open a number of questions that need to be answered by any conception, e.g., motivational questions (Why should individuals' opportunities be equalised?); procedural questions (What are the principled foundations of any process claiming to be based on equal opportunities?); genealogical questions (What is a fair starting position to compete for advantaged social positions?); substantive questions (What are the criteria for equalising individuals' prospects?); taxonomic questions (What type of disadvantage is eligible for compensation?); compensatory questions (How should the process of equalising opportunities be carried out?), etc. Furthermore, without clarifying a number of variables associated with these questions, e.g., opportunity, equality, non-discrimination, obstacles, fairness, responsibility, chance, choice, excellence, deservedness, effort, talent, merit, inequality, etc., the idea of equal opportunities remains - as Andrew Mason eloquently puts it - simply a "radically contradictory [...] piece of political rhetoric" (Mason, 2006, p. 1). As it turns out, providing an answer to any of these questions becomes part of the problem and not the solution.
40
equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness
References
Arneson, R. (2002). Equality of Opportunity. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
31.3.2014 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity.
Barry, B. (2001). Culture and Equality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Barry, B. (2005). Why Social Justice Matters. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bowie, N. E. (Ed.) (1988). Equal Opportunity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cavanagh, M. (2002). Against Equality of Opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clayton, M. (2001). Rawls and Natural Aristocracy, Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 1(3), 239-259.
Fishkin, J. (1983). Justice, Equal Opportunity, and the Family. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Frankel, C. (1971). Equality of Opportunity, Ethics, 81(3), 191-211.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Goldman, A. (1987). The Justification of Equal Opportunity, Social Philosophy and Policy, 5(1), 88-103.
Hansson, S. O. (2004). What are Opportunities and Why Should They be Equal, Social Choice and Welfare, 22(2), 305-316.
Holtug, N. (2008). Equality and Difference-Blind Rights. In N. Holtug, K. Lippert-Rasmussen, & S. Laegaard (Eds.), Nationalism and Multiculturalism in a World of Immigration (pp. 81-118). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holtug, N., Lippert-Rasmussen, K., & Laegaard, S. (Eds.) (2008). Nationalism and Multiculturalism in a World of Immigration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jacobs, L. A. (2004). Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1989). Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kymlicka, W., & Banting, K. (Eds.) (2006). Multiculturalism and the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lukšič Hacin, M., & Toplak, K. (2012). Teoretizacija multikulturalizma in etnične ekonomije v luči
ohranjanja kulturne dediščine med migranti, Dve domovini, (35), 107-117.
Mason, A. (2006). Levelling the Playing Field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A Civic Perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. New York:
Palgrave.
Pojman, L. P., & Westmoreland, R. (Eds.) (1997). Equality: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 41
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Harvard. Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sardoč, M. (2013a). Enake [izobraževalne] možnosti in družbena neenakost, Sodobna pedagogika, 64(2), 48- 62.
Sardoč, M. (2013b). Anatomija enakih možnosti, Šolsko polje, XXIV(5/6), 145- 159.
Scanlon, T. M. (2003). The Difficulty of Tolerance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaar, H. J. (1997 [1967]). Equality of Opportunity, and Beyond. In L. P. Pojman & R. Westmoreland
(Eds.), Equality: Selected Readings (pp. 137-147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scheffler, S. (2003). What is Egalitarianism? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31(1), 5-39.
Scheffler, S. (2005). Choice, Circumstance, and the Value of Equality? Politics, Philosophy and
Economics, 4(5), 5-28.
Segall, S. (2008). Health, Luck and Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sher, G. (1988). Qualifications, Fairness, and Desert. In N. E. Bowie (Ed.), Equal Opportunity (pp.
113-127). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Squires, J. (2006). Equality and Difference. In J. S. Dryzek, B. Honig & A. Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (pp. 470-487). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swift, A. (2001). Political Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide for Students and Politicians. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westen, P. (1997 [1985]). The Concept of Equal Opportunity. In L. P. Pojman & R. Westmoreland (Eds.), Equality: Selected Readings (pp. 158-167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biographical note
Mitja Sardoč (PhD) is a researcher at the Educational Research Institute in Ljubljana (Slovenia) where he is member of the 'Social Contract in the 21st Century' research programme. He is author of several scholarly articles and editor of a number of journal special issues on citizenship education, multicul-turalism, toleration, equal opportunities and patriotism. He is Managing Editor of Theory and Research in Education [http://tre.sagepub.com/] and member of the editorial board of Educational Philosophy and Theory and the Open Review of Educational Research. He edited two books published by Wiley (Citizenship, Inclusion and Democracy and Toleration, Respect and Recognition in Education). He is also a contributing author to the SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy. He is editor-in-chief of The Handbook of Patriotism [http://ref-works.springer.com/Patriotism] that is to be published by Springer in 2017.
42
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 43
Coleman's Third Report
Marjan Simenc*1 and Mojca Straus2
^^ The article analyses the (third) Coleman Report on private and public schools. The report scrutinises the relationship between private and public schools and shows that private school students show better academic achievement. Coleman concluded that these findings provided a strong argument in favour of public financial support for private schools. However, he identified a number of school characteristics that he believed to be related to student achievement.
According to his analysis, these characteristics were not limited to private schools; public schools exhibiting the same characteristics also had good results. Coleman interpreted the available data in favour of financial aid to private schools, although this was not the only possible interpretation. An alternative conclusion would have been to encourage these characteristics in public schools.
Why did Coleman disregard this possibility? Why did he deviate from his usual scientific rigour? The present article suggests that there appear to be two reasons for the narrow interpretation of the relationship between public and private schools in Coleman's third report. The first lies in Cole-man's notion of contemporary society as a constructed system in which every individual actor holds a place in the structure and requires incentives in order to act to the benefit of society. In the case of education, the goal of the institution is to ensure the high cognitive achievement of students, and the incentive is related to choice and competition. The second reason is related to Coleman's vision of sociology as a discipline aiding the construction of an effective society.
Keywords: Coleman Report, private schools, public schools, competition, parental vouchers
1	* Corresponding Author. Faculty of Education and Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; marjan.simenc@guest.arnes.si.
2	Educational Research Institute, Slovenia.
44 coleman's third report
Colemanovo tretje poročilo
Marjan Šimenc in Mojca Štraus
^^ Članek analizira (tretje) Colemanovo poročilo o zasebnih in javnih šolah. Poročilo je preiskovalo razmerje med zasebnimi in javnimi šolami ter pokazalo, da so bili učenci v zasebnih šolah akademsko uspešnejši. Sklep poročila je bil, da so te ugotovitve močen argument v prid javni finančni podpori zasebnim šolam, vendar je identificiral tudi vrsto značilnosti šol, ki naj bi bile povezane z uspehi učencev. Po Colemanovi analizi pa se te značilnosti ne nanašajo samo na zasebne šole; tudi javne šole s takimi značilnostmi imajo dobre rezultate. Coleman je podatke interpretiral, kot da govorijo v prid finančni pomoči zasebnim šolam, vendar to ni bila edina mogoča interpretacija. Alternativni sklep je bil, da se te značilnosti spodbuja tudi v javnih šolah. Zakaj Coleman ni upošteval te možnosti? Zakaj pri tem vprašanju ni ravnal s svojo običajno znanstveno strogostjo? Članek predlaga, da za ozko interpretacijo razmerja med javnimi in zasebnimi šolami v Colemanovem tretjem poročilu obstajata dva razloga. Prvi izhaja iz Colemanovega razumevanja sodobne družbe kot konstruiranega sistema, v katerem ima vsak posamezni akter mesto v sistemu in potrebuje spodbudo, da bi deloval v korist družbe. Pri edukaciji je cilj institucije zagotoviti visoke kognitivne dosežke učencev, spodbuda pa je povezana z izbiro in s tekmovanjem. Drugi razlog je povezan s Colemanovo vizijo sociologije kot discipline, ki pomaga graditi učinkovito družbo.
Ključne besede: Colemanovo poročilo, zasebne šole, javne šole, tekmovanje, starševski vavčerji
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 45
Introduction: the three reports
Empirical research of education holds a special place in the work of American sociologist James Coleman. His study on educational equality marked a turning point in U.S. education policy. His report was based on an extensive empirical sample and paved the way for a new era in educational research, with its findings radically transforming the approach to equality in education.
In the report - produced by several scholars, Coleman being one of them - Coleman was appointed as the principal investigator of the project and is therefore known to many non-sociologists as the author of the Coleman Report. However, this was not the only report by Coleman that merits the status of a Coleman Report, i.e., a report using empirical research to question established beliefs. There are two other reports by Coleman that used a similar method. Both met with strong opposition, but were nevertheless received as reports (also) containing valuable findings and influencing the predominant comprehension in society.
The first of these two reports was entitled Trends in School Segregation, and was presented to the American Educational Research Association in April 1975. Coleman analysed data from 20 school districts and determined that court-ordered busing did not mitigate segregation in schools, due to the fact that, in addition to the intended consequences, the busing policy had other unexpected consequences. Parents of white children responded to the busing policy with a mass exodus termed "white flight": white parents and their children moved to other school districts in order to avoid having their children sit in the same class as black classmates. The report elicited strong reactions. Coleman's first report served as a justification for the busing policy, but the second report yielded strong arguments against this very policy. This gave rise to outrage amongst the proponents of the busing policy, as well as within the American Sociological Association. Both viewed the report as an attack on the desegregation policy; attempts were even made to revoke Coleman's membership in the association.
However, this was not Coleman's last empirical study to attract public attention. In 1980, he studied the relationship between public and private schools. His report, entitled Private and Public Schools, showed that private schools taught students significantly more than public schools. It is this third report by Coleman that is discussed in the present article.
46 coleman's third report
The third report
Coleman's third report is a report on private schools. Like the first report, the third report was the result of the collaborative work of several authors; both co-authors, Thomas Hoffer and Sally Kilgore, later completed PhDs on the comparison between private and public schools. The report scrutinises the relationship between private and public schools in an attempt to show that private school students show better academic achievement and that private schools contribute to desegregation.
In his research, Coleman analysed the data collected in the baseline survey for the longitudinal study High School and Beyond. The study was commissioned by the National Center for Education Statistics and carried out by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. The first survey was administered in 1980 and involved 894 public schools, 84 Catholic schools and 27 non-Catholic private schools, with a total of almost 60,000 students participating. Detailed information on the schools was collected, while the students completed a background questionnaire and underwent a cognitive skills test.
The analysis focused on the students' cognitive outcomes and their interest in university education. For the purposes of the study, cognitive outcomes were measured using reading, vocabulary and mathematics tests. In both sophomore and senior years, private school students from the Catholic schools and the other private schools performed better. When the draft report was published, Coleman admitted that the sample of non-Catholic private schools was too limited to lead to any conclusive findings on other private schools, so they were not included in further discussions. In terms of the students' aspirations to continue their education at university, the results followed the same pattern: a higher number of students at Catholic high schools were willing to go to university compared to public school students.
What remained unclear was whether the better achievement and higher aspirations were the result of the education, i.e., the work of private schools, or merely a characteristic of the students who chose to enrol in these schools, i.e., the result of selection bias. In order to respond to this question, Coleman performed a series of tests. The first test focused on the impact of the students' family background and measured the impact of all of the background characteristics that were most closely related to achievement. After this control, the gap in achievement decreased, but private schools still remained in the lead.
Coleman then went on to verify the increase in achievement between the sophomore and senior years. The growth rate was similar in both Catholic and
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 47
public schools, but with a drop-out rate in public schools that was twice as high as in private schools, the advances in knowledge between the sophomore and senior years were significantly higher in private schools than in public schools.
Furthermore, there was a significant difference between private and public schools in the homogeneity of achievement. In Catholic schools, the children of parents with various levels of completed education were found to have comparable academic achievement, while disadvantaged students in public schools showed significantly poorer results. In the senior year, the differences between minority students and other students reduced somewhat in Catholic schools and increased slightly in public schools. These three findings all pointed to the same trend, leading Coleman to conclude that private schools were better than public schools when it comes to cognitive achievement.
The next question to be resolved was which differences between public and private schools accounted for the better achievement of private school students. Coleman identified two school factors related to student achievement. He found that private school students tended to be more engaged in academic activities, to attend school more regularly, to do more homework and to take more academic courses. Private schools set higher academic demands, leading to better achievement. The second factor was student behaviour. Private schools tended to have a better disciplinary climate, which also affects student achievement. This part of Coleman's report anticipated the effective school movement.
After the cognitive effects, Coleman tackled the social divisiveness of private education. He introduced a distinction between two types of segregation: the segregation between the public and the private sector, and the segregation between schools within each sector. Private schools did in fact enable the well-off to become segregated from public schools, so the number of black students in private schools was significantly lower than in public schools (in Catholic schools, the share of black students was half that in public schools). This difference was mostly the result of income inequality: only children whose parents could afford to pay the tuition fees were enrolled in private schools, making this type of segregation inevitable. However, Coleman pointed out that segregation also existed among public schools. This segregation was reflected in residential mobility, allowing parents to segregate their children from minority students. When it came to segregation within the sector, it was the public sector that was more affected. The private sector was found to be less prone to this type of segregation, and Coleman even calculated that private schools had in fact contributed to reducing segregation in American schools.
Coleman adopted a similar approach when dealing with economic divisiveness. In this respect, he also managed to show that the public sector
48 coleman's third report
exhibited more internal segregation with regard to income than the private sector. In the bigger picture, however, private schools were shown to have contributed to greater segregation between students in terms of income. Religion was found to play a similar role, and Catholic private schools were shown to have contributed to greater segregation between students in U.S. schools with regard to religion.
Based on these findings, Coleman introduced the discussion on the efficiency of financial aid enabling access to private schools. As financial assistance would allow children from less well-off families to go to private schools, Coleman believed that such a policy would lead to a higher share of black students in private schools, thus reducing segregation in the education system. According to his interpretation, all of the facts pointed to the conclusion that financial aid enabling access to private schools would be beneficial, as it would result in better cognitive achievement as well as less racial segregation.
Reactions to Coleman's third report
The report was a surprise to everyone, including the Department of Education, which delayed its publication by six months and then convened a consultation in April 1981, at which the report was severely criticised. The final version of the report was released in the autumn of 1981, and it was published as a monograph entitled High School Achievement: Public, Catholic, and Private Schools Compared in 1982.
Criticism was directed against all of the major highlights of the report. Some responses focused on the applied method, pointing out that the use of a different method would have yielded different results. If three further background variables had been added to the 17 used by Coleman in his analysis, the advantage in favour of Catholic schools would be virtually non-existent. In his analysis, Jay Noell (Noell, 1981) included four additional variables in addition to the 17 used by Coleman: gender, handicap status, region of residence and early college expectations. With these additional variables taken into account, the difference between the cognitive achievement in public and private schools became almost negligible. Furthermore, no background analysis could replace the measurement of student achievement prior to entering high school, which would have been the most reliable indicator of whether or not students enrolling in private schools were indeed more capable. Coleman had no such data available.
The measurement of differences in the achievement of students in the sophomore and senior years was questioned because the cognitive test was not designed to provide a reliable measurement of advances. With regard to the
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 49
alleged anti-segregation effect of private schools, critics pointed out that a comparison would have to be made between the effects schools had at a local level, since the global comparison did not generate accurate results.
Critics also called into question the ambiguous status of elements conducive to achievement, namely discipline and the academic demands of the school. In some instances, Coleman treated these as elements correlating with achievement and considered them as statistical regularities and patterns. On other occasions, these elements were viewed as being a result of education policy, suggesting that a causal relationship exists between school policy, student behaviour and student achievement. Coleman's analyses provided no basis for this latter assumption.
With regard to the potential impacts of increasing support for private schools, critics highlighted a number of contentious issues. The fact that private schools select their students significantly affects the functioning of these schools. The selection of students is therefore closely related to the operation and success of private schools, with less motivated students predominately being confined to public schools. Murnane thus raised a question that is crucial to Coleman's emphasis on the advantages of private schools:
"In particular, it is important to learn whether such policies would bring about beneficial change in the in-school behaviours of troubled and indifferent students or whether the policies would only make it easier for individual schools to avoid working with such students (thereby relegating them to another school whose effectiveness would suffer as a result). ... The distinction is critical in evaluating whether a particular policy change would be a useful strategy for reforming a school system committed to educating all students" (Murnane, 1984, p. 271).
Furthermore, Coleman's report provided no data indicating how private schools would respond to increased demand. They might respond by extending their offer or they might simply increase their tuition fees. It was even less clear how the increased number of students would affect the work and functioning of these schools, so it was impossible to conclude that the introduction of vouchers would result in less segregation and better achievement for all students, as claimed by Coleman.
From today's perspective, what was put forward appears to be a series of valid and well-argued considerations. However, what is also clear from today's perspective is that selection bias cannot be eliminated using the approach adopted by Coleman. Other types of information and other methods are required.
50 coleman's third report
Murnane (Murnane, 1981) also pointed out that Coleman's third report is quite similar to the first one in terms of openness to interpretation. Upon the publication of the first report, public attention did not focus on the abundance of important new data on education contained in the report; the report mostly became known for the theses that schools did not matter and that busing was the most efficient way to improve the education of minority students. According to Murnane, it took years of theoretical analyses and social upheaval before it became clear that these theses could not really be deduced from the database available to the authors at the time. Murnane went on to express his concern that Coleman's third report might suffer the same fate when it comes to the relationship between the achievements in public and private schools and the consequences of introducing vouchers. These claims had no basis in the collected data, but were so prominent in the report that they might well overshadow the numerous well-founded findings contained in the report.
However, Coleman's third report can also be considered as a criticism of his first report. By trying to identify the characteristics of successful schools, Coleman in fact criticises the false interpretation of his first report. The view that "schools don't matter" was formed on the basis of (a misinterpretation of) Coleman's first report. The report revealed how strong an influence parents had on student achievement, which gave rise to the belief that schools were completely powerless compared to the overwhelming impact of parents. It is true that, in his first report, Coleman himself never stated that schools were irrelevant, but it is also true that his first report contained no indication to the contrary that would exclude the possibility of such interpretations.
One of the critics made this very point, emphasising that the key result of the study was not the advocacy of policies toward private schools, even though Coleman himself addressed this as a vital point. What was crucial was that "schools do make a difference" when it comes to how much students learn: "To my knowledge, the authors offer the first large-scale statistical confirmation of what educational ethnographers have been reposting for several years ... about the characteristic of 'effective' schools" (Finn, 1981, p. 510).
According to Finn, these findings were "almost revolutionary" in the light of the prevailing trends in education, although he goes on to add that this revolution had already started at the level of official policy and was called "back to basics". It seems that Coleman was merely articulating something that was already in existence and confirming a trend already in progress in schools. In this respect, Finn draws attention to the unusual effect of science: "Experienced
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 51
teachers certainly knew that how they handle their math classes affected how much math students learned, but they have not had any support of social scientists in an era when it is increasingly important to demonstrate quantitatively that something 'works' before you can do more of it" (Finn, 1981, p. 511).
This was an unexpected consequence of Coleman's research. Without deliberately intending to do so, Coleman contributed to the formation of a new public space. Since his findings had a strong empirical and mathematical/statistical foundation, and as such were based on hard science, they were able to pave the way for new standards in teaching and education. It appears that a teacher's experience was no longer sufficient; the teacher's practical experience must be grounded in science in order to be valid. In his first report, Coleman made no explicit assertion that schools had no impact on student achievement; nevertheless, the repercussions of his report were not limited to responses to explicit claims but also included reactions to what was merely implied. It appears that some of these implied assumptions even provoked a stronger public reaction than the meticulously elaborated theses.
From school to parental vouchers
Coleman identified a number of school characteristics that he believed to be related to student achievement. According to his analysis, these characteristics were not limited to private schools; public schools exhibiting the same characteristics also had good results:
"When we examined, wholly within the public sector, the performance of the students similar to the average public school sophomore, but with the levels of homework and attendance attributable to school policy in the Catholic or other private schools, and those levels of disciplinary climate and students behaviour attributable to school policy in the Catholic or other private schools, the levels of achievement are approximately the same as those found in the Catholic and other private sectors" (Coleman, 1981, p. 25).
Coleman considered this fact to be a confirmation of the "school effect", i.e., a confirmation that what is behind the better performance of private schools is the specific functioning and organisation of these schools rather than the specific (better) structure of the enrolled students. Since his research showed that private schools were more effective, particularly for underprivileged students, and since private schools did not contribute to segregation, Coleman concluded that the findings of his research provided an argument in favour of financial support for private schools.
52 coleman's third report
Critics were quick to question the accuracy of this deduction (Murnane, 1984). Given that discipline and academic demands correlated with good cognitive achievement in both public and private schools, financial incentive for private schools was not the only possible conclusion. An alternative conclusion, or perhaps even the primary conclusion, was encouraging these characteristics in public schools. So why did Coleman disregarded this possibility?
One possible explanation is that it was difficult to provide such a learning environment in public schools. Coleman pointed to a number of differences between private and public schools that could explain why a stimulative learning environment was rarely present in public schools. For instance, public school principals have less autonomy in managing the school, which Coleman illustrated with a typical example: "Public schools have greater constraints on suspending or expelling students than do private schools ..." (Coleman, 1981, pp. 25-26).
In a different article, Coleman similarly stressed that "the constraints imposed on schools in the public sector (and there is no evidence that those constraints are financial, compared with the private sector) seem to impair their functioning as educational institutions, without providing the more egalitarian outcome that is one of the goals of public schooling" (Coleman, Hoffer & Kilgore, 1982a, p. 9).
Coleman associated public schools with limitations preventing them from functioning well as schools; however, he made no attempt to analyse why these limitations had been introduced. His discourse seems to imply that public control over education should be viewed as a source of difficulty rather than as democratic leadership guiding schools to act to the benefit of the population and society. Coleman considers the public domain to be related to limitations, to something that is bad in itself, as it prevents a public institution from operating effectively. He nonetheless fails to investigate why society is preventing its own institutions from functioning properly.
Coleman also failed to address another fact uncovered by his research, namely that there are major differences between public schools, just as there are significant differences between private schools, and that the ascertained differences between the private and public sectors are in fact minute compared to those within each of the sectors. Despite the different framework conditions (tuition fees, selection upon enrolment, the possibility of expelling students, different parent motivation, etc.), the fact is that certain private schools resemble certain public schools more than other private schools. As one of the commentators in the debate on the differences in knowledge levels of public and private school students put it:
"In sum, although there is some disagreement about the existence of
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 53
different outcomes in public schools and in private schools, the biggest disagreements occur with respect to the significance and interpretation of the small differences that occur and with respect to the posited causes of sectoral outcome differences" (Persell, 2000, p. 391).
This comment seems to imply that Coleman's interpretation of the differences between public and private schools was not unbiased. Coleman appears to have strayed from his general principle of making sure his claims were well argued and empirically supported. Why did he deviate from his usual scientific rigour?
In the introductions to his articles, as well as in the monograph Public and Private Schools, Coleman links his work to establishing facts. The object of his research is topical and contentious; it is a subject of public debate and a juncture of conflicting interests. Coleman sees his role as contributing to ensuring that public debate is founded in facts:
"The role of private schools in American education, however, has emerged as an important policy question in recent years. Although any answer to this question depends in part on values, it also depends on facts ... These conflicting policy efforts are all based on certain assumptions about the role of private and public schools in the United States. Examining the assumptions, and showing their truth or falsity, will not in itself resolve the policy questions concerning the role of public and private education in America. Those policy questions include certain value premises as well, such as a relative role of the state and the family in controlling a child's education. This examination will, however, strengthen the factual base on which the policy conflicts are fought" (Coleman & Hoffer & Kilgore, 1982a, p. 4).
Although Coleman makes no explicit claim that there is a clear dividing line between facts and values, his words imply just that. His contribution is related to extracting the relevant substantive issues and facilitating a more informed debate. For Coleman, that is the main virtue of his third report: the prevailing impression had been that Catholic schools used outdated teaching methods and that any education obtained in a Catholic school was inferior to an education obtained in public schools. Coleman's study showed that this impression was not (no longer) true. Thanks to his research, the public debate on private schools would be of better quality, as discussions on the effectiveness of private schools would no longer be based on prejudice and opinion, but rather on scientifically established facts.
54 coleman's third report
However, Coleman modifies his position slightly in his discussions with critics of his third report. Critics reproach him for not maintaining the division between facts and values in his reasoning, causing the reader to have difficulty separating the descriptions revealing significant new findings from recommendations that go beyond what can be derived from facts.
Coleman's response starts with a reference to the distinction between a "policy argument" and a "disciplined inquiry" introduced by one of his critics. His arguments then follow two lines. On the one hand, he tries to show that there is no significant difference between research aiming to contribute to the formation of public policies and research undertaken solely for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of reality. An interest in contributing to public debate does not undermine the scientific integrity of research.
For Coleman, the impression that a disciplined inquiry involves an approach that is fundamentally different than that of a policy inquiry, and that scientific research consists in the researcher acting as a "passive judge, weighting evidence and coming up with an authoritative judgement" (Coleman, Hoffer & Kilgore, 1981b, p. 541) is misleading. Even in the case of a disciplined inquiry, the researcher should be viewed as an investigator actively exploring in several directions, abandoning paths that contradict facts and continuing along those consistent with facts. In this process, "statistical tests are used as constraints, as reins to keep the developing concepts consistent with reality itself" (ibid.). Because research is about exploring several different paths, it is no longer limited to merely establishing facts. Even though Coleman does speak of a "conception of reality", he notes that this does not imply that the researcher is ever finished or ever reaches a final, "incontestable conception of reality" (ibid.).
Coleman believes that the role of rivals in any given discipline is to verify the researcher's deductions and point out any deficiencies. He associates science with competition and internalises the external criticism of results: the very nature of research demands that results be verified by others from outside. Critical responses are therefore not viewed as unwarranted attacks against the inquiry, but rather as an indispensable part of it. According to such a conception, no inquiry is complete until it has received the reactions of others who will identify any potential deficiencies. Yet Coleman goes on to add:
"These become starting points for investigations of possible alternative conceptions of reality; but until one of those alternative conceptions is developed and proves more consistent with the evidence from reality, the original conception stands" (ibid.).
This position is markedly different from the introductions in which Coleman presents his research as the establishment of facts that are distinct
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 55
from values. Coming to the defence of his work, he introduces a conception of research in which the final result is not facts, but rather a model of reality. From the epistemological point of view, Coleman's position appears to be a mixture of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Like Popper, Coleman emphasises that a scientist must formulate bold theses that can be refuted; however, unlike Popper, he does not view the refutation of a thesis as a refutation of the theory. In this respect, Coleman is closer to Kuhn. Just as an old scientific paradigm cannot be deemed refuted just because individual thesis have been refuted, Coleman believes that the true refutation of the results of his research does not lie in the rebuttal of individual findings, but in the formulation of a new explanation providing a complex interpretation of reality.
Coleman's position on the role of research becomes even more radical in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In a lecture at a conference entitled "Social Theory and Emerging Issues in a Changing Society", he describes the evolution of social organisation from primordial through spontaneous to constructed. Primordial organisation is face to face: any individual enters it at birth. Spontaneous social organisation is generated "from two-person transactions" in which both parties have an interest in the transaction. Constructed society is an artificial formation established for a specific purpose. Just as we are able to build artificial environments with roads and buildings, people can create artificial and purpose-built institutions. Hence, the brief for sociology is clear: "It should be a theory developed to aid in the construction of social organization" (Coleman, 1991, p. 8). The aim of sociological research is no longer to establish facts, but to facilitate the construction of society.
Coleman's understanding of sociology as an engaged science originates from his conception of contemporary society. Society as such is constantly evolving; the construction of society is in progress, regardless of whether or not science is involved in these processes. Hence, it is better if science is involved. Coleman thus concluded the inaugural speech after his election as president of the American Sociological Association with an appeal to sociologists to participate in the transformation of society:
"The construction of society will go on, with or without sociologists, as the institutions of primordial social organization crumble. It is the task of sociologists to aid in that construction, to bring to it understanding of social processes, to ensure that this construction of society is not naive, that it is indeed a rational reconstruction of society" (Coleman, 1993, p. 14).
It appears that Coleman himself followed these guidelines throughout his life. He developed his theory not only to describe reality, but to contribute
56 coleman's third report
to the construction of a better society. A better society includes clear incentive for action and, in the field of education, such incentive is related to choice, competition and vouchers. In a discussion on the role of choice in education, he stated the following:
"The movement toward choice is the first step in a movement toward getting the incentives right in education-incentives for both the suppliers of educational services, that is, schools and their teachers, and for the consumers of education, that is, parents and children. The incentives for schools that a voucher system would introduce would include an interest in attracting and keeping the best students they could. The incentives for parents and students would include the ability to get into schools they find attractive and to remain in those schools" (Coleman, 1992, p. 260).
His attitude towards the family clearly reveals the radical nature of his commitment. The family as a primordial social organisation is in decline, so social innovation is required: "If we make that conceptual change - as we must, given the rapid disintegration of the family - the term most used by architects, design becomes relevant, and the terms most used by economists, maximization and optimization, become relevant as well: In thinking seriously about educational institutions as being constructed, the idea of designing the institution to maximize the child's value to society becomes appropriate" (Coleman,
1993, p. 11).
Coleman himself admits that the expression maximise the child's value to society is unusual, but he insists on using it; just as he insists that it makes sense to subject the upbringing of children to a cost and benefits analysis and to consider the possibility of incentives. His notion of upbringing obviously also includes payments to parents that will increase the child's value to society: "The bounty, or potential for payment, would be initially held by parents, restoring to them, in effect, property rights over a portion of their children's productivity. There rights, this bounty, would be marketable by parents to whatever actor undertook to take responsibility for developing the child in a way that would reduce the costs and increase the benefits to the state ... This new property right would be something like a school voucher ..." (Coleman, 1993, p. 13)
The suggestion of a general upbringing voucher paid by society to parents to cover all of the costs related to raising children in order to ensure that the child will be as beneficial as possible for society only goes to show what
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 57
radical views on the functioning of society Coleman adopted in the last part of his life. Yet it seems that these radical claims are merely an unreserved expression of views that had been present from the very start of his career in some inarticulate way.
It has been demonstrated how Coleman interpreted the results of his study comparing public and private schools to favour financial aid to private schools, even though the data allowed for other interpretations. He adopted a negative attitude towards public schools, comparing tuition fees to a "protective tariff" protecting "the public schools from competition by private schools" (Coleman, 1981, p. 28) and claimed that tuition fees benefited the producers rather than the consumers. His reasoning used the (alleged) fact that Catholic private schools were more successful than public schools to conclude that public support for private schools is required, thereby resorting to the language of economics, which reduces education to an "industry" and public schools to an "overregulated industry" (Coleman, 1981, p. 30).
Polemicising with his critics, Coleman was even more uncompromising: "Defence of public education in the name of equal opportunity often amounts to little more than a defence of the producers of education for the poor rather than the interest of the consumers, the poor themselves" (Coleman & Hoffer & Kilgore, 1981b, p. 537). This attitude points to an important motivation behind his advocacy of private schools. According to Coleman, a system where private schools do not receive public aid will "harm most the interest of those least well-off and protect those public schools that are the worst" (Coleman, 1981, p. 30). Support for private schools, even elite ones, is in the interest of the most disadvantaged people. In this very persuasive political rhetoric bringing together the rich and the poor in support of private schools, Coleman seems to forget that students who are not motivated to learn and would as such be expelled from private schools may well be the students who are "the least welloff". Underprivileged students are not all students who want to learn but cannot afford to go to a high-quality school that would allow them to advance; some of them are students expelled from more demanding schools in an effort to maintain high academic demands. It is these latter students who prevent some public schools from being as demanding as private schools, which can simply rid themselves of such students.
In spite of his commitment to empirical research, Coleman does not undertake an empirical inquiry to establish who these unmotivated students who would be the first victims of ruthless competition in the field of education actually are. Perhaps there is in fact no need to undertake such an inquiry: the 1966 study had already revealed that there is a link between socioeconomic status
58 coleman's third report
and school achievement. All that is missing is the information on who the students with no motivation to learn - students whom public schools should expel but are unable to do so due to regulations - actually are. In the course of his analysis of the equality of opportunity, Coleman could have addressed the question as to whether these inequalities correspond to income or racial inequalities, yet - surprisingly - this issue was never raised. In the light of his extraordinary ability to ask pertinent questions, it seems that Coleman also has the ability to completely disregard certain issues.
Conclusion
In the course of his career, Coleman completed a journey from emphasising a neutral role of sociology, which is merely there to establish facts, to insisting that sociology must contribute to the efficient construction of an effective society. His view of society is primarily that of a set of individuals making decisions. The key task in the construction of society is finding the right incentives. Once this is done, the system will operate optimally. According to Coleman, effective education is based on choice and competition.
In the light of the above, there appear to be two reasons for the narrow interpretation of the relationship between public and private schools in Cole-man's third report. The first is his notion of contemporary society as a constructed system in which each individual actor holds a place in the structure and requires incentives in order to act to the benefit of society. In the case of education, the goal of the institution is to ensure the high cognitive achievement of students, and the incentive is related to choice and competition. The second reason is his vision of sociology as a discipline aiding the construction of an effective society.
As a result of these two baseline attitudes, Coleman interpreted the available data in favour of financial aid to private schools, even though this was neither the only possible interpretation nor the interpretation dictated by the data.
The result of this analysis of Coleman's third report is of a more general nature. The report provides a good illustration of the narrow-mindedness of claiming that data require a certain organisation of education, or that private schools are more or less successful than public schools. Coleman interprets data within the framework of his vision of society. The data themselves say little about the way schools should operate; they only start to become meaningful against the backdrop of a vision of education and society. If the vision is one of choice, consumption, the market and competition, then the data are bound to say something in favour of this vision.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 59
References
Astin, A. W. (1992). Educational 'Choice': Its Appeal May Be Illusory. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 255-260.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartlan, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R.
L. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J. S. (1967). Toward open schools. The Public Interest, 3(3), 20-27.
Coleman, J. S. (1975). Recent Trends in School Integration, Educational Researcher, 4(7), 3-12.
Coleman, J. S. (1981). Private schools, public schools, and the public interest. The Public Interest, 17(3),
19-30.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1981a). Public and Private Schools. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1981b). Questions and Answers: Our Response. Harvard Educational Review, 51(4), 526-545.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982a). Public and Private Schools. Society, 19(2), 4-9. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982b). Cognitive Outcomes in Public and Private Schools.
Sociology of Education, 55(2), 65-76.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982c). Achievement and Segregation in Secondary Schools: A Further Look at Public and Private School Differences. Sociology of Education, 55(2), 162-182. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982d). High School Achievement: Public, Catholic, and Private Schools Compared. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J. S. (1989). Response to the Sociology of Education Award. Academic Questions, 2(3), 76-78.
Coleman, J. S. (1991). Prologue: Constructed Social Organization. In P. Bourdieu, & J. S. Coleman, (Eds.), Social Theory for a Changing Society (pp. 1-14), Boulder: Westview Press. Coleman, J. S. (1992). Some Points on Choice in Education. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 260-262. Coleman, J. S. (1993). The Rational Reconstruction of Society. 1992 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review 58(1), 1-15.
Finn, C. E. (1981). Why Public and Private Schools Matter. Harvard Educational Review, 51(4), 510-514. Murnane, R. J. (1981). Evidence, Analysis and Unanswered Questions. Harvard Educational Review,
51(4), 483-489.
Murnane, R. J. (1984). A Review Essay - Comparisons of Public and Private Schools: Lessons from the Uproar. The Journal of Human Resources, 19(2), 263-277.
Noell, J. (1982). Public and Catholic Schools: A Reanalysis of "Public and Private Schools". Sociology of Education, 55(2), 123-132.
Persell, C. H. (2000). Values, Control, and Outcomes in Public and Private Schools. In Hallinan M. H. (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education (pp. 387-407). New York: Springer. Sernau, S. (1992). School Choices, Rational and Otherwise: A Comment on Coleman. Sociology of Education, 66(1), 88-90.
60 coleman's third report
Biographical note
Marjan Simenc is associate professor of philosophy and assistant professor of sociology of education. He works at the Faculty of Education (Ljubljana) and the Faculty of Arts (Ljubljana). He was national research coordinator for CIVED and ICCS (IEA) studies. His main research interests are philosophy and sociology of education.
Mojca Straus is a researcher in international and national studies of different areas in education and served as the leader of many research projects at the Educational Research Institute. Currently, she is the national coordinator and the member of the Governing Board of the PISA Study. In addition to research in education, her research work focuses on statistical approaches to analyzing the data from international comparative studies.
foCus	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 61
The Age of Studies and Reports: Selected Elements Concerning the Background of Encounters Defining the Power of Education
Veronika Tasner*1 and Slavko Gaber2
^^ In the present paper, we discuss the time before the "age of reports". Besides the Coleman Report in the period of Coleman, the Lady Plowden Report also appeared, while there were important studies in France (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1964; Peyre, 1959) and studies that inaugurated comprehensive education in Nordic countries. We focus on the period after the World War II, which was marked by rising economic nationalism, on the one hand, and by the second wave of mass education, on the other, bearing the promise of more equality and a reduction of several social inequalities, both supposed to be ensured by school. It was a period of great expectations related to the power of education and the rise of educational meritocracy. On this background, in the second part of the paper, the authors attempt to explore the phenomenon of the aforementioned reports, which significantly questioned the power of education and, at the same time, enabled the formation of evidence-based education policies. In this part of the paper, the central place is devoted to the case of socialist Yugoslavia/Slovenia and its striving for more equality and equity through education. Through the socialist ideology of more education for all, socialist Yugoslavia, with its exaggerated stress on the unified school and its overemphasised belief in simple equality, overstepped the line between relying on comprehensive education as an important mechanism for increasing the possibility of more equal and just education, on the one hand, and the myth of the almighty unified school capable of eradicating social inequalities, especially class inequalities, on the other. With this radical approach to the reduction of inequalities, socialist policy in the then Yugoslavia paradoxically reduced the opportunity for greater equality, and even more so for more equitable education.
Keywords: equality, equity, mass education, the age of reports, socialist Yugoslavia/ Slovenia
1	*Corresponding Author. Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; veronika.tasner@pef.uni-lj.si.
2	Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
62
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
Obdobje študij in poročil - izbrani elementi ozadij spoprijemov, ki določajo moč edukacije
Veronika Tašner in Slavko Gaber
^^ V prispevku obravnavamo obdobje, ki je uvedlo čas poročil; ob Cole-manovem poročilu namreč šestdeseta leta 20. stoletja zaznamujejo še poročilo Lady Plowden in nekatere pomembnejše študije družbenih neenakosti v Franciji (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1964; Peyre, 1959) ter študije, ki so utemeljile uvajanje skupne šole v nordijskih državah. Pod drobnogled jemljemo obdobje po drugi svetovni vojni, za katero je na eni strani značilen ekonomski nacionalizem, na drugi strani pa drugi val množičnega izobraževanja, ki v sebi nosi obljubo po večji enakosti in odpravi nekaterih družbenih neenakostih, oboje pa naj bi omogočila prav šola. Gre za obdobje velikih pričakovanj, položenih v moč edukacije in uveljavljanja edukacijske meritokracije. Na izpostavljenih ozadjih v drugem delu članka poskušamo pojasniti pojav in pomen omenjenih poročil, ki so pomembna načela vere v moč edukacije, hkrati pa omogočajo snovanje na podatkih temelječe edukacijske politike. Osrednje mesto v tem delu besedila pa imajo primer socialistične Jugoslavije/ Slovenije in njena prizadevanja za dosego večje enakosti ter vprašanje pravičnosti v edukaciji. Skozi socialistično ideologijo, ki je zagovarjala več edukacije za vse, je socialistična Jugoslavija od stave na moč enotne šole oziroma od stave na preprosto enakost pričakovala preveč. Pri tem je prestopila mejo med pomenom in vlogo skupne šole, ki je sicer pomemben del mehanizma zagotavljanja enakosti in pravičnosti v edukaciji, ter mitom o moči enotne šole, ki naj bi izbrisala socialne, še posebej razredne neenakosti. S tem radikalnim pristopom k brisanju neenakosti je šolska politika v takratni Jugoslaviji po našem prepričanju paradoksalno zmanjšala možnosti za večjo enakost in pravičnost v edukaciji.
Ključne besede: enakost, pravičnost, množično izobraževanje, obdobje poročil, socialistična Jugoslavija/Slovenija
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 63
Introduction
The contextualisation of the exceptionally fruitful wave of reflections/reconsiderations concerning the power of education in the 1960s seems logically connected to the so-called second wave of mass education, which added the demand for the best possible use of a nation's talents to the first wave's demand for basic education (e.g., Husen, 1974; Brown, 1997),3 thus bringing about an important shift in contemporary education.
Brown (1997) locates the second wave of mass education in the time after WWII, the period of so-called economic nationalism, which, through expectations connected to the slogan "more education", represents an important contribution to the changed status of education in societies. This shift is due to a combination of numerous factors: post-war reconstruction, the positioning of the state as an agent that emerged from post-war class struggles, still fresh memories related to the war horrors, the widely present fear in the West related to the spreading socialism, especially in connection with its supposed power in the field of science, etc. These and other factors in complex interrelations gave rise to the welfare state,4 which was seen as the promise of a decent life and the realisation of the growing expectations of citizens (see Gaber & Marjanovic Umek, 2009). In general, the period between 1946 and 1973 is also, in the realm of Western civilisation, a time of rapid economic growth and rapid expansion in the field of education, combined with the promise of the well-considered government of societies.5 One of the characteristics of the period is the growing importance of technocratic and bureaucratic rationality, accompanied with and supported by technical rationality and various kinds of professionalisation (see Brown et al., 1997).
As Weber (1946) claimed, the cultivated man is not enough at the beginning of 20th century: professionalism and the related competencies of
3	"In the post-war period education came to assume a key role in the political economy of nations, contributing to the unprecedented sense of economic and social progress that was a hallmark of the era" (Brown et al., 1997, p. 1).
4	We use the term welfare state in line with Esping-Andersen, who, in the dilemma concerning a narrower or wider concept of the welfare state, opts for a broader view, described as follows: "The broader view often frames its questions in terms of political economy, its interests focused on the state's larger role in managing and organizing the economy. In the broader view, therefore, issues of employment, wages, and overall macro-economic steering are considered integral components in the welfare-state complex. In a sense, this approach identifies its subject matter as the 'Keynesian welfare state' or, if you like, 'welfare capitalism'" (Esping-Andersen, 1996, pp. 1-2).
5	The so-called "glorious thirty", prized by many and relativised by Piketty in terms of policy dependence, actually lasted for 28 years: from 1946 to the oil crises in 1973. French demographer Jean Fourastie coined the term in 1979 with the publication of his book "The Glorious Thirty, or the Invisible Revolution from 1946 to 1975". Piketty describes this period as a rapid economic "catch up" of European countries, which had fallen far behind the United States over the period 1914-1945 (...)" (Piketty, 2014, pp. 96-97).
64	the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
individuals are needed.6 The post-war period was characterised by an unprecedented development of technical rationalisation, grounded in the hierarchical division of work in the field of paid labour and in households. A similar structuring also took place in social subsystems, and thus also in and through the system of education (Brown et al., 1997). The growth of industrialisation, along with the professionalisation of production and the government of social services, drew two previously marginalised segments of the population into the field of paid work, and consequently also into education: working class people and women. Much the same can be said of working class men, who entered professions that demanded education beyond primary education. Both segments in parallel gained an opportunity for vertical mobility. With the aid of the predominant regulative idea of the time - the idea of meritocracy - members of these groups gained a range of new opportunities to change their way of life, and also for a convergence of social status, having long yearned for the symbols of the middle class.
The main impetus for the new round of development in education systems in nations across Europe thus came from the need for properly trained and educated "administrators, engineers and military personnel" (Brown et al., 1997, p. 3), i.e., for qualified workers, enabling the idea of allocating the best-suited workers to the most demanding positions. The importance of the nation in this rearrangement did not fade away; on the contrary, under the new principle of regulation, the nation was even able to gain in importance. School, which in this "new world" took on new tasks, also became an important locus of new individual, national investments and expectations.
On this background, the possibility of a new arena of individual and social positioning meant that both individuals and societies had to develop all of their useful potentials. While the emphasis was on the potential of all members of a nation (in the nations that had been victorious in the war: USA, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.), such an approach logically opened the space for the idea of equal opportunities, which had three main roles in the context of nation states: "It acts as an efficiency principle by (. ) selecting and allocating
6 "Although I had been writing and speaking about space travel for years, I still have vivid memories of exactly when I heard the news. I was in Barcelona for the 8th International Astronautical Congress. We had already retired to our hotel rooms after a busy day of presentations by the time the news broke. I was awakened by reporters seeking an authoritative comment on the Soviet achievement. Our theories and speculations had suddenly become reality! For the next few days, the Barcelona Congress became the scene of much animated discussion about what the United States could do to regain some of its scientific prestige. While manned spaceflight and Moon landings were widely speculated about, many still harboured doubts about an American lead in space. One delegate, noticing that there were 23 American and five Soviet papers at the Congress, remarked that while the Americans talked a lot about spaceflight, the Russians just went ahead and did it!" (Clarke, 2007).
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 65
individuals for the labour market on the basis of ability; it acts as a moral principal (...) and it also acts as a tool of assimilations" (Brown et al., 1997, p. 4).
To sum up, we can say that education after WWII gained a key place in the "political economies" of the respective nations. Due to the democratisation of access to education, it was an important producer of the feeling of economic and social progress and fairness that positively marked a period during which the wounds that the West had inflicted on itself in the two world wars of the century were still healing. In this context, education represented an important promise of a better world.
The educational breakthrough of the period can therefore be attributed to some degree to a fortuitous combination of a desire for the sensible regulation of conviviality between nations after unprecedented horrors, a search for avoidance of new social confrontations, and the ability to shift competition between nations from the field of warfare to the arena of knowledge and science, with their inherent innovations. In the present paper, we discuss the period in which one can observe the working of a combination of the three principles that marked thirty years of the 20th century: "progress, security and opportunity" (Brown et al., 1997, p. 2). These principles gained a real basis in the policies of governments, in business, in families and in education. They were brought together under the umbrella of the conceptualisation of a nation state with the power and responsibility to enable all three of them (see ibid.).
The importance and enforcement of education thus gained impetus and became part of conceptions of the conditions and benefits of economic growth, of security enabling full employment, and of opportunities for everyone who acquired an adequate education. The result was greater social security and professional mobility, which is why education is seen as the "great equalizer" (Husen, 1974, p. 7). There was a growing conviction that adequate education could provide a higher level of employment, and thus also a better future and life, for the less well-off, as well. The belief in education was high in both capitalism and socialism (Husen, 1974), both of which saw it as a solution to more than just one problem. When pointing to the prevailing type of rationality, Husen writes: "by making massive educational resources available to education one would not only boost the economic level of the individual and society at large but also solve major social problems, such as that of mass poverty" (1974, p. 7). While education was widely accepted as the "remedy" for a number of the problems of societies and individuals, parents were also more adamant in claiming an opportunity for themselves and their children. "The school was perceived as a chance for all children, not only for the elite. It was presented as an opportunity to rise to a social and professional position that was higher than the position of
66
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
their parents" (Troger, 2002, p. 17). As a consequence of education, or in relation to education, confidence in educational meritocracy also grew.
During the first wave, secondary and tertiary education were perceived as "capital" available only to a selected few. After WWII, however, the idea emerged of education that could, with consistent care for equal opportunities for education for all, eliminate social inequalities and enable members of society to obtain an appropriate reward in the form of better status in society (Gaber, 2006). At that time, trust in education was strengthened by the combined efforts, investments and expectations of the state, teachers and parents. Meanwhile, power elites promoted education because they recognised it as a way to fully exploit the potential of their nations. With its potential to improve the position of their children, education was embraced by parents, while it is understandable that it also had the support of teachers (see Bourdieu, 1989; Meyer, 1977). As already mentioned, the idea of education for all came to forefront of education reforms, to a degree, both in capitalism and socialism. Competition exchanged the the war arena for the field of education. As such, it gained legitimacy and the future of a world with sensible aims seemed at hand. States began to compete in the fields of science, the economy, technology, etc., with competition of this kind being accepted as necessary "for motivating people" (Husen, 1974, p. 104). We did not, however, only participate in neutral "economic nationalism"; we also witnessed fierce ideological competiveness - we only have to recall the space race between the Soviet Union and the USA - but it was believed that, at the end of the day, such a race could actually lead to a higher standard of living, and was as such beneficial.
When, in the autumn of 1957, the Soviet Union gained an advantage in the space race by launching Sputnik, the USA panicked.7 The search for talent after this event became even more prominent. The best in a nation should bring that nation advantage in relation to others. After two wars, both individual and public investment in education, science and technology grew significantly. Just how crucial education seemed for a nation like the USA is indicated by the fact that one year after Sputnik they passed the National Defence Education Act.
7 "Although I had been writing and speaking about space travel for years, I still have vivid memories of exactly when I heard the news. I was in Barcelona for the 8th International Astronautical Congress. We had already retired to our hotel rooms after a busy day of presentations by the time the news broke. I was awakened by reporters seeking an authoritative comment on the Soviet achievement. Our theories and speculations had suddenly become reality! For the next few days, the Barcelona Congress became the scene of much animated discussion about what the United States could do to regain some of its scientific prestige. While manned spaceflight and Moon landings were widely speculated about, many still harboured doubts about an American lead in space. One delegate, noticing that there were 23 American and five Soviet papers at the Congress, remarked that while the Americans talked a lot about spaceflight, the Russians just went ahead and did it!" (Clarke, 2007).
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 67
Perhaps even more important, as Husen points out, was that education was not only tied to growth of the competitive power of nations, but also incorporated the notion of improvement of individual wellbeing: the opportunity to lead one's life freely and with one's own idea of what is worth living for. Men and women were supposed to gain an opportunity for self-realisation. However, it was only in the years of the next reconsideration of education in the form of "reports"8 that we witness at least two dimensions of the important breakthrough of meritocracy: individual and social, both of which restructure education in Western Europe (Husen, 1974). Which dimension prevailed at any one moment depended on the dominant social and political philosophy, or on the type of rationality prevalent in a specific society in a certain period: if the society was more liberal, its focus was more on the individual and his or her self-realisation, whereas in societies with a more developed collective component the use of talent was predominately related to the growing power of the national economy (for more on this, see Husen, 1974).
During the second wave of mass education, the type of educational rationality - and with it the approach to positioning the individual and the group in society - shifted for good from "social ascription to one based upon age, aptitude and ability" (Brown, 1997, p. 394). With the new rationality, the emphasis on talent and effort, together with individual achievement, came to the fore. This was supposed to outline a new educational, professional path, and even to change the role of citizens in societies in the second half of 20th century.
Everyone with a certain level of intelligence and a preparedness to invest effort in education should have equal access to public positions that demand demonstrable ability. It is thus assumed that education is capable of identifying and selecting talented and motivated individuals, and of providing education related to individual merit. At the same time, this ensures a comparative advantage to nations that invest in education for everyone, relative to nations that are unable or unwilling to invest in activating as many of their citizens as possible. In other words: equal access to education, the liberalisation of education, opened the way to education meritocracy, which in turn brought hope to ever greater sections of the population. In addition, and probably equally importantly, it brought hope for fair selection independent of social origin.
8 In France, in the form of studies (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1964; Peyre, 1959) demonstrating that there had not been enough progress in the area of social equality: Coleman's study proved that ethnic minorities do not have equal opportunities to reach high standards in education as the white majority; the Plowden Report, which was known for its endorsement of child-centred approaches to education, also exposed the problems of social inequalities.
68
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
Changes in the education structure of a nation as empirical proof of the power of education
The widely opened doors of secondary education and the growing number of places in tertiary education brought previously unimaginable growth in the number of individuals graduating from both institutions. While even an important part of the 19th century demand for universal basic education seemed like an illusion that was barely achievable, and it was upper-secondary education that brought social prestige and cultural capital, which one could validate in the form of a better job, in the 1960s and 1970s, one can already identify significant changes in this respect. More and more citizens with upper-secondary education, as well as a growing number continuing their education at tertiary level, seemed to be the new norm. Education became perceived as one of the safest and most necessary investments of individuals and nations. As Beck ascertains with regard to post-WWII Germany, it is credible to speak of the "elevator effect" in education (Beck, 2001), in view of the upward social mobility of significant segments of the population (see Beck, 1991; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002).
A similar process can be perceived in other states of the Western world. Even in England, which is renowned for slow growth in the share of the population with higher education, data demonstrate that, for example, the mere 8.4% of children aged 11-18 attending education in 1938 increased to 30% in 1951. The numbers increased correspondingly in higher education, from 69,000 students in 1938 to 215,000 in 1970, a threefold increase (Brown et al., 1997, p. 5).
Data show an increasing proportion of the population completing high school and college in the USA. In 1910, 13.5% of the population aged 25 and over had completed high school and only 2.7% had gained a BA degree or higher, but by 1940 the figures had increased to 24.5% and 4.6%, respectively. An impressive rise of educated youth is evident in data after 1960. In 1960, the proportion of the generation enrolled in tertiary education was already 45.1%, but only ten years later it had reached an impressive 51.8% (McNamee & Miller, 2009, p. 109-110).
The trend can be observed in France as well, where Duru-Bellat (2000) writes that the 20th century saw an immense rise in the level of education at all levels, while in the last 30 years there has been even more rapid growth in the number of degrees completed. The author supports her claims with statistical data: "the percentage of those with baccalaureat increased from 20% in 1966 to 40% in 1986 and reached 68% in 1996" (ibid., p. 334). The statistics presented demonstrate that the share of the population in education was stable until 1939, while an important rise can be ascertained for the generations born between 1939 and 1948, i.e., the generations with more open access to secondary education after WWII. This
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 69
group is followed by age cohorts with an even greater rise: those born after 1954. For the generations born after 1959, the author claims there was universal access to upper-secondary education (see ibid.). Yet the picture in France becomes far more complex when we take into account education trajectories in relation to gender and social origin, for which France is also renowned. Starting with the INED studies in the 1950s, observers became increasingly sensitive to social differences, with the first study demonstrating that the reproduction of social inequalities continued to take place despite immensely improved access to education.9
Education, equality and equity in the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia: Slovenia
One question arises on the background presented above: What happened in the same period in socialist countries? In order to answer this question, one would need access to thorough research, but such a task is at present beyond our capabilities and ambitions. In what follows, we will therefore attempt only a preliminary investigation of one particular segment of the developments in one of the then republics of Yugoslavia, the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, which is today an independent state with just over 20 years of statehood as the Republic of Slovenia.
For Slovenia, the last classical census (2002) and all of the data available for the subsequent years demonstrate that we are witnessing a continuing new wave of educational upward mobility of new generations. Beck's educational elevator is again transferring generations of the population upward after a telling delay in respect to the transfers that took place in the liberal democracies of developed democracies in the 1980s and 1990s. (see Gaber, 2006; Gaber & Marjanovic Umek, 2009). The last wave - a prolonged wave due to the mistakes in creating education policy in the former Yugoslavia and the late decision to reform this policy, at the beginning of the 1990s - started around the mid 1990s of the previous century (see ibid.).
Nonetheless, within the aforementioned framework of the prevailing type of post-war rationality (Foucault, 2009; Weber, 1905/2002, 1978) in the first three decades after 1945, we can in Slovenia - as an example of a socialist country - also ascertain an emphasised orientation towards an approach to structuring education that was intended to bring equality through education. The first wave of education mobility is embedded in the socialist ideology of
9 The percentages of the population with baccalaureat had increased to 77.2% by June 2015. Retrieved 6.11.2015 from http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid56455/le-baccalaureat-2015-session-de-juin.html&xtmc=nombredediplome20142015&xtnp=1&xtcr=20.
70
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
more education for all. Thus, while Slovenia started with a population that was far from optimal and competitive in terms of education (see Table 1), it is evident from the 1961 census that an important share of the new generation had achieved a higher degree of education than the previous generation.
Not surprisingly, we believe this was due to the proclaimed socialist orientation of the country. Yet there is one element in relation to the post-war shifts in rationalities all around Europe that could also be productive to explore. The question we have in mind is that of different approaches to the search for more equality in a particular society. More specifically, the question related to the productiveness vs. counter-productiveness of particular approaches to the reduction of social inequalities/inequities reproduced in part through education. Our colleague Medveš (2015) may be correct in claiming that Socialist Yugoslavia, with the exaggerated stress on the unified school (enotna šola) in its post-WWII education reforms, overstepped the line between relying on comprehensive education as one of the important mechanisms to increase opportunities for more equal and just education, on the one hand, and the myth of the almighty unified school that would erase social inequalities, especially class inequalities, on the other. It may be that, with this mythologisation of the power of the unified school in the search for mechanisms that would enable a reduction in the gap between the educational attainment of working class children and those of middle class parents, yet another socialist project was forfeited to the illusion of the power that is supposed to rest in so-called simple equality (see Sen 1992; Walzer, 1983). Even more: with its radical approach to the eradication of inequalities, socialist policy in the then Yugoslavia paradoxically reduced opportunities for greater equality, and even more so for more equitable education, in the realms of a project of socialist modernisation that was risky in a number of aspects.
At the same time, the Slovenian case is a clear signal that, in the period of the creation of the modern welfare state and in parallel with endeavours to raise the level of equality in modern societies with the help of education, at least in one state in the socialist block a structured discussion took place concerning the need for a scientific approach to education reform, not only in terms of how such a reform should be put in place, but also about its aims.10 One of these aims
10 Among others, this question was addressed by the doyen of Slovenian pedagogy, Prof. Schmidt. While criticising capitalist pedagogy as a reduction to the "technology and question of means", he was also critical of the fact that it was not possible to find a "methodology of school reform in socialist pedagogy" either (Schmidt, 1966/1982, 97). He was particularly concerned by the fact that the "very conceptualisation of the process of the reform is not in the focus of methodological studies" (ibid.). He was thus horrified that, in 1965, the authorities in Yugoslavia planned to prolong unified education for another two years, extending it to ten years, without "asking any institution competent in sociology, psychology or pedagogy to help with research" (ibid., p. 98). He adds: "this is also not acceptable while it is going on in a country declaring that its development is scientifically founded, and in a time when capitalist Sweden has inaugurated its reforms after years of thorough research, experiments and discussions"(ibid.).
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 71
was the attempt by the authorities to achieve equality by prolonging unified education (see Schmidt, 1966/1982). The question even arises as to whether it is possible that the mythologisation of the power of unified education could actually be counterproductive for society, or, as formulated by Schmidt, we can wander around while we have "ground under our feet and we experience the sad destiny of 'those wanting to search for the betterment of mankind' who remained detached from reality in the world of ideas, without knowing the mechanisms for their realisation" (Schmidt , 1966/1982, p. 100)11.
In the years that France, Great Britain, Nordic countries, the USA and elsewhere witnessed studies and reports explaining that wider access to education alone is far from enough to achieve equality in terms of education attainment, and produced research examining possible additional mechanisms that should be put in place to reduce the reproductive power of social inequalities,12 the focus of education reforms in Slovenia, as well as in other republics of
11	Although Schmidt was very bitter, he was familiar with the studies of his colleagues analysing the results of the reform from 1958 and knew their proposals for improvements, which looked promising in terms of increasing the chances for actual equity in education. One year before he published his article, his colleague from the Department of Pedagogy, Prof. Strmcnik, had written a study that, in a relatively precisely and evidence-based way (data were collected by the National Office for the Progress of Education), analysed the main reasons for the failures in the realisation of the idea of a Yugoslav type of comprehensive education. Strmcnik presented reform as a realisation of "people's striving for equal basic education" (1965, p. 78). Based on data, he warns that it is not possible to establish equality in education while we "have incredibly unequally qualified teachers in different municipalities and in different schools" (ibid., p. 82). According to him, poorly educated and badly paid teachers - resulting in a lack of teachers for some key subject areas in remote municipalities and in less developed parts of the country - in combination with unacceptable arrangements making it possible to progress from one grade to the next without a pass grade in even one subject, place education reform in the position of having primarily preached the idea of equal conditions for the basic education of all the pupils, "but in reality having done everything to ensure its failure" (ibid. p. 92). He concludes with a warning that in preventing it "we have succeeded" (ibid.). Writing in line with the findings in the Coleman Report, and with other studies in France, Great Britain, etc., he points to overly large differences in the basic conditions for education in rural and urban areas, as well as differences between developed and poorly developed parts of the country, stating that it would be possible to aim for equality of basic education as the basis for further education and fair opportunities in life. His conclusion was radical for the time and place in it was which published: a "school of high quality" is all that is needed to reduce inequalities, and that we do not need a school "that accommodates pupils to the (...) relatively undeveloped environment, but one that can prepare them for the elimination of such a situation" (ibid., p. 93). Relatively similar ideas, this time dealing with the implementation and required improvements of school curricula, can be found in another study, again prepared by the National Office for the Progress of Education and its manager Iva Segula. Schmidt was familiar with both studies, as well as a number of others that were not used in planning education reforms.
12	See the warning of Bourdieu and Passeron related to the omission of the symbolic violence inherent in the celebration of the school as an institution that enables us to acquire knowledge if we are talented and conscientious. See also Bernstein pointing to the need for reflection on the inner logic of the school as a mechanism that - by definition and not only due to the external pressure of the ruling class, the economy, etc. - ensures the elements that form part of the mechanism of the educational reproduction of social inequality, from the language used to the types of pedagogical approaches employed (see Bernstein, 2003; Bourdieu and Passeron 1964,
1970).
72
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
Yugoslavia, was the idea of the elimination of inequality between the working class (and peasants) and the bourgeoisie, and with this the idea of the elimination of the difference between manual and intellectual labour (see Humek, 1955). In parallel with this, one of the important elements that was intention to bring equality in society was the enrolment of women in education. After the war, women gained voting rights, equal pay for equal work was enforced by law, and women gradually entered professions that were traditionally the reserve of men (see Gabric, 2009; Antic-Gaber, 2015), such as the academic world, research and politics, even beginning to occupy management positions. In this area, one should be aware that, despite equality in political life being constitutionally granted, this was far from achieved (Jogan, 2001, p. 57). On the other hand, equal participation of women and men in education was not only granted but also achieved faster. In 1946, the Constitution granted equal rights to women in education13 in Article 38. This was in line with the aforementioned idea of equality that underlined all of the approaches to education reforms in Yugoslavia. At first, the approach brought important investments and results even in the first decade after WWII, in terms of new schools being constructed throughout the country, as well as in the number of young people, both male and female, enrolled in secondary and tertiary education (see Gabric, 2009). The next step was the General Law on Education in 1958, which forwarded the aforementioned idea of a thorough general education for all of those in Yugoslavia who, prior to the war, had been poorly educated. While an inclusive approach was needed, and was beneficial in particular for those republics with a high level of illiteracy, the other part of the idea - the part aimed at simple equality in the nation as a whole (see Walzer, 1983) - was far less beneficial. Moreover, this was the case despite the guiding idea that aimed for the elimination of inequalities in the nation, thus leading to equality between different citizens. The problems started with the first idea: everyone should have access to education of equal quality, followed by access to schools at another level. As demonstrated above, the conditions in schools were far from equal, with problems ranging from teacher competencies to equipment, furniture, the subjects actually taught, etc. It was therefore unrealistic to expect a system according to which the results achieved in the previous level of education should not matter on entrance to the next level, which was an important reason for inequalities in results remaining.
13 Official Gazette FLRJ, N. 10/1946.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 73
Problems with the idea of simple equality
While Yugoslavia, together with Nordic countries,14 was among the first in Europe to inaugurate comprehensive education and take an important step towards possible justice in education, the naïve idea of simple equality destroyed the majority of the positive effects already achieved when authorities began to dismantle the rare but still functioning schools that had previously prepared pupils for further education at the level of secondary education. The fact was that "unified basic education" for everyone was not able to solve the problem that the League of Communists perceived as crucial: that again and again more children from middle class families in which parents had a better education entered grammar school (gimnazija) than children of working class and peasant parents. Unfortunately, the important idea of the 1958 reform, as well as the inevitable subsequent reform, was that intellectuals are not supportive of the project of socialism, and that overly demanding general education is particularly dangerous for its future. On this background, the authorities decided to, as soon as possible, eliminate an element from the logic of education that is inherent to education and had, at the same time, become even more prominent in education in Western democracies: the meritocratic principle. The idea of equal education for all and access for all at all levels and kinds of education15 became the logic firmly defended in the fear that the meritocratic logic would continue to reproduce the class differences that the authorities had been determined to eradicate. One representative of the League of Communists thus explained what the direction of the development of education should be in order for it to remain in line with the programme of the communist party, explicitly putting aside the idea of existentialism that had then become modern.
14	Nordic countries inaugurated comprehensive education under the influence of the philosophy of the welfare state and equality. Sweden took the first steps in this direction as early as in 1949, and implemented it in the full form of nine-year school in 1972, when they abolished other forms of compulsory education that had been on offer until then. Other Nordic states followed with some delay and additional caution. Antikainen points to the fact that in "the 1960s and 1970s, compulsory education in all Nordic countries was extended to nine years, and the comprehensive model was adopted as the starting point of developing the whole education system (...)" (Antikainen, 2006, p. 230). Characterising the model as Nordic, he describes it as an "attempt to construct a national education system on the foundation of specific local values and practices, but at the same time subject to international conditions and influences, and even as an internationally influential example (1). Equity, participation and welfare state have been known as the major socio-political attributes of the Nordic model. The fourth attribute might be held to be progressiveness either as realization of a search for new, unprejudiced solutions, or at least as an image and myth associated with Scandinavian culture" (ibid., p. 229).
15	They went as far as legislating the possibility of progressing to the next grade with just one non-pass grade, despite the fact that experts warned that it could most damage those who were supposed to benefit from the mechanism (see Strmcnik, 1965; 1967).
74
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
In the period in which Western democracies shifted their education to the search for education that would enable each of their citizens to realise his/ her entire potential with as much of effort he or she was ready to invest, socialist Yugoslavia - with a point of departure that was, in principle, the same, i.e., the optimal development of the potential of each and every individual - was blinded by a fear of the middle class and by efforts to enable each citizen to achieve at least a basic general education within the framework of unified compulsory education. It therefore ignored the need to allow for differences in the interests and potentials of children entering education, and above all overlooked the need for additional support for those from a less supportive environment, enabling them to reach standards that were far more accessible to children with a more educationally supportive home environment.
However, instead of searching to mechanisms that would support the aforementioned population in their efforts to achieve better results, the authorities decided for prevent those from more supportive environments to develop their talents, or to have an opportunity to develop them. From the blind spot or mythologisation of the power of unified education as the promoter of equality in society, the idea emerged of abolishing grammar school, as the supposed origin of the evil of inequality. Presentations of the evil reached tragicomic dimensions, which unfortunately had concrete practical consequences for the education system and for the knowledge achieved individually, at precisely the time when this knowledge was becoming more and more important for the nation.
One of the fierce proponents of abolition painted the grammar school as a "typically bourgeois school. (...) While students in them are put in unnatural life conditions and while they do not see the practical use of the results of their learning, they learn insincerity, hypocrisy, flattery, lack of character, cheating, etc. That is why moral education in such a school is suspicious. (...) And there also lies the reason why students of grammar schools live at the expense of the community" (quoted in Gabric, 2006, p. 68). In all of this, it is telling that the author of these words was the director of a two-year post-secondary pedagogical school in Belgrade. In addition - to be even clearer - he divided schools into two groups: those whose pupils are educated to exploit, and those whose pupils are educated to be exploited. For him, it was obvious to which group grammar schools belonged.
There is no need to emphasise the fact that the counterarguments of those claiming that grammar school, as a high quality institution, is a must for tertiary education at the university were, in such an anti-intellectualism atmosphere, ignored. One of the forms this took was formulated by Boris Ziherl when describing and judging the stance of a teacher during public discussion surrounding
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 75
the "Boštanj scandal": "The 'Boštanj scandal' demonstrated that our organisation, our forums of power, are taken by reaction, and that in our circles the widespread opinion is that questions of culture are questions that concern only the consecrated ones, that is, only experts, and that these questions are not for those representing the people and their will" (Gabrič 2006, p. 47).
Concluding remarks
Equality that at the level of secondary education acquired the form of the abolition of a more demanding programme, at the point of transition to tertiary education took the form of the abolition of entrance examinations, and in the field of education institution management produced the self-management of schools by school boards, the majority of whose members were poorly educated, was destined to reproduce inequalities (see Gabrič, 2006, p. 41).16 Paradoxically, in Slovenia, after the formal abolition of grammar school education, experts, in collaboration with some sections of the authorities, found a way to maintain the spirit of the previous elite secondary education through various programmes of secondary education. These then acquired names - science secondary education, social sciences and languages, general culture and secondary education for pedagogical professions - and although schools lost their original names, it was obvious that the Bežigrad Grammar School opted for an elite science programme of secondary education and even retained a sufficient number of optional subjects in its curricula to maintain a solid level of knowledge of social sciences and humanities. The same is true for what is now the second Maribor Grammar School, the social science and languages programme at today's classical Poljane Grammar School, and a number of others in larger cities around the country. We all knew that, despite the official demand for each programme to prepare students for work, the programmes were more than adequate to prepare for university studies. The situation was similar, albeit less clear, in some places in other republics of the then Yugoslavia. Nonetheless, the damage caused by anti-intellectualism was significant: thousands of lost graduates in the decisive years of the educational explosion in other countries in Europe.
16 "Also in the years after new Law, it was frequently the case that school boards dealt with questions of a pedagogical nature that were previously in the jurisdiction of teachers. Thus, in a number of cases, important expert questions were decided by lay people, while in the 1955/1956 school year more than three quarters of the places in school boards were occupied by members who had finished their education after the compulsory eight years. (...) even in the boards of grammar schools and of lower professional education schools their share was over 60%, while the structure was far better in the school boards of colleges of education" (Gabric, 2009, p. 41).
76
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
Sources and literature
Antikainen, A. (2006). In search of the Nordic model in education. Manuscript for Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 229-243.
Beck, U. (1991). Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.
Bernstein, B. (2003). Class Codes and Control IV. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1964/1979). The Inheritors. Chicago: UCP.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J-C. (1970/1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25. Brown, P. (1997). The "Third Wave": Education and the ideology of parentocracy. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 393-408). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., & Stuart Wells, A. (1997). The Transformation of Education
and Society: An Introduction. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education:
Culture, economy, and society (pp. 1-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duru-Bellat, M. (2000). Social inequalities in the French education system: the joint effect of
individual and contextual factor. Journal of Educational Policy, 15(1), 33-40.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. London: Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (2009). Security, Territory, Population. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gaber, S. (2006). Edukacija, socialna promocija in »dedovanje« izobrazbe. Sodobna pedagogika. 57,
special edition, 42-53.
Gabrič, A. (2006). Šolska reforma 1953-1963. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino.
Husen, T. (1974). Talent, equality and meritocracy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Medveš, Z. (2006). Upoštevanje drugačnosti - korak k šoli enakih možnosti. Sodobna pedagogika, 57,
special edition, 10-24.
Medveš, Z. (2015). Socialist pedagogy: Caught between the myth of the fairness of the unified school
and cultural hegemony. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 66(2), 14-40.
Meyer, J. W. (1977). The Effects of Education as an Institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1),
55-77.
McNamee, S. J. & Miller, R. K. Jr. (2009). The meritocracy myth. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
National Defence Education Act (NDEA). (2015). In Encyclopœdia Britannica. Retrieved 6.11.2015
from http://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Defense-Education-Act.
Peyre, C. (1959). Lorigine sociale des élèves de l'enseignement secondaire en France. In Ecole et
société. Recherches de sociologie du travail publiées sous la direction de
Pierre NAVILLE, 5. Paris, Librairie Marcel Rivière.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard: Belknap Press.
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 77
Schmidt, V. (1966/1982). Metodologija šolske reforme. In Socialistična pedagogika med etatizmom in samoupravljanjem. Ljubljana: DDU-Univerzum.
Schmidt, V. (1958). Povojni razvoj, sedanje stanje in perspektive pedagoške znanosti na Slovenskem.
Sodobna pedagogika, 9(9), 227-237.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. New York: Clarendon Press.
Strmčnik, F. (1965). Enotna osnovna šola je bistveni element socialističnih družbenih odnosov.
Sodobna pedagogika, 16(3-4), 77-98.
Strmčnik, F. (1967). Kaj ovira hitrejši razvoj osnovne šole. Sodobna pedagogika, 18(5-6), 137-158. Strmčnik, F. (2013), Prof. Gustav Šilih, vreden pedagoškega spomina. Sodobna pedagogika, 64(3), 94-97.
SORS (2001). Popisi na Slovenskem 1948-1991; Popis 2002. Ljubljana: SURS.
Šegula, I. (1964). Učni načrt osnovne šole v teoriji in praksi. Rezultati petletnega preizkusa. Ljubljana:
Troger, V. (2002). Bourdieu et l'école: la démocratisation désenchantée. SH - special edition on Bourdieu, 16-23.
Vigotski, L.S. (1934/2010). Mišljenje in govor. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta. Walzer, J. (1983). Spheres of Justice, A Defence of Pluralism and Equality. US: Basic Books Weber, M. (1946). Essays in Sociology. Trans. and ed. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford UP.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Vol.1 in 2. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sources:
Clarke, A. C. (2007). Remembering Sputnik: Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Retrieved 6.11.2015 from http://
spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/remembering-sputnik-sir-arthur-c-clarke.
Education gouv.fr. Retrieved 6.11.2015 from http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid56455/le-baccalaureat-
2015-session-de-juin.html&xtmc=nombredediplome20142015&xtnp=1&xtcr=20.
EU (2020). Tertiary education attainment in 2020. Retrieved 6.11.2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/
europe2020/pdf/themes/2015/tertiary_education_attainment.pdf.
78	the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
Biographical note
Veronika Tasner, PhD, is an Assistant for the Sociology of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. Her work involves research into meritocracy, equality and inequality in education, private education, and gender and education. She has participated in various research projects on the topic of education and its justice and future. She is the author of several articles and chapters in the areas in which she research in Slovene and foreign scientific journals and monographs.
Slavko Gaber, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. He lectures in Sociology of Education, An Introduction to Education Policies, Sociology of the Family, and EPTE Society, Culture and Education. His area of research and publishing comprises relations between school, society, democracy, equality and justice.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 79
Appendix
Table 1: Population aged 15 and more by education
Izobrazba /		Število / Number				Delež (%) / Share (%)			Izobrazba /
Education	1961	1971	1981	1991	1961	1971	1981	1991	Education
SKUPAJ	1 156 387	1 311 225	1 457 281	1 156 162	100	100	100	100	TOTAL
Brez šolske									No school-
izobrazbe in končani 1-3	89 325	60 337	51 970	27 719	7.7	4.6	3.6	1.8	ing and 1-3 elementary
razredi OS									school grades
Končani 4-7 razredi OS	609700	331 423	326 106	238 885	52.7	25.3	22.4	15.3	4-7 elementary school grades
Osnovna šola	227 116	536 857	473 982	466 782	19.6	40.9	32.5	29.9	Elementary school
									Schools for
Sole za KV in VKV delavce	151 348	230 023	320 784	303 198	13.1	17.5	22.0	24.4	skiled and highly skiled workers
Ostale srednje šole	53 087	102 289	182 566	365 960	4.6	7.8	12.5	19.4	Other secondary schools
Višje, visoke šole in									Non-univer-
	2 0 383	43 361	89 973	138 012	1.8	3.3	5.9	8.8	sity colleges and universities
fakultete									
Neznano	5 401	6 935	11 837	21 072	0.5	0.5	1.1	1.4	Unknown
Statistical Office of the Republic Slovenia (SORS 2001)
For comparison and evidence-based evaluation of the progress in the share of the educated in Slovenia, we add some data from the 1953 census and censuses from the 21st century.
While the methodology applied for data collection and calculation differs for the 1953 census and subsequent censuses, it is possible to calculate and compare some data:
The share of people with more than secondary education grew from only 0.09% in 1953 to 8.8% in 1991 (still in socialism), rising to 17.4% in 2011. The share of the population completing technical, general upper-secondary education (four-year upper-secondary education) rose from 1.5% of the population aged 15 years or more in 1948 to 19.4% at the end of socialism in 1991, and to 30.2% in 2011.
Concerning our thesis regarding the late second education elevator effect in Slovenia, it is telling that, in 2014, Slovenia had already reached its own target and the EU target, which is 40% or more of those aged 30-34 years
205
the age of studies and reports: selected elements concerning the background
completing the tertiary level of education. Slovenia reached the target despite the fact that in 2000 only 18.5% of those in the same age cohort completed tertiary education.
	2000	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Target
Slovenia	18.5%	34.8%%	37.9%%	39.2%	40.1%	41.0%	40.0%
(see: EU (2020))
Table 2: Population aged 15 or more by educational attainment and gender, Slovenia, 2002 Census and 1 January 2011
1 January 2011	2002 Census
	Total	Men	Women	Total	Men	Women
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
No education	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.7	0.5	0.8
Incomplete basic	4.1	3.2	4.9	6.3	5.3	7.2
Basic	24.7	21.2	28.2	26.1	21.1	30.8
Short-term vocational upper-secondary	1.4	1.5	1.3	4.2	5.3	3.3
Vocational upper-secondary	21.7	28.5	15.1	22.9	29.6	16.7
Technical, general upper-secondary	30.2	30.0	30.4	26.9	25.7	27.9
Short-term higher (former), higher vocational	4.8	4.3	5.3	5.1	4.5	5.6
1st cycle of higher, professional higher (former), etc.	3.3	2.5	4.1	0.5	0.4	0.6
2nd cycle of higher, professional higher (former), etc.	8.1	7.1	9.1	6.4	6.4	6.3
"Magisterij" (Master) of science (former), etc.	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.8	0.6
Doctorate in science	0.4	0.6	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.2
(see: EU (2020))
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 206
Social Capital and Educational Achievements: Coleman vs. Bourdieu
Silvia Rogosic*1 and Branislava Baranovic2
^^ The influence of social capital on an individual's educational achievements is the subject of numerous scientific papers. Research on social capital is most frequently based on Coleman's (1988) or Bourdieu's (1986) theories of capital, which are related to different paradigms of social theory: whereas Coleman's approach has its roots in structural func-tionalism, Bourdieu's approach contains elements of conflict theory. A number of authors, starting with Bourdieu, attempt to explain and prove that, when connected with the education of individuals, the activity of social capital facilitates social reproduction. Other authors support the notion that social capital is, in fact, a powerful weapon that encourages social mobility. A third group of researchers emphasise that neither of these approaches in isolation can entirety explain the influences of social capital on an individual's education (Ho, 2003). The present paper offers a review of research focusing on the influences of social capital on educational achievements, while outlining the fundamental differences between the two theoretical approaches that are most frequently used for research of this topic. The aim of the paper is to explain the influence of social capital on an individual's educational achievements under Bourdieu's and Coleman's theoretical concepts, and to establish whether combining the approaches is possible. The conclusion and arguments show that it is legitimate to use all three theoretical approaches.
Keywords: Coleman, Bourdieu, social capital, educational achievements, theory of social reproduction, theory of social mobility
1	Corresponding Author. Faculty of Teacher Education, Zagreb, Croatia; silvia.rogosic@ufzg.hr.
2	Institute for Social Research, Zagreb, Croatia.
82 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
Socialni kapital in izobraževalni dosežki: Coleman : Bourdieu
Silvia RoGošic in Branislava Baranovic
^^ Vpliv socialnega kapitala na izobraževalne dosežke posameznikov je predmet številnih znanstvenih prispevkov. Raziskave o socialnem kapitalu najpogosteje temeljijo na Colemanovi (1988) ali Bourdieujevi (1986) teoriji kapitala, ki sta povezani z različnima paradigmama socialne teorije: Colemanov pristop ima korenine v strukturnem funkcionalizmu, Bourdieujev pristop pa vsebuje elemente konfliktne teorije. Veliko avtorjev, začenši z Bourdieujem, skuša pojasniti in dokazati, da - kadar je socialni kapital povezan z izobrazbo posameznikov - aktivnost socialnega kapitala pospešuje socialno reprodukcijo. Drugi avtorji podpirajo idejo, da je socialni kapital pravzaprav močno orožje, ki spodbuja socialno mobilnost. Tretja skupina raziskovalcev poudarja, da nobeden izmed teh pristopov sam zase ne more v celoti pojasniti vpliva socialnega kapitala na izobrazbo posameznikov (Ho, 2003). Prispevek nudi pregled raziskav, ki se osredinjajo na vpliv socialnega kapitala na izobraževalne dosežke, s tem da poudarja osnovne razlike med dvema teoretičnima pristopoma, ki sta najpogosteje uporabljena pri raziskavah na to temo. Namen prispevka je pojasniti vpliv socialnega kapitala na izobraževalne dosežke posameznikov s pomočjo Bourdieujevega in Colemanovega teoretskega koncepta in ugotoviti, ali je kombinacija pristopov mogoča. Zaključki in argumenti kažejo, da je mogoče uporabiti vse tri teoretske pristope.
Ključne besede: Coleman, Bourdieu, socialni kapital, teorija socialne reprodukcije, teorija socialne mobilnosti
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 83
Introduction
The theory of social capital is one of the most influential and most popular theories to emerge in social sciences over the last two decades (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 2000; Putnam, 1993; Woolcock, 1998). The popularity of the concept of social capital is a result of attempts to accentuate the value of social relations in political debates, to re-establish the normative dimension as a subject of social analyses, and to create concepts that reflect the complexity and interrelatedness of appearances in the real world (Schuller, Baron & Field, 2000).
The theory of social capital views capital as the resources contained in social relations. Lin (1999) states that the notion of social capital has a very simple and clear meaning - investing in social relationships with expected benefits - and emphasises that this definition is in line with other definitions that have contributed to debates on social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990; Erickson, 1996; Flap, 1994; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 1993).
One of the first authors to emphasise the relationship between life successes and various forms of capital was economist Loury (1977), who claimed that the quantity of resources we can invest in our development (i.e., level of education) depends significantly on our social background.
The concept of social capital serves to explain the influence of social position on the development of human capital (which is measured by the level of education). Social capital is researched within the framework of different approaches, thus resulting in the emergence of numerous conceptual and methodological issues: the coherence and uniqueness of concepts, its analytical validity and heuristic usefulness, operational issues with respect to issues of social confrontations and social exclusion, its political and social implications, etc. (Baron, Field & Schuller, 2000). Some of these issues emerged among researchers who linked social capital with an individual's educational achievements (grade point averages at various school levels, grade retention, drop-out rate, enrolment in secondary school, college enrolment, graduation, duration of studies, etc.). Given that all forms of capital are actually resources that can be used to achieve various goals, the ways in which various forms of capital are related to attaining particular educational aims are also researched.
Research to date indicates that educational achievements of individuals are related to various forms of capital that an individual possess (or does not possess): social, economic and cultural capital (Coleman, 1988; 1982; Doolan, 2009; Eng, 2009; Sullivan, 2001). Individuals who have more access to these forms of capital demonstrate greater educational achievements (Pishghadam
84 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
& Zabihi, 2011). A large number of scientific papers emphasise, in particular, the significance of the relationship between social capital and the educational achievements of an individual (Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Pishghadam & Zabihi, 2011; White & Glick, 2000). Differences in educational success can be attributed to different levels of existing social capital, which is produced in the networks and connections of families that the school serves. For instance, social capital supports educational success in the form of appropriate school climate and the values that motivate students to achieve higher goals (Acar, 2011). The student's development is strongly shaped by social capital in the school, community and family (Acar, 2011). Furthermore, social capital positively affects educational achievement and, consequently, students' behaviour and development: it reduces drop-out rates and increases graduation rates (Israel et al., 2001) and college enrolment (Yan, 1999), as well as positively affecting achievements in tests (Sun, 1999).
Research on the link between social capital and educational achievements mostly emerges from either Coleman's (1988) or Bourdieu's (1986) theoretical foundations. A number of authors base their research on interpretations and outcomes that are a combination of both of these approaches (Ho, 2003; Pishghadam & Zabihi, 2011); however, such authors are often criticised for not taking into account the fact that the two concepts of social capital are related to entirely different paradigms of social theory (Pusztai, 2014). As such, these approaches are subject of numerous criticisms, and the question arises as to which approach to use in which situations/contexts.
The aim of the present paper is to explain the impact of social capital on the educational achievements of individuals through Bourdieu's and Coleman's theoretical frameworks, and to establish whether combining the approaches is possible. The methodology of the study is based on an analysis and comparison of existing theoretical and research findings (relying on Bourdieu's, Coleman's or a combined conceptual framework) that examine the links between social capital and educational achievement.
Coleman's concept of social capital
For Coleman (1990), social capital is a mode of social structure that eases the activity of an individual in a structured context. Whether a particular kind of social structure represents social capital, however, depends on whether its function serves the individual involved in a particular action. Coleman's analysis starts with a critique of the dominant theory of social capital in the sphere of an individual's decision-making, as, in his opinion, social capital has a stronger
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 85
influence on an individual's education and is more evenly distributed than other types of capital in society (financial and human) (Golubovic & Golubovic, 2007). The theory of rational choice, whose fundamental conceptual means is social capital, emphasises the fact that the agent acts based on rational thought, i.e., employs optimisation (Coleman & Fararo, 1992). Optimisation is manifested in maximising the usefulness of a particular action or minimising imposition in a particular action and similar. The action is compared to its expected outcomes by the agents themselves, and it is assumed that agents will select actions that have the best outcome. The theory of rational choice views social capital as a promoter of individual action that can result in social mobility. Individuals invest in their relationships with others assuming that they will also benefit from such investments. In the end, individuals calculate and determine which actions they will take with respect to the quality and quantity of the social relationships in which they are involved.
Followers of Coleman's tradition operationalise social capital by highlighting the social capital available within the family (which implies the quality of family relationships and the family structure), as well as the social capital of the community (the quality of relationships between members of the community; in some cases, authors also take structure into consideration). At the same time, the framework of rational choice theory explains ways in which social capital promotes social mobility (Miekiewicz et al., 2011). Coleman's understanding of social capital (1988) surpasses the boundaries of individual social capital and becomes a characteristic of the community (institution, organisation). In this way, social capital can be measured on the level of educational institutions (e.g., schools, universities). This form of social capital, according to Coleman (1993), involves a network of all of the individuals who are members of particular organisations. Schaefer-McDaniel (2004), for example, state that an analysis of the social capital of a school should encompass relationships between all subjects in the school context, making social capital a characteristic of the entire organisation, whereby the power of its actions is closely related to how closed the network is. Coleman (1990) uses the term network closure in order to describe an enclosed circle of acquaintances, i.e., a network consisting of persons who know each other and interact. Obligations and expectations, exchange of information, norms and sanctions, and the relationship with authority, all of which Coleman considers aspects of the social capital of the community, are more apparent if the network is closed. The social capital of the community can be used by individuals in an attempt to achieve personal goals. However, organisational social capital does not only contribute to the achievement of personal goals, but also to the achievement of the goals of the
86 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
organisation itself (Fukuyama, 1995), as it influences the organisation's efficiency and provides future members of the organisation (e.g., students) with access to its social capital resources.
Research in the area of the sociology of education mostly relies on Coleman's conceptual framework (Dika & Singh, 2002). In his own research (1986, 1987, 1988), Coleman primarily focused on researching the educational achievements of underprivileged students. This research focused on relationships between the family and the community through which it became possible to explain the higher educational achievements of students based on expected achievements with respect to their socioeconomic status (Miekiewicz et al., 2011). Hoffer's research (1986, according to Coleman, 1988) has shown that the drop-out rate of high-school students from families with both parents, a maximum of two children and high maternal expectations of the child (higher education) is 8.1%. The school drop-out rate increases to 30.6% for students from one-parent families with four children and no maternal expectations that the child will enter higher education (Hoffer, 1986 according to Coleman, 1988). Coleman and Hoffer (1987) conducted research on differences between the educational achievements of students who attended public high schools (893 schools), catholic schools (84 schools) and other private schools (27). The drop-out rate between the second and final years of education were the smallest in catholic schools (3.4%), followed by other private schools (11.7%), while the highest rates were observed in public schools (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987). The research showed that the educational achievements of students in catholic schools were not determined by their socioeconomic status or religious affiliation, but were significantly related to the characteristics of catholic schools, which nurture a feeling of community cohesion in which both adults and children are involved (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987).
Coleman's concept of social capital became one of the most frequently used concepts in the area of social sciences, but it was also a target of fierce criticism. His arguments were considered tautological and circular: it seemed that social capital existed solely if it had a positive effect on outcomes on the community level. Consequences and causes are not adequately differentiated (Durlauf 1999). Some authors (e.g., Rose 2000) have attempted to establish a causal relationship, but these results, too, are far from conclusive. The aforementioned circularity also relates to Coleman's failure to offer any systematic explanation of the differences between the agent's desire for commitment (to enter into a relationship) and his/her ability to do so (Portes, 1998). Instead, inequalities in achievements, which are present at every level of the social structure, are ascribed to structural dysfunctions such as the relative limitation of
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 87
network (relationship) closure and its consequences: the lack of norms produced by social capital. Adler and Kwon (2002) state that network closure is not indispensable for the functioning of social capital, while Lin (2001) claims that network closure should be insisted on only when achieving the specified aims of an individual. When individuals aspire to maintaining/preserving specific social relationships, closing the network is relevant; however, when agents seek and aspire to obtain resources of social capital, they require relationships with other agents, in which case closing the network is not relevant. Burt (1992) concluded that a lean network with few excessive ties often provides greater social capital benefits. Network closure can negatively influence external efficiency: it can result in distrust outside the group (Fukuyama, 2001). Moreover, Portes (1998) points out that Coleman does not take into consideration the existence of negative social capital, which can be manifested in the norms and relationships of particular clans whose activities are illegal. Foley and Edwards (1999) reviewed 45 recent articles reporting empirical research employing the concept of social capital and concluded that social capital depends on the social context making such capital specific with respect to context. Given that social capital is context dependent, social resources are not justly and evenly distributed, which is something Coleman fails to address. Shucksmith (2000) rejects the notion that social capital is a common benefit and claims that viewing social capital as a common benefit conceals inherent social inequalities, as resources are approached and possessed depending on the social and cultural capital that we already possess.
Coleman's critics above all resent his neglect of the differences in the social (i.e., status) positions of an individual. However, in Coleman's studies, particularly is his report of 1966, the role of socioeconomic status in an individual's education is not denied; in fact, it is emphasised. Israel, Beaulieu and Hartless, (2001), who follow Coleman's example of the conceptualisation of social capital, point out that a higher level of parental education and higher economic capital of a family contribute to better educational achievements. We conclude that, although supporters of Coleman's approach do not ignore social inequalities in their research, they do not have a handhold in Coleman's theory to explain the differences in educational achievements that arise due to social differences, i.e., differences in socioeconomic status. However, Coleman's followers do recognise the enormous power of social capital in cases where individuals of the same socioeconomic status display different educational achievements: those with richer social capital demonstrate better educational achievements (Ade-dokun, 2007; Khattab, 2003). Khattab (2003), for example, concludes that, despite being an underprivileged minority with lower socioeconomic status in
88 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
Israeli society, Palestine students have high educational aspirations largely as a result of possessing high social capital. Research of this type manages to justify the characteristics of the theory of rational actions (Dyk & Wilson, 1999; Lopez, 1996; Smith, Beaulieu & Israel, 1992; White & Glick, 2000).
There is, however, research with contrary findings. For instance, research by McNeal (1999) established that social capital within a family (parental involvement in a child's education) is positively related to behaviour and educational achievements of traditionally privileged high-school students, while the relationship between social capital and educational achievements as well as behaviour in children with lower socioeconomic status was significantly smaller. McNeal's findings (1999) could be a result of the quality of parental engagement (parents with a higher education have a more efficient approach in terms of education) or of school employees treating children with lower socioeconomic status differently; neither explanation, however, supports concepts from the theory of rational action. Furthermore, in the aforementioned research (Mc-Neal, 1999), parental and teacher interaction did not prove to be significant for educational achievements and student behaviour.
A far greater number of studies relying on Coleman's concept of social capital have, however, confirmed the role of social capital in establishing social mobility (Lopez, 1996; Morgan & Sorenson, 1999; Sun, 1998; Sun, 1999 according to the research review, Dika, 2003). Dika & Singh (2002) report that Cole-man's concept of social capital was investigated using quantitative analysis and nationally representative samples by the majority of researchers (e.g., Dyk & Wilson, 1999; Hofferth, Boisjoly & Duncan, 1998; Lopez, 1996; Morrow, 2001; Muller, 2001; Muller & Ellison, 2001; Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Yan, 1999 according to research review, Dika & Singh, 2002). This is confirmed by the fact that Coleman himself, along with his associates (1966), published one of the most comprehensive statistical reports on the influence of social capital on high-school education, which is based on a nationally representative sample (NELS). However, a far smaller number of studies (e.g., Bianchi & Robinson, 1997; Fritche; 1999; Kahne & Bailey, 1999; Laureu & Horvat, 1999 according to the research review by Dika & Singh, 2002) of a qualitative type and following Coleman's example actually investigated the relationship between social capital and the educational achievements of an individual. Nonetheless, over the past decade, such studies have become more frequent (e.g., Harper & Griffin, 2011; Palmer & Dancy, 2008; Palmer & Gasman, 2008; Richardson, 2009) and largely confirm positive relationships between social capital and educational achievements.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 89
Bourdieu's concept of social capital
For Bourdieu (1986), social capital is the aggregate of current or potential resources related to existing, permanent networks, which can be based, to a greater or lesser extent, on institutionalised relationships of interpersonal respect and acceptance. An individual can use relationships with other individuals in order to achieve a goal, e.g., an educational goal. Bourdieu's analysis of social capital and its influence on educational achievements cannot be understood without his broader theory of capitals (which encompasses cultural and economic capital) as well as the concept of field and habitus. In Bourdieu's theory, the foundation of all capitals is economic capital, as a cause and consequence of possessing social and cultural capital. Bourdieu also claims that possession of and access to capitals is unevenly distributed in society (Bourdieu, 1986). His theory of social reproduction, which centres on economic and symbolic (cultural and social) capital, holds that the actions of an individual are largely determined by external factors, i.e., socioeconomic status. This theory is therefore far more pessimistic in character than that of Coleman, where the power of the individual and his/her action is significantly conditioned by social factors, and social capital mostly serves in the transfer of cultural and economic capital from generation to generation, thus contributing to the reproduction of the existing social order. As for Bourdieu's concepts of fields and habitus, they are, with some distinctions, most similar to Goffman's dramaturgical theory (1959), in which the field is represented by a play area (stage) where the battle between agents takes place: between dominant and subordinate, founded on the common, tacit acceptance of the interests characteristic of each field, e.g., academic interests. In defining habitus, Bourdieu states that it is: "... society embedded in a body, a biological individual ..." (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 63). Individuals of varied habitus (internal representations of an individual and his/her social background) engage in various battles on different fields. Such concepts provide an explanation not only of the vertical but also of the horizontal differences between individuals, and therefore their differences in the possession of social capital. However, a large number of the studies that have followed Bourdieu's approach include various forms of capital in their studies while overlooking the concepts of habitus and field, which could account for horizontal differences in the educational achievements of an individual (e.g., Fan, 2014; Hou, Li & Zheng, 2008). In the desire to prove his theory, Bourdieu also conducted empirical research (1984, 1988, 1990) by which he justified his analytical instrument. Authors who follow Bourdieu's tradition research social capital that is available to an individual outside the family (rooted in relationships with
90 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
friends, acquaintances, parents' school and business connections) and use Bourdieu's theory of social-cultural reproduction to explain ways in which social capital acts to serve the reproduction of social inequalities (e.g., Ra, 2011).
There is a difference between Bourdieu's and Coleman's conceptualisation of social capital. Coleman's concept of social capital encompasses the quality of relationship/association within the family and beyond the family. Unlike Coleman, Bourdieu sees quality relationships within the family (e.g., the support and participation of parents in common activities with children/ students) as cultural capital and does not place them in social capital. According to Bourdieu, social capital encompasses the totality of resources that stem from belonging to groups beyond the family, enabling all members to use the collective capital. The difference between Bourdieu and Coleman is further evident in that Bourdieu finds the level of parental education to be an aspect of cultural capital, while Coleman sees it as a measure of the human capital of the family. Furthermore, when referring to the family as cultural capital, Bourdieu does not take into consideration the family's structure (presence of both parents, number of siblings, etc.), while this is included in Coleman's concept of social capital. Nor does Bourdieu's approach to social capital include the social networks that are accessible to individuals as members of particular organisations (schools, colleges). However, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of relationships in particular organisations are, according to Bourdieu, encompassed in the concept of institutional habitus (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Institutional habitus reflects the roles of an organisation's members, as well as the institutionalised rules that create a common cognitive system (Khanchel & Ben Kahla, 2013) and represents the link between an individual's behaviour and the social structure (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008). In her research, Doolan (2009) included the number of students in a particular programme of study and the communication of students with teachers as aspects of institutional habitus, which Coleman would refer to as aspects of the college's social capital. Followers of Bourdieu's approach imply a broad spectrum of variables under the notion of institutional habitus, as it includes the internal and external world of the individual, the objective and subjective aspects (Myers, 2005). Some authors find Bourdieu's concept of habitus (including institutional habitus) to be complex and ambiguous, which accounts for it being difficult to implement (Sulivan, 2002). The concept of habitus has been used within the framework of ethnographic studies (Horvat & Antonio, 1999; Reay et al., 2001), showing a significant relationship with educational achievements, which points to the relevance of its development and use in research in the area of education. Furthermore, Bourdieu claims that relationships between people do not differ only
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 91
in quality and quantity, but that their specificities are reflected in the extent of a person's possession of cultural and economic capital within a network of acquaintances. In other words, the individual's network of acquaintances need not be very broad but may include richer and more notable people, resulting in the resources of social capital at the individual's disposal being more efficient. For this individual, social institutions, such as schools and colleges, contribute to the creation of social inequality, as they support the culture of the dominant class by helping it to convert its cultural capital into wealth (Haralambos & Holborn, 2002).
Bourdieu's theory focuses more on the socioeconomic status and cultural capital of an individual in attaining educational achievements than on his/ her social capital; the latter is therefore much less elaborated in Bourdieu's work than in that of Coleman. What stands in favour of Bourdieu is the fact that economic capital is significantly and positively related to educational achievements (Baranovic, Jugovic & Puzic, 2013; Bidwell & Friedkin, 1988; Portes, Fernández-Kelly & Haller, 2009; Puzic, Doolan & Dolenec, 2006). Authors who follow Bourdieu's approach claim that differences in the possession of social capital by an individual are a result of differences in possessing economic capital (e.g., Bruen, 2014); however, very little research has managed to confirm the notion that social capital is a mechanism through which social inequalities are reproduced (Tzanakis, 2011). Doolan (2009) concluded that certain aspects of social capital (e.g., parents' friends) play a role in supporting social mobility, which is not characteristic of the theory of socio-cultural reproduction. Bruen (2014) established that aspects of social capital include resources whose use enables the social mobility of students. Douglas Martin (2010) also states that particular forms of cultural and social capital are available to all regardless of social status. Furthermore, research has been unable to establish the support of members of a dominant class through the inadvertent and conscious behaviour of teachers as agents (Goldthorpe, 2007). Goldthorpe (2007) points to the existence of differences between the source ("wild") and modified ("tamed") approach to Bourdieu, where the former is a follower of Bourdieu's original standpoint and the latter encompasses various modifications of his theoretical foundation. On the most part, empirical studies have not supported the approach based on Bourdieu's source conceptualisation (Tzanakis, 2011); however, they have managed to support the modified approach to using Bourdieu's theory, whose authors acknowledge the role of social capital in enabling social mobility, thus distancing themselves from Bourdieu's original theoretical model.
92 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
An integrative approach
Despite the numerous studies that combine Coleman's and Bourdieu's approach in the use of social capital (e.g., Pishghadam & Zabihi, 2011) and in discussion of research results, only a small number of researchers explicitly state that they have implemented this approach. There are few authors (e.g., Ho, 2003) in the area of the sociology of education who state that they have actually combined Bourdieu's and Coleman's approach in their research. Authors who combine Coleman and Bourdieu actually create their own theoretical and methodological concepts for questioning the relationship between social capital and educational achievements. For example, Pishghadam and Zabihi (2011) investigate social capital available within the family and beyond the family, as well as researching the family's structure; however, the social capital of the family also encompasses cultural capital in Bourdieu's sense (involvement in cultural practices and possession of cultural goods), while the level of parents' education is isolated as a separate variable. Nonetheless, relevant literature (e.g., Pusztai, 2014) often poses the question as to whether it is justified to integrate such concepts, considering they have emerged on entirely divergent foundations: Bourdieu's theoretical approach serves to explain social inequality and is close to Marxist theory, whereas Coleman's approach emphasises individual potentials and is close to Durkheim's theoretical roots. We are of the opinion that Bourdieu's and Coleman's concepts can, in fact, be integrated, as they involve complementary definitions of social capital, but the implementation should be handled in a manner that involves all of the key parameters of both Bourdieu and Coleman, with adequate distinction. For example, social capital can be implemented in a way that includes relationships within the family, the community and educational institutions, as well as relationships with friends, parents' friends, etc. In this way, Coleman's aspects of social capital are combined with those of Bourdieu. The theoretical and methodological justification for such approaches already exists, as authors using an integrated approach have established their approaches so as to overcome the shortcomings of both Coleman's and Bourdieu's models (Burt; 1997; Lin, 2001).
Following this line of thought, a network approach to researching social capital is presently being developed. One of the most frequent forms of network analysis in network approaches is the model of ego-network, which stems from the individual agent in the system, regardless of whether it involves an individual, family or company (Babovic, 2005). A chain method reveals all of the agents with which the starting agent has direct relationships, as well as the relationships between these agents. Taking a structural approach, it is assumed
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 93
that agents within a network do not behave according to personal attitudes, norms and individual characteristics, but according to their position within the network structure. This allows for an analysis of horizontal and vertical differences in possessing the social capital and social resources that are available to an individual within particular organisations, as well as beyond these organisations. Furthermore, the merging of Coleman's and Bourdieu's theories is far more frequent when researching social capital as a characteristic of institutions; for example, in researching an organisation's efficiency (Svendsen & Sv-endsen, 2004; Tierney, 2006). Tierney's (2006) social capital of an organisation is viewed through Coleman's concept of social capital, which consists of all of the internal relationships possessed by a particular group (including common norms and values). It also encompasses relationships beyond the organisation (more common to Bourdieu's understanding of social capital, which is not related to the norms and values of a group) and relates them to an individual's achievements in an organisation and the efficiency of the entire organisation. Analogous to this, the social capital of educational institutions and their influence on the educational achievements of an individual can be viewed from the same perspective.
Conclusion
By examining Bourdieu's and Coleman's approaches in researching relationships between social capital and educational achievements, it can be concluded that both approaches have advantages while also demonstrating serious limitations (Tzanaki, 2013). Coleman is primarily criticised on account of his theory failing to explain differences in the possession of social capital by individuals of different social backgrounds. However, it has proven to be rather efficient in explaining differences between individuals of a similar social background. Thus, the theory of rational action, whose fundamental conceptual means is social capital, functions successfully when homogenous groups of sample participants are in question (homogenous with respect to socioeconomic status). For example, if the relationship between social capital and enrolment of students in private and public universities is being researched, it is likely that the economic and cultural capital of the parents will play a more significant role than social capital. However, if we are investigating the educational achievements of students who are studying fee-free in a particular programme (e.g., teacher education), it is more likely that the differences in educational achievements will, for the most part, depend on the possession of social capital. In terms of advantages, Coleman's theory of social capital is successfully
94 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
implemented in the majority of quantitative research; thus, its validity could be tested without including ethnographic studies. Moreover, Coleman's approach enables an analysis of relationships within the family, away from the family and in particular social institutions (communities, organisations) under one concept, i.e., the concept of social capital, which further simplifies the conceptualisation and execution of research based on this approach.
On the other hand, Bourdieu's original theory is much broader and more elaborated, which is both an advantage and a drawback. The majority of quantitative studies founded on Bourdieu's conceptualisation of social capital have not consistently and unambiguously supported the theory of social reproduction (Tzanakis, 2011). Furthermore, empirical research has shown that it is rather difficult to clearly operationalise the concepts of habitus and field, which are very important for the research and understanding of the relationship between social capital and educational achievements. Accordingly, when Bourdieu's theory of sociocultural reproduction is tested in the area of education, the use of mixed research methods, both qualitative and quantitative, is recommended. The theory itself is more suitable for explaining differences in the educational achievements of individuals in highly differentiated societies (Grossman, 2013), or in cases where there are discernible differences in socioeconomic and socio-cultural status of the participants in the sample. Critics of Bourdieu reject his theory, as it is not supported by numerous studies, particularly quantitative research. Moreover, Bourdieu's standpoints are considered outdated, while his concepts prove to be useless in research on educational achievements. The significance of his theory is only acknowledged in the theoretical explanations of empirical results, particularly when discussing habitus and field (Sullivan, 2002). Coleman's theory is also subject to criticism. It is said to be overly optimistic (Tzanakis, 2013). However, the fact that research results do not always confirm the basic premises of the theoretical perspectives does not mean that the concepts, theory and methodology proposed by Coleman and Bourdieu are epistemologically questionable. Quite the opposite: research showing that social capital is a means of social mobility proves that the theory of rational actions functions, regardless of the fact that such findings are the result of research based on Bourdieu's conceptual foundation, whose starting point is a different theoretical approach, i.e., the theory of social reproduction. A similar situation occurs with research using Coleman's conceptual framework of the theory of rational action (including social mobility), which can prove that social inequalities are reproduced.
In addition to these cases, there are studies that simultaneously confirm the activity of both Bourdieu's and Coleman's theories (Ho, 2013). Ho (2013)
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 95
explains the relevance of self-respect in children and its role in attaining educational success. In so doing, she emphasises how research results indicate that economic and cultural capital are significantly related to children's self-respect, i.e., educational achievements, leading to the conclusion that social background is a precondition for educational achievements and thus enables social reproduction. However, social capital (measured according to the degree of parental involvement in a child's education) shows a stronger relationship between self-respect and educational achievements, making the quality of the parent-child relationship responsible for social mobility, as its influence on education is far stronger than the influence of other capital. As such, research indicates that particular capital promotes the reproduction of social inequalities, while other capital promotes social mobility.
It can be said that Coleman's and Bourdieu's theoretical approaches and concepts that serve research of the relationship between social capital and educational achievements have not been discredited, as they are very successfully used in numerous current studies. It seems justifiable to use Coleman's and Bourdieu's concepts either independently or in combination. In so doing, it is quite logical that various uses of social capital result in various research results. For example, in testing the empirical model of social capital of Bourdieu and Coleman on the same sample (3,000 participants), Grossman (2013) concluded that both models are valid. He also established that the level of possession of social capital operationalised according to Coleman does not differentiate between social layers and ethnic groups, but differs with respect to racial belonging, while Bourdieu's model indicates differences in social capital between individuals of different class, race and ethnic affiliation. On the other hand, even differently operationalised concepts of social capital can lead to similar results. For example, social capital operationalised in research according to Bourdieu's concept can be positively related to social mobility, as is evident in research of social capital relying on Coleman's concept of social capital. Vice versa, research on social capital operationalised according to Coleman indicates that social capital can function as a means of social reproduction of society, which is in accordance with Bourdieu's approach. In discussing research that combines both Bourdieu's and Coleman's approach, it is evident that its limitations lie in an insufficient elaboration of the theory on which the integration is founded. In research to date, this integration has consisted of fragments of the theoretical perspectives of both Coleman and Bourdieu. In this context, it is crucial to mention that alternative approaches aiming to overcome the limitations of both theories are being developed, such as the network approach to researching social capital.
96 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
The present overview could therefore contribute to the establishment of a theoretical context for the empirical scrutiny and explanation of the impact of social capital on the educational achievements of individuals.
References
Acar, E. (2011). Effects of social capital on academic success: A narrative synthesis. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(6), 456-461.
Adedokun, O. A. (2007). Social capital and rural adolescents' educational achievements an aspiration. Doctoral thesis. West Lafayette: Purdue University.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Babovic M. (2005). Socijalne mreže - povezivanje društvenih aktera u sferi ekonomskih aktivnosti.
Sociologija, 27(4), 351-371.
Baranovic, B., Jugovic, I. & Puzic, S. (2014). Važnost obiteljskog podrijetla i roda za uspjeh iz matematike i odabir srednje škole. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 21(3), 285-307. Bidwell, Ch. E., & Friedkin, N. E. (1988). The Sociology of Education. In N. En. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology (pp. 449-471). London: Sage.
Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T. (2000). Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for
the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage, London. Bruen, T. (2014). Mature students' narratives of Irish higher education: A critical bourdieusian analysis. Doctoral thesis. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1997). Contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339-365. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(1) Supplement: Organizations and institutions: Sociological and economic approaches to the analysis of social structure, 95-120.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. S., & Fararo, T. J. (1992). Rational choice theory: Advocacy and critique. Newbury Park:
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 97
Sage Publications.
Coleman, J. S. (1993). Rational reconstruction of society. American Sociological Review, 58 (1), 1-15. Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A. et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education.
Coleman, J., Hoffer, T. & Kilgore, S. (1982). High School Achievements: Public, Catholic and Private Schools Compared, New York: Basic books.
Durlauf, S. (1999). The case "against" social capital focus. Newsletter for the Institute for Research on Poverty, 20(3), 1-5.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Dika, S. L. (2003). The effects of self-processes and social capital on the educational outcomes of high school students. Doctoral thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Doolan, K. (2009). My Dad Studied Here Too: Social Inequalities and Educational (dis)Advantage in a Croatian Higher Education Setting. Doctoral thesis. Cambridge: Darwin College, Cambridge University.
Douglas Martin (2010). Social class and elite university education: a Bourdieusian analysis. Doctoral thesis. Durham: Duke University.
Dyk, P. H., & Wilson, S. M. (1999). Family-based social capital considerations as predictors of attainments among Appalachian youth. Sociological Inquiry, 69(3), 477-503.
Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society. 37(3), 1-44.
Eng, S. (2009). Social capital and academic achievements among children in Cambodia: A close look at family. Doctoral thesis.Texas: Texas Tech University.
Erickson, B. H. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology, 102(27), 217-51. Fan, J. (2014). The impact of economic capital, social capital and cultural capital: Chinese families' access to educational resources. Sociology Mind, 4(4), 272-281.
Flap, H. D. (1991). Social capital in the reproduction of inequality. Comparative Sociology of Family, Health and Education, 20(6), 6179-6202.
Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1999). Is it time to disinvest in social capital? Journal of Public Policy,
19(1), 141-173.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development, Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7-20. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books. Goldthorpe, J. (2007). Cultural capital: Some critical observations, Sociologica, 2(1), 1-23. Golubovic N., & Golubovic S. (2007). Alternativni pristupi konceptualizaciji drustvenog kapitala, Ekonomski anali, 1, 174-175.
Grossman, E. (2013). An examination of Putnam's, Coleman's, and Bourdieu's conceptualizations
98 social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
of social capital and the structural differences across class, race, and gender groups. Doctoral thesis. Akron: The Graduate Faculty, University of Akron.
Haralambos, M., & Holborn M. (2002). Sociologija: teme i perspektive. Zagreb: Golden marketing. Harper, S. R., & Griffin, K. A. (2011). Opportunity beyond affirmative action: How low-income and working-class black male achievers access highly selective, high-cost colleges and universities.
Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 17(1), 43-60.
Ho, S. C. (2003). Home School Collaboration and Creation of Social Capital. Hong Kong Journal of Sociology 4(1), 57-85.
Hou, L., Li, F., & Zheng, Q. (2008). The impact of family background on the access to quantity and quality of higher education—from social stratification perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 29(10), 39-45.
Hofferth, S., Boisjoly, J., & Duncan, G. (1998). Parents' extrafamilial resources and children's school attainment. Sociology of Education, 71(3), 246-248.
Horvat, E. M., & Antonio, A. L. (1999). Hey, those shoes are out of uniform: African American girls in an elite high school and the Importance of habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(3), 317-342.
Israel, G. D., Beaulieu L. J., & Hartless, G. (2001). The influence of family and community social capital on educational achievements. Rural Sociology, 66(1), 43-68
Khanchel, H., & Ben Kahla, K. (2013). Mobilizing Bourdieu's theory in organizational research.
Review of General Management, 17(1), 86-94.
Khattab, N. (2003). Explaining educational aspirations of minority students: the role of social capital
and students' perceptions. Social Psychology of Education, 6(4), 283-302.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital, Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lopez, E. (1996). Social capital and the educational performance of Latino and Non Latino youth. San Luis Obispo, CA: Julian Samora Research Institute.
Loury, G. (1977). A dynamic theory of racial income differences. In P. Wallace, A. LaMond, (Eds.), Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination (pp. 153-188). Michigan: Lexington Books. McNeal, R. B. J. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievements, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-144.
Mikiewicz, P., Torfi, J., Gudmundsson, J. G., Blondal, K. S., & Korczewska, D. M. (2011). Social capital and education: Comparative research between Poland and Iceland, final report. Wroclaw: University of Lower Silesia.
Myers, K. (2005). Racetalk: Racism hiding in plain sight. Maryland: Rowman and Lettlefield Publishing group.
Palmer, R. T., & Dancy, T. E., II. (2008). Shaping success among Black males in an HBCU: study of
barriers and benefits. Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs, 22(1), 59-22.
Palmer, R. T., & Gasman, M. (2008). It takes a village to raise a child: the role of social capital in
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 99
promoting academic success for African American men at a black college. Journal of College Student Development, 49(1), 52-70.
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on child social adjustment.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 32-47.
Pishghadam, R., & Zabihi, R. (2011). Parental education and social and cultural capital in academic achievements. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 50-57.
Pusztai, G. (2014). The effects of institutional social capital on students' success in higher education.
Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 4(3), 60-73.
Portes, A., (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-24.
Portes, A., Fernandez-Kelly, P., & Haller W. (2009). The adaptation of the immigrant second generation in America: A theoretical overview and recent evidence. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(7), 1077-1104.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35-42. Puzic, S., Doolan, K., & Dolenec, D. (2006). Socijalna dimenzija "Bolonjskog procesa" i (ne) jednakost sansi visokog obrazovanja: neka hrvatska iskustva. Sociologija sela, 44(2-3), 221-243. Ra, E. (2011). Understanding the role of economic, cultural, and social capital and habitus in student college choice: An investigation of student, family, and school contexts. Doctoral thesis. Michigan: School of Education, University of Michigan.
Reay, D., David, M. E., & Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of Choice: social class, race and gender in higher education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Richardson, J. B., Jr. (2009). Men do matter: Ethnographic insights on the socially supportive role of the African American uncle in the lives of inner-city African American male youth. Journal of Family Issues, 30(8), 1041-1069.
Rose, R. (2000). How much does social capital add to individual health? A survey study of Russians,
Social Science and Medicine, 51(9), 1421-1435
Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion perspectives from leader in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 208-218.
Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field, J. (2000). Social capital: A review and critique, In S. Baron, J. Field and T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 1-38), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. H., Beaulieu, L. J., & Israel, G. D. (1992). Effects of human capital and social capital on dropping out of high school in the South. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 8(1), 75-87. Schaefer-McDaniel, N.J. (2004). Conceptualizing social capital among young people: Toward a new theory. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 140-150.
Sullivan, A. (2001). Cultural capital and educational attainment. Sociology, 35(4), 893-912. Sullivan (2002). Bourdieu and education: how useful is Bourdieu's theory for researchers? The
Netherlands 'Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 144-166.
Sun, Y. (1999). The contextual effects of community social capital on academic performance. Social sciences Research, 28(4), 403-426.
loo social capital and educational achievements: coleman vs. bourdieu
Svendsen, G. L. H. & Svendsen, G. T. (2004). The creation and destruction of social capital: Entrepreneurship, co-operative movements, and institutions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Tierney, W. G. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic work. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Tzanakis, M. (2011). Bourdieu's social reproduction thesis and the role of cultural capital in educational attainment: A critical review of key empirical studies. Educate, 11(1), 76-90. Tzanakis, M. (2013). Social capital in Bourdieu's, Coleman's and Putnam's theory: empirical evidence and emergent measurement issues. Educate, 13(2), 2-23.
Winter, I. (2000). Towards a theorised understanding of family life and social capital. Working Paper No. 21. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151-208.
Yan, W. (1999). Successful African American students: The role of parental involvement. J. Negro Education, 68(1), 5-22.
Biographical note
Silvia Rogosic completed the Study of Croatian Culture and Sociology at the Centre for Croatian Studies, University of Zagreb. In 2016, she received her Ph.D. from the Faculty of Teacher Education in Zagreb with the thesis in sociology of education. She works as postdoctoral assistant at the Department of Teacher Education Studies (Chair of Philosophy and Sociology) at the Faculty of Teacher Education in Zagreb. Since 2010 she has been lecturing in sociology of education at the same faculty. She has published numerous articles and participated in two research projects as a team member.
Branislava Baranovic is currently working as a Senior Scientific Associate at the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb and as the Director of the Institute. She is one of the founders of the Centre for Educational Research and Development, a scientific unit within the Institute, and she was its director for 10 years. She is also teaching Sociology of education at graduate level at the Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb. Her main fields of interest are the sociology of education, national curriculum development, social inequalities in education, and gender and education. She has written and edited 6 books, and published numerous articles and participated in 20 research projects as a project leader and team member.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 101
The Sources of Inequity in the Education System of Serbia and How to Combat Them1
Ana Pešikan*2 and Ivan Ivic3
^^ The concept of equal opportunity for all students is deeply embedded in the Serbian constitution and in education laws. On that level, there is no doubt that everyone is ensured an opportunity to receive quality education. Many measures in education policy have been created specifically to achieve this objective and make the system fair and inclusive. The Coleman Report was linked to a wave of optimism that certain educational measures would help in achieving these noble goals. This aim is a high priority in education in a democratic country, and due to its importance needs to be re-examined. Thus, the present research examines the equity of students in the Serbian education system, detecting areas on all educational levels that could be (or already are) systemic sources of inequity (e.g., criteria for preschool institution enrolment, the system of student awards, rationalisation of the school network, the concept of entrance exams to secondary school or university, etc.). A number of measures have already been taken in the system specifically to deal with inequity (e.g., the Preschool Preparatory Programme, dropout measures, inclusion, scholarships, etc.). The effects of these measures in particular are analysed in the present work. In addition to an analysis of the systemic sources of inequity in the Serbian education system, the article also makes recommendations for their overcoming.
Keywords: equity, sources of inequity, education system, Serbia
1	The work originated within the project "Identification, evaluation and development of cognitive and emotional competences that are important in a society oriented towards European integration", No. 179018 supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
2	^Corresponding Author. Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia; apesikan@f.bg.ac.rs.
3	Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.
102
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
Viri nepravičnosti v edukacijskem sistemu Srbije in kako se z njimi spopasti
Ana Pešikan in Ivan Ivic
^^ Koncept enakih možnosti za vse učence je vpisan v srbsko ustavo in zakone s področja edukacije. Na tej ravni ni nobenega dvoma, da naj bi vsi dobili možnost za kakovostno izobraževanje. Veliko ukrepov v edukaci-jskih politikah je bilo sprejetih z namenom doseganja tega cilja in tudi z namenom, da bi bil izobraževalni sistem pravičen in vključujoč. Cole-manovo poročilo je bilo povezano z optimizmom, da bodo nekateri edu-kacijski ukrepi pripomogli k doseganju teh plemenitih ciljev. Pravičnost ima tako visoko prioriteto v edukaciji demokratične države in zaradi njegove pomembnosti mora biti ponovno preučen. V tej razpravi tako preučujemo pravično obravnavo vključenih v edukacijski sistem Srbije. To počnemo tako, da odkrivamo mesta na vseh edukacijskih ravneh, ki bi bila lahko (ali so že) sistematični viri nepravičnosti v sistemu (tj. merila za vpis v institucionalizirano predšolsko vzgojo, sistem nagrajevanja učencev, racionalizacija mreže šol, koncept sprejemnih izpitov za vpis v srednje izobraževanje in na fakultete itn.). Z namenom spoprijema z nepravičnostjo je bilo sprejetih že veliko sistemskih ukrepov (npr. predšolski pripravljalni program, ukrepi za tiste, ki ne končajo šolanja, inkluzija, štipendije itn.). Učinke teh ukrepov v prispevku analiziramo. Poleg analize sistemskih virov nepravičnosti v edukacijskem sistemu Srbije prispevek prinaša tudi priporočila za njihovo odpravo.
Ključne besede: pravičnost, viri nepravičnosti, edukacijski sistem, Srbija
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 103
Introduction
The education system is expected to play its part in the social aspirations of a country to struggle with social exclusion, and is ultimately intended to improve social cohesion and reduce poverty. Inspired by the Coleman Report (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966), a great deal of research has been done, resulting in a wave of optimism that some educational measures could help to reach these noble goals. Everyone should have an opportunity to receive quality education, i.e., groups from disadvan-taged starting points must have the chance for a good start in life. If there is no equity in the education system, students, future citizens, could be deprived of numerous opportunities for choice, and therefore fail to achieve their full potential and participate fully in society (Lucas & Beresford, 2010; Maitzegui-Onate & Santibanez-Gruber, 2008; Schleicher, 2009). Across the OECD, for example, nearly one in three adults (30%) have only primary or lower-secondary education, which represents a real disadvantage in terms of employment and life opportunities (Simon, Malgorzata & Beatriz, 2007, p. 12).
If there is no equity in the education system, the loser is not only individuals but also the economy of the country, due to the loss of human capital and the burden of social assistance. The long-term social and financial costs of educational failure are high, in terms of higher costs for health, income support, child welfare and security (Simon, Malgorzata & Beatriz, 2007). Immigration also poses new challenges for fair and inclusive education, affecting the performance of education systems in a number of ways (e.g., foreign language background, low educational level of some immigrant groups). In Serbia, as in other countries that are seriously affected by demographic decline resulting in depopulation and escalating demographic aging,4 equity in education has a special significance for the country's development, because the inclusion of all sectors of the population in education contributes to an increase in human resources, which are vital for the development of the country (Ivic, 2014). Identifying sources of loss of human capital in the pre-university period is especially important, because it is in this period that preventive measures to reduce these losses can still be taken.
The equity approach in education research began to emerge in the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century. In the literature on the concept of equity, there are many debates as to what 'equity' actually means (Castelli,
4 Serbia is among the countries in the world with an older population, the median age being 41.9 years. The population growth rate is -0.46%; the birth rate is 9.13 births/1,000 population, and the mortality rate is 13.71 deaths/1,000 population (2014 estimate). This means that the birth rate is insufficient to ensure simple reproduction of the population (Pesikan, 2016).
104
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
Ragazzi & Crescentini, 2012; Espinoza, 2007; Hutmacher, Cochrane & Bottani, 2001). The concept has been interpreted in different ways by various authors. Some authors propose a conception of equity that includes: opportunity - or legally recognised rights; access - to school; treatment - or educational models and measures; and results - or opportunity for success (Castelli, et al., 2012, p. 2246). Others proposes the classification: a) equity as equal opportunities for all; b) equity as equal treatment for all; and c) equity as equal results for all (Castelli, et al., 2012, p. 2246). The documents published by the main international organisations involved in social welfare and education issues (OECD and UNESCO) consider equity to be: a) equity in learning opportunities and education results: supporting the disadvantaged; b) equity in compensatory measures for resources; study support; c) equity in access to education: participation in primary, secondary and tertiary education; and d) equity as inclusion (Castelli, et al., 2012, p. 2249). Demeuse and collaborators propose four basic interpretations of equity that can be applied to education policy and practice (Demeuse, Crahay & Monseur, 2001, p. 70):
•	Equity of access or equality of opportunity: Do all individuals (or groups of individuals) have the same chance of progressing to a particular level in the education system?
•	Equity in terms of learning environment or equality of means: Do all individuals enjoy equivalent learning conditions?
•	Equity in production or equality of achievement (or results): Do students all master, with the same degree of expertise, skills or knowledge designated as goals of the education system?
•	Equity in using the results of education: Once they have left the education system, do individuals or groups of individuals have the same chances of using their acquired knowledge and skills in employment and wider community life?
Obviously, in all these proposals, the concept of equity is primarily associated with fairness in the provision of education: ensuring that personal and social circumstances are not an obstacle to achieving educational potential. For the purposes of our analysis, fairness is translated into pragmatic dimensions: equality of treatment for those who start from the same point; the series of compensatory measures directed towards groups at risk of disadvantage (such as ethnic minorities, rural students or economically disadvantaged students); and equal education opportunity, i.e., the series of initiatives designed to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities for success, starting from different conditions and resources.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 105
Sources of inequity in the education system of Serbia
Creating equitable provisions for all students regardless of their diversity (e.g., socioeconomic or cultural background, place of residence, national or ethnic background, gender, language, religion, health) is a high priority in education in a democratic country. Due to its importance, it needs to be re-examined.
The concept of equal opportunity for all students is deeply embedded in the Serbian constitution and in education laws. Serbia established free, universal public primary education in 1958 (in the former Yugoslavia). At this level, there was no doubt that everyone would have access to quality education and would be educated. A range of measures were purposefully initiated to contribute to this objective and make the system fair and inclusive, such as: ensuring a well-developed school network (in 74% of villages with over 100 inhabitants there is at least a lower four-year primary school, (Ivic, 2012, p. 49)); establishing a higher level of education for teachers; the development of early care and a preschool education system; the implementation of supporting measures for the enrolment of students belonging to minority groups (e.g., schools in national minority languages; the education of teachers in their native languages; the translation of textbooks to the languages of the major national minorities; scholarships for students from economically disadvantaged groups; building dormitories for primary and secondary school students from remote areas; and the equal enrolment of girls and boys in school (the gender parity index was, and still is, approximately 0.99).
However, as usual, there is a gap between genuine democratic intentions and the legal acts to ensure their realisation, on the one hand, and what is actually occurring in practice, on the other. Regardless of equity measures, some disparities have remained apparent in the system, such as: low enrolment of minority-group students (Roma and Vlachos in particularly), rural students and students with disabilities; worse conditions in rural schools (a lack of equipment and resources for learning, multi-grade teaching, less qualified teachers, and lower achievement of rural students in comparison with their urban peers, etc.).
After the terrible crises of the 1990s (from hyperinflation to the NATO bombing of the country) and subsequent to entering the transition process, inequality in education increased significantly. Due to political and social crises, the 1990s witnessed a serious deterioration of the education system that had been built over the previous 50 years. Serbian education was greatly affected by the major political changes that occurred in 2000. Due to political instability
106
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
and the change of government, many radical changes, declarations of intended changes and actual implementation of changes with various political connotations occurred during this period (Ivic & Pesikan, 2012).
In Serbia, there is in fact no comprehensive research on equity in education. Analyses of different aspects of inequity (such as gender, ethnicity, rural/ urban, health status, family socioeconomic status (SES), poverty reduction, social exclusion and the introduction of inclusion in education) provide us with the pieces with which we can reconstruct the overall picture of inequity. However, there is no work that examines these challenges from a meta-position, attempting to recognise and discover the systemic sources of inequities. This is the focus of the present paper. Without this kind of approach it is not possible to create appropriate measures for the mitigation of harmful effects. In the analysis of the results of Serbian students in PISA testing, one part is devoted to the issue of equity (Baucal & Pavlovic Babic, 2009; Pavlovic Babic & Bau-cal, 2013), but this analysis has a very limited scope. The authors compare the impact of family SES on the achievement of students in different countries and analyse the variance between schools in Serbia, concluding that the achievement of children from families with low SES is considerably lower than their peers from families with better SES. However, this is a finding of situation, not a deeper analysis of the factors that lead to such differences. In the Strategy for Education Development in Serbia 2020 (2013), the problem is clearly recognised and the main coping mechanisms for overcoming it are offered.
According to documents and data analyses, we can say that the Serbian education system is still faced with the problem of ensuring equity and equality, and that education has been recognised as an important tool in fighting social exclusion and poverty in the country (First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic of Serbia, 2010). An additional impetus for coping with the problem is Serbia's EU accession. Once candidate status for EU membership has been granted, social inclusion and poverty reduction issues will become a mandatory component in the EU integration policy of the Republic of Serbia (ibid.). Improvement of the system requires careful analysis of the systemic sources of inequity, as the basis for the creation of recommendations for to overcome inequity.
Black holes in the system
In the present research, the equity of students in the Serbian education system is examined, detecting the places at all educational levels that could be (or already are) systemic sources of inequity in the system. The method involves
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 107
analyses of documents and statistical data. A list of the main hotspots in the system is provided in the following paragraphs, along with explanations and recommendations for overcoming them.
Criteria for preschool institution enrolment and the distribution of
preschool institutions
The system of early childcare and preschool education (ECPE) in Serbia was established in the 1970s. In accordance with socialist values, the state at that time (Yugoslavia) introduced ECPE to assist working parents, especially mothers, to provide care for their children, thereby directly supporting the process of women's emancipation and gender equality. The main criterion for the enrolment of a child in a preschool institution (PI) was that both parents were employed (Pesikan, 2012a). One consequence of this criterion was that, because employed parents were more likely to have a higher level of education attainment and better job opportunities (due to social capital and social connections), children from such families had priority in enrolment in a PI. Due to the fact that childcare in a PI was largely subsidised by the public budget, children from privileged groups were doubly privileged. Even when a new bylaw was passed on the criteria for entry to a PI, giving priority to children from socially marginalised families, in practice this bylaw was often not applied, thus violating the declared rights of children from vulnerable groups. Even today, employment of parents is still the dominant criterion for enrolment of children in a PI (Table 1).
Table 1. Enrolment of children in preschool education according to the employment status of parents (MoES, 2011)
Employment status of parents	Number of children	Percentage of children
Both parents work	112,946	61%
One parent employed	53,323	29%
Both parents unemployed	11,043	10%%
The index of gender parity is good, with 49% of girls and 52% of boys having attended preschool education programmes (MICS 5, 2014). However, there are big differences regarding the place of residence (rural/urban), health status and ethnicity. In Serbia, almost as a rule, the socioeconomic status of the child's family is inversely proportional to attendance of a PI. The coverage of
233
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
children from socially vulnerable groups5 is considerably lower than the overall coverage. The coverage of rural children aged 3-5 is 14%, and amongst the poorest families the coverage is only 7%, while it is 16% amongst children whose parents have a low level of education (compared with the national average for that school year of 43%, Living Standard Measures, 2008). The percentage of children living in Roma settlements aged 36-59 months who are attending an ECPE programme is 5.7%: 7% of girls and 5% of boys (MICS 5, 2014).
The other consequence of the employment of parents being a criterion for the enrolment of a child in a PI is the high concentration of PIs in cities, where enrolment of children in ECPE is the highest. There are significant regional differences in the coverage of children by ECPE, with the enrolment being greater in urban areas (Table 2). In Serbia, 77% of children are enrolled in urban areas. In the region of Central Serbia the enrolment rate is 82%, while in the most highly developed region of the country, Vojvodina, the enrolment of children in rural and urban settlements is somewhat more balanced than in the rest of Serbia: in urban areas, 66.51% of children are enrolled (Statistički godišnjak za 2010).
Table 2. Enrolment of children in preschool education by year of birth and type of settlement
	Number of		Percentage of children by year of birth						% of children enrolled in
	children	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	urban area
Serbia	184,066	4.75	9.58	13.80	16.53	21.29	33.43	0.61	77.16
Central Serbia	129,249	4.97	10.02	13.88	16.01	19.45	34.55	0.61	81.68
Vojvodina	54,817	4.21	8.54	13.62	17.75	24.45	30.79	0.63	66.51
Belgrade	50,243	6.71	12.31	16.20	18.32	19.73	25.75	0.98	88.21
The network of preschool institutions is underdeveloped and cannot meet the needs of local communities, families and different categories of children. Furthermore, the geographic distribution of PIs is unfavourable and jeopardises access to preschool education for children from vulnerable groups. There are no systemic data on the distance of the PI from the child's home; however, some analyses indicate that in rural areas this distance is twice as high
5 In Serbia, the vulnerable groups are children from the following categories: socioeconomically deprived families; families in which the parents have a low level of education; children with special needs and disabilities; ethnic minority (such as Roma or Vlachos); and children from rural areas.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 109
as in urban areas (urban: 1.1 km, rural: 2.2 km, MICS 4). An analysis of the implementation of the Preschool Preparatory Programme indicates that the distance to the PI significantly influences the availability of preschool education to children (Pesikan & Ivic, 2009). Many poor municipalities do not have the financial resources to develop a network of PIs; in many municipalities, the traffic infrastructure does not allow for increased accessibility to PIs; parents are unable to organise or pay for transport of children; and investments in the construction of new PIs, as well as adaptation of other available spaces, are insufficient both on the national and the local levels (a somewhat better situation is evident in Belgrade and Novi Sad).
The main purpose of quality preschool education should not be minding children of working parents, but fostering the early development and learning of children, for the benefit of the individual, his/her family and society. The enrolment of young children (aged 3-6) in preschool education is increasingly becoming the norm (OECD, 2007, p. 46); however, disadvantaged children frequently participate less in early child care and education, despite evidence that they have the greatest need and benefit the most from it (Leseman, 2002; Machin, 2006). The enrolment of children in preschool education in Serbia is deeply unfair, as the least coverage is provided to children from marginalised social groups, who have no quality incentives in their environment and for whom early developmental incentives are essential. Furthermore, this also represents the beginning of the loss of human resources in the education system, which is one of the most serious problems in Serbian society (Ivic, 2014, 2015).
The expansion of the network and capacity of preschool institutions should be adapted to demographic indicators, with the needs and interests of children, parents and local communities being a precondition for increasing coverage and expanding the offer of programmes and services in preschool education. Investments must be made in the construction of new preschool facilities and the reconstruction of existing facilities, as well as the adaptation and use of other available potentials in local communities. Given that some findings indicate that ECPE services are more used by wealthier households (64.1% of children from wealthier households relative to 7.4% of children from poor households, MICS, 2005, p. 185), the structure of beneficiaries should be reviewed and interventions targeted accordingly. The status of private providers also needs to be defined. Diversification of preschool institutions, programmes and services should be encouraged as an opportunity for children in need of empowerment of early development. Directing resources to children and regions with the greatest needs is seen as an important step towards improving equity (OECD, 2007; Pesikan, 2015).
110
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
Rationalisation of the school network
As stated above, Serbia has a well-developed school network, which it inherited from the previous state (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). The existing network of schools and education institutions is an important education resource, but it needs proper mobilisation. Today, however, the network is outdated, as it remains essentially unchanged since being created in the early 1960s, and it no longer corresponds to the demographic, economic, political or social reality in the country (Bogojevic et al., 2003). The network of educational institutions at different levels of education is not equally developed (Ivic, 2012). The network of primary schools is well-developed, but it has not been aligned with the many changes that have occurred in recent decades and is in need of optimisation (Bogojevic, Ivic & Karapandza, 2003; Ivic, Jankov, Pesikan, & Antic, 2004). There is no school busing in the country. Furthermore, approximately 23% of children are not covered by any transportation due to a lack of public transport or roads, and many of them walk between 4 and 15 kilometres to school (Bogojevic, et al., 2003). The general capacities of the secondary school network (general, vocational and art middle schools) are good and developed, but the network is not in line with the needs of particular regions, nor with the plans for the economic development of Serbia. The geographic distribution of these schools is unfair towards students in less developed and rural regions, frequently offering them only a limited range of profiles. As a rule, general high schools and art schools are located in cities (about 50% of municipalities in Serbia have no art school, SEDS, 2013), and are not evenly accessible to all categories of students, particularly those from rural and remote areas.
Due to the need for economic efficiency in education, rationalisation (not optimisation) of the school network was initiated by the Ministry of Education (MoES) (Eric, 2010). Unfortunately, this activity was driven by "fiscal logic" rather than "educational/pedagogical logic" and consisted of merging some classes and increasing student numbers per class to 30 (instead of a maximum of 26), and even 34 in "specific cases" (without specification of the criteria). It also involved closing some small schools without taking into consideration either the characteristics of the school network in Serbia today or the serious implications of these fiscal measures (called rationalisation and optimisation!) for the quality of education in Serbia (Ivic, 2012). It is an example of the clash of economic and pedagogic efficiency in education that violates the students' right to accessible and quality education. In fact, these measures had specious financial effects (see: Ivic, 2012, p. 62-67).
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 111
Since 2010, there have been some uncoordinated activities within the MoES on something resembling the optimisation of the network, without involving all of the relevant partners, without prior preparation of local communities for the task, and without their full participation in the process. In fact, the rationalisation of the school network has been based on closing schools that are not cost-effective (Ivic, 2012). However, the short-term economic efficacy achieved by closing schools and reducing classes has had adverse long-term effects both on the even regional development of the country (closing schools in rural and underdeveloped regions automatically leads to the migration of the younger population and the depopulation of these regions) and on children's right to education, i.e., it hinders their access to education. Thus, the rationalisation of the network may lead to additional threats regarding the fairness of education, and could adversely affect its already inadequate pedagogical efficiency. To mention just one telling example of the gap between financial and pedagogical effectiveness: small rural schools with multi-grade teaching are more expensive per capita than urban schools with a great number of students, but the financial benefit achieved by closing them jeopardises both the right to education of vulnerable groups of children and the opportunities for the development of the regions concerned. The priority must be given to pedagogical efficacy and rural development rather than to short-term financial benefits.
Optimisation of the school network is needed, along with a good solution that will contribute to equity of education. It is essential to have a process that respects educational, cultural and wider social rationalities, that guarantees the right to education to all categories of the population, and that is the most economical and rational in the long term. It is impossible to take unified measures throughout the entire school network, because the problems of particular categories of schools are very different. Therefore, optimisation measures must be undertaken according to local characteristics, and not based on the national average. Small rural schools should be preserved wherever possible. Although they depend on the demographic situation of the community in which they are located, they also have an impact on that demographic situation. This concept is supported by the use of extended school activities in rural and underdeveloped areas to allow schools to become multi-functional centres (educational, cultural, administrative, etc.) and agents of development in local rural communities. A flexible network of educational institutions that are readily adaptable to social changes and the different needs of beneficiaries should be established.
112
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
The lack of remedial support mechanisms for students from socially
underprivileged groups
As we have seen, the school network has not been adapted to the numerous social changes (demographic, industrial, economic, etc.), and this represents one of the sources of inequity in the system, which is further combined with the network's lack of corrective mechanisms. Specific support measures enabling students from vulnerable groups to continue their education are poorly developed: there are no dormitories for primary school students who have to continue their education in a place other than their residence (Ivic, 2012); if primary school students continue their schooling in another place, the problem of too early separation of children from their families arises; the transportation of students has not been adequately regulated (there are no school buses, no state subventions for travel expenses, inadequate public transport, etc.); there is a problem ensuring conditions for practice and work at school (e.g., musical instruments, help with students' homework); and there are no scholarships for students to enable them to undertake schooling and employment at that base. Students in Serbia have only modest possibilities to gain a scholarship.
The MoES used to give scholarships to students according to two criteria: school achievement and the socioeconomic status of the family.6 However, there is only one option when it comes to scholarships, and the availability is insufficient to meet all needs. In the previous state of Yugoslavia, scholarships offered by companies in the local community and region represented very important support for the schooling of students in need. This was also a good route to obtaining a job after graduation (if the student finished studying at the prescribed time). However, due to the transition and the major changes in the country (economic as well as social and the dominant values), as well as the economic crisis, the unemployment rate has increased and many state-owned enterprises have closed, while others are impoverished. The possibility a scholarship being a measure for ensuring the equal education of children from different regions has therefore been drastically reduced, as has the possibility of young people obtaining a job. Poverty is much more prevalent in rural areas than in urban areas (9.8% vs. 4.3%), and regional differences in the degree of development are amongst the highest in Europe (The National Strategy for Economic Development in the RS, 2007). Households with two underage children (without income) have a poverty index that is almost twice the average (12.7% vs. 6.6%), while those with three or more children have a poverty index as high as 30.5% (SEDS, 2013:75). It is obvious that the right to education of students
6 See http://www.mpn.gov.rs/prosveta/ucenicki-studenstski-standard/
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 113
from socially disadvantaged groups is doubly thwarted: their families are impoverished, many becoming unemployed, and the economy in their region is in a difficult situation, with many companies being closed and workers being dismissed, so there are no possibilities for students to obtain scholarships.
There is a need for diversified sources of support due to the high poverty rate in the country in general, and particularly in rural areas (the gap between rural and urban regions is, unfortunately, increasing) and amongst families with children (Statisticki godisnjak za 2014). The fact that less than 1% of the students at the Belgrade University come from rural families (Cvejic, 2010) is one of the indicators of both the persistent importance of students' social origin in academic achievement and the inequality in the system. It is clear that the equity issue remains very relevant and unresolved in the Serbian higher education system. However, the current government policies for allocating resources to universities do not appear to take this into account. In fact, the evaluation criteria adopted focus solely on issues of quality, which, "if equity fails to be taken into consideration, risk generating consequences which could be not only in contrast with equity but also dubious in terms of authentic merit and quality" (Benadusi, 2009, p. 19).
Identifying and providing systematic help for those who fall behind in school is one of the recommendations for combating inequity in the system. Remedial teaching (additional classes for poor students) is one of the measures created for poor students who are not in line with others for various reasons (lack of previous knowledge, learning difficulties, etc.). Remedial teaching exists in the curriculum and school documentation, but is unfortunately seldom organised in school practice. Thus, the systemic measures to support poor children in education are still lacking.
"Winner takes it all": Cumulating of the benefits
It is well known that socioeconomic background - including parents' education and income, racial, ethnic or immigrant background, and other individual factors - influences the student's educational outcomes. Public provision of education can foster equity when it counterbalances poor home circumstances at the beginning of children's lives, but it may increase inequity when it provides a common resource harvested by those who are best prepared for it (OECD, 2007).
An important source of inequity in education is the criteria for receiving state aid in education. Obtaining budget-funded scholarships in higher education in Serbia is based solely on the student's ranking in the entrance exam. It
239	the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
is therefore based on an achievement test and does not take into account the socioeconomic situation of the family. Although defining vulnerable groups, the Law on Pupil and Student Standards founds its measures on student attainment, whereas financial status is not sufficiently represented in the criteria, constituting only 30% of the points for ranking (First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic of Serbia, 2010). Hence, as a rule, students from economically and culturally wealthier backgrounds have better school achievement and, on the basis of gaining a better ranking in entrance exams, have access to scholarships, subsidised accommodation or other benefits in education. Students from a poor background do not gain the necessary support for their education, and due to their lower achievement have no possibility of obtaining any kind of public aid, in spite of having greater need than others.
Student competitions and awards
Additional teaching of gifted and talented students is planned in the school curriculum. It is a very important measure for students from less privileged cultural backgrounds, because they have little or no educational support at home. However, in the school reality, this measure is left to the good will of teachers to work with their good students or prepare them for competitions. Many students from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds have private tuition. In Serbia, the share of students attending out-of-school lessons is relatively high - higher than the average in OECD countries - with 26% of families with school age children investing in this form of teaching and spending more than 60% of their household budget (OECD, 2012). If the school fails to perform its duty, this can be compensated for with a private tutor - preparation for tests, competitions, university or secondary school entrance exams, etc. - but not for all students, only for students from a better socio-cultural background. This contributes to their higher achievement and to their privileged position in education. Even in situations in which students with a less privileged economic background are prepared for competitions by teachers in school, there are a lot of financial obstacles for their participation in a competition (such as paying for travel costs and accommodation).
The geographic distribution of institutions with artistic profiles does not provide equal access to schools to young people from all municipalities. Generally, comprehensive and art schools are placed in cities (about 50% of municipalities in Serbia have no art school, SEDS, 2013), and are not evenly accessible to students from rural and underdeveloped areas. Despite their abilities,
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 115
such students often do not have access to education in comprehensive and art schools, primarily due to the poor social status of their families. Furthermore, this type of education does not lead directly to employment, is time consuming and requires additional investment. Two economic indicators confirm this. When we look at average salaries by municipalities and districts, it is clear that the majority of municipalities that have a modest number of secondary schools fall into the category of municipalities with lower average earnings (SEDS, 2013). Another indicator is the profile of poverty in Serbia: poverty is much more prevalent in rural areas than in urban areas (9.8% vs. 4.3%), and regional differences in the degree of development are amongst the highest in Europe. Households with two underage children (without income) have a poverty index that is almost twice the average (12.7% vs. 6.6%), while those with three or more children have a poverty index as high as 30.5% (SEDS, 2013). Schooling of talented and gifted students involves additional costs (materials, equipment, etc.), further reducing the possibilities for students from socially vulnerable groups to enrol.
Weak links between school and home
Research shows that home influences school performance. In Serbia, the cooperation of schools and parents is largely reduced to informing parents about student success, or lack of success, and to interventions regarding grades. Parents with a low level of education are particularly neglected in school, and are unsure how to include themselves in their children's education. If we want to increase equity in education, it is important to strengthen the links between school and home in order to empower disadvantaged parents to help their children to learn. Research shows that children spend a significant amount of time learning out of school (in OECD countries, out-of-school learning - doing homework, working with a tutor, etc. - represents more than 20% of children's total learning time); home factors, including parental support for education, engagement with children's learning and cultural assets (such as books) are associated with stronger school performance; homework can improve school outcomes, but reliance on homework may also threaten equity, as some children lack the home support necessary for the realisation of its benefits; and parental involvement - working with children at home and actively participating in school activities - improves results. All other things being equal, schools that foster communication with and participation of parents, as well as encouraging and assisting parents to support their children with their school work, tend to have better outcomes (OECD, 2007, p. 19).
116
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
The partnership between schools and home needs to be implemented through various methods of parental/guardian involvement in school life, in the school decision-making process, in defining specific objectives and practices that correspond to the specific conditions of the families and schools, and in creating a school culture and environment that is most beneficial to students.
Systemic measures created for coping with inequity
In the analysis thus far, we have demonstrated the sources of inequity in the education system in Serbia. We now turn to another potential source of inequity in the system. Many measures have already been taken in the system to purposefully struggle with inequity: the introduction of the Preschool Preparatory Programme, which lasts a minimum of four hours per day and is obligatory for all students age 5.5-6.5, i.e., one year before starting compulsory primary schooling; as well as the introduction of inclusion in the system, positive discrimination of Roma students, and adult education compensatory measures. In spite of the noble aim, which is beyond doubt, the implementation of these specific measures appears, in varying degrees, to represent yet another source of inequity in education in practice.
Realisation of the Preschool Preparatory Programme
The Preschool Preparatory Programme (PPP) was introduced in the 2007/08 school year, with the aim of increasing the primary education enrolment of students, decreasing dropout and increasing social inclusion and educational attainment of the population throughout the country. There have been two problems with the introduction the PPP: (1) incomplete coverage of children; and (2) monitoring and analysis of the implementation of the PPP in practice.
Data about the enrolment of children in the PPP differs depending on the source (Pesikan, 2012b): from 93.16% (according to the Ministry of Education) to 92.65% (according to the DevInfo database), compared to 87.82% in 2010/11 (Statisticki godisnjak za 2011). As many as 98.1% of students enrolling in the first grade of primary school, and 79% of Roma students, have been included in the PPP (MICS 5, 2014), while the gender parity index is almost 1.00. There are, however, great regional differences in enrolment in the PPP. The highest enrolment is in urban areas, while there are significant deviations from the average in rural and underdeveloped regions (e.g., in Bor County, East Serbia, the figure is around 60%, while in Branicevo County it is approximately 55%, Pesikan & Ivic, 2009).
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 117
The second problem has arisen as a consequence of the rationalisation of the number of employees in the MoES (Pešikan, 2012a). In the first years of the implementation of the PPP, the Preschool Department of the MoE prepared annual reports containing serious analyses of the realisation of the PPP, enriched with abundant qualitative data from the sites. These reports were a good basis for monitoring the implementation and efficacy of the PPP (Pešikan & Ivic, 2009). However, due to a reduction in the number of employees in this sector, in the last four years, the reports have been reduced to basic data, insufficient to provide a good insight into PPP implementation. This is one more example of the clash between financial and pedagogical efficiency in education, with the priority being given to the wrong side.
The introduction of inclusion in the system
Inclusion is a measure par excellence for improving equity in education.
Introducing the inclusion of all students is a demanding measure that requires well-prepared terrain (schools, teachers, non-teaching staff, students with no special education needs and their parents, students with special education needs and their parents).
There are many problems with the introduction of an inclusive approach in schools in Serbia: local governments are rarely involved in the planning of the coverage of children in primary school and the inclusion of children with specific needs; the low capacity of schools to identify internal obstacles and create an inclusive school development plan; strong resistance to inclusion; a persistent medical rather than pedagogical approach to the problem (despite the adoption of the Rules on the Additional Support to Education, Health and Social Services (Pravilnik, 2010); the predominant lecturing approach to teaching, which does not leave room for an individualised approach; very poor external, institutionalised, professional assistance; lack of parent participation in the decision-making process regarding their child; the existence of prejudice, particularly towards Roma children; education professionals in general knowing little about inclusion and failing to understand it well; the lack of education statistics on children with disabilities and special needs; the problem with the continued education of these children after primary school; the absence of systematic budgeting of the resources necessary for the removal of construction and information-communication barriers in schools; the lack of pedagogical assistants; and insufficient application of an individualised approach and inadequate adjustment of teaching to children's needs (Rado, 2009; Rado & Lažetic, 2010; SEDS, 2013).
ll8
the sources of inequity in the education system of Serbia and how to combat them
Inter-ministerial cooperation (education, health and social policy) and support to local authorities with respect to inclusion need to be improved. Furthermore, a great deal remains to be done with regard to creating an inclusive environment in school, especially in rural areas, where nothing has yet been done with respect to improving the education of children resident in these areas (First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic of Serbia, 2010, p. 14).
Positive discrimination of Roma students
Economic analyses show that the situation with Roma education represents an enormous loss, both on the individual level (Roma completing secondary school can look forward to a 52% higher income than those only completing primary school) and on the national level (World Bank, 2010). In view of the absence of data, the progress made in Roma education in Serbia cannot be objectively assessed as yet. The surveys and analyses indicate improvement, but significant differences in the coverage and duration of education still persist between the Roma population and the general population, and the gap increases with the education level.
Positive discrimination has been created at the entrance to secondary and higher education. Unfortunately, the implementation of this measure is facing obstacles (school principals avoid accepting Roma students, finding various alibis, and this possibility is sometimes misused). The positive discrimination of Roma students in higher education is not successful to the same degree at all Serbian universities. The Department of Literature of the Faculty of Arts in Novi Sad represents a good example, particularly with respect to the education of Roma girls, even at doctoral level. However, the number of negative examples is rather high. The lack of multicultural education in the preparation of teachers is a contributing factor,7 resulting in teachers failing to understand the specificities of Roma culture, and overlooking the fact that they are the most marginalised and poorest group.
It is worth mentioning some of the measures created in the Strategy for Education Development in Serbia 2020 (2013) that are intended to increase equity in higher education:
• Ranking students on entrance to the faculty (linked with budget-funded
study) must combine two criteria: achievement in the entrance exam
7 E.g., one exception to the rule is the programme Active Learning for Students from Socially Marginalised Groups (I. Ivic I sar. (2005). Aktivno učenje za decu iz socijalno marginaliyovanih sredina. Belgrade: Education Forum).
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 119
and the social status of the student (the criteria ratio can, for example, be 50-50);
Introducing the obligation for both the state and the students to pay part of the tuition fees. The amount of participation would be determined according to the student's place in the ranking list, but the social and economic status of the student must also be taken into account; Students would provide funds to co-fund scholarships either in cash (as in the current system) or from loans offered by the National Development Bank and other interested banks (which would be repaid after graduation), and these loans would be subsidised by the state based on the achievement and social and economic position of the student.
Adult education compensatory measures
Those who fail at school often find it difficult to recover later on, and those with weak basic qualifications are much less likely to continue learning in adult life. In Serbia, a system of adult compensatory education has been established, offering second-chance programmes for those who lack basic education and skills. However, there is still the problem of including everyone in programmes of additional education and learning, especially with regard to the poorest and most vulnerable groups. The territorial distribution of facilities for adult education in Serbia is very unfavourable, especially for the population living in rural areas, because most institutions are located in cities: 90% of the adult education schools are located in central Serbia and Vojvodina, while other parts of Serbia are insufficiently covered by such institutions. The number of institutions participating in the formal education of adults has been reduced since the beginning of the 1990s to a small number of schools for adult education. There is an increasing tendency to cover adults through non-formal education, especially via education and learning programmes offered by NGOs and private providers. According the Strategy for Education Development in Serbia 2020, specialised primary schools for adult education should be abolished and replaced by the establishment of learning centres in existing educational institutions, with new programme content geared to the needs of adult education. This would result in economic benefits from the existing network (in afternoons and on weekends) and achieve a good geographic distribution. The development of a broad network of providers of adult education is needed; a network that, for certain education programmes, will operate under the same conditions and standards as the accreditation process.
120
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
Some good programmes for adult education have been developed through EU-funded projects, such as the programme Second Chance (Druga sansa, Ministry of Education, 2010-2013), which provides compensatory adult primary and secondary education. In some countries, such as Sweden and the United States, a good proportion of dropouts "drop back in", as there are strong adult learning systems that allow for later completion (OECD, 2007, p. 47). In Serbia, the concept of lifelong learning is accepted in documents, but the existing system of adult education is not sufficiently developed to enable an easy and smooth return to the system and the completion of programmes in the context of lifelong learning. A very small proportion of adults in Serbia take part in lifelong learning programmes. A system for the recognition of previously acquired knowledge and skills, both non-formal and informal learning, has not yet been established.
Conclusion
In this paper, we provide evidence showing that the equity issue remains a very relevant and unresolved problem in the Serbian education system. Serbia has established free, universal public primary education, with a range of democratic measures purposefully created to contribute to this objective and make the system fair and inclusive. In spite of the fact that equal opportunities are deeply embedded in the Serbian constitution and in education laws, the implementation of measures lags behind the intentions. Recognition of the sources of inequity in the system is extremely important in seeking remedial measures.
The analysis of systemic sources of inequity and systemic measures for alleviating inequalities in education in Serbia should be considered within the context of a theoretical understanding of the role of education in reducing social inequalities in society. It is a fact that the declarative emphasis on education as a mechanism for vertical promotion in society is very often present in pedagogical conceptions (sometimes in the political manifestos of certain parties, particularly left-oriented parties) in many countries, and in Serbia as well. It is also a fact that this declaration is difficult to realise in reality (exceptions can be found in some Scandinavian countries or Cuba). Thus, most analyses of systemic equity, as well as of the results of PISA testing, find that students from families with better educated parents and better SES (typically from urban regions) have better achievement than their peers from the families with lower SES (and from rural regions). The explanation for the gap between declarations on equity, on the one hand, and existing differences between students, on the other, is provided by theories that view education as a system for the
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 121
reproduction of the social structure, including the reproduction of social inequity (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970; Apple, 2010, 2011, 2013). These theories are well-grounded because the education system is part of the general social structure. Consequently, the education system can be a mechanism for achieving social equality only in certain special historical situations, when general social changes are taking place (a revolution, complex social changes that include significant changes in the education system enabling vertical social promotion).
From this point of view, the social, economic and political situation in Serbia is such that educational measures intended to increase fairness in education can only mitigate the unfairness of the education system, if they are actually realised. The difficulties in the implementation of measures for increasing fairness can be explained by the resistance arising from the status of education in the general organisation of modern society in Serbia. Even in this situation, however, our commitment to equitable education must be an urgent priority in education in Serbia today.
References
Apple, M. (2010). Global crisis, social justice and education. New York: Routledge. Apple, M. (2011). Education and power. New York: Routledge. Apple, M.(2012). Can education change society? New York: Routledge.
Baye, A., Demeuse, M., Nicaise, J., Matoul, A., Straeten, M. H., Meurent, D., & Vandenberghe, V. (2005). Equity in European Educational System. A set of indicators. European educational research journal, 4(2), 1-151.
Baucal, A., & Pavlovic-Babic, D. (2009). Quality and Equity of Education in Serbia: Educational Opportunities of the Vulnerable—PISA Assessment, 2003 and 2006 Data. Draft paper. Retrieved 3.5.2013 from http://www.inkluzija.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Quality-and-Equity-of-Education-in-Serbia-PISA-Assessment-2003-and-2006.pdf.
Benadusi, L. (2009). University and inequality. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 1-20. Bogojevic, A., Ivic, I., & Karapandza, E. (2003). Optimization of the network of schools in Serbia. Beograd: UNICEF.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.C. (1970). La reproduction. Paris: Edition Minuit.
Castelli, L., Ragazzi, S., & Crescentini, A. (2012). Equity in education: a general overview. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2243-2250.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). The Coleman Report. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
Demeuse, M., & Baye, A. (2008). Measuring and comparing the equity of education systems in Europe. In N. C. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems (pp.
122
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
85-106). Dordrecht (NL): Springer Netherlands.
Demeuse, M., Crahay, M., & Monseur, C. (2001). Efficiency and equity. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, & N. Bottani, (Eds.), In Pursuit of Equity in Education - Using International Indicators to Compare Equity Policies (pp. 65-93). Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Eric, M. (2010). Rationalization and Optimization Initiative for the Education Sector: Analyses and Fiscal Implications. World Bank Education Technical Assistance (P115212) and MoE. Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity-equality conceptual dilemma: a new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343-363.
Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failure: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD.
First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic of Serbia (2010), Belgrade: Government of the Republic of Serbia.
Hutmacher, W., Cochrane, D., & Bottani, N. (2001). In pursuit of equity in education: using international indicators to compare equity policies. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. Ivic, I. (2012). Osnovno obrazovanje. In A. Pešikan (Ed.), Osnovni resursi u preduniverzitetskom obrazovanju u Srbiji (pp. 38-76). Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
Ivic, I. (2014). Obrazovanje i razvojni problemi Srbije. In Č. Ocic (Ed.). Moguce strategije razvoja Srbije (pp. 131-160). Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Ivic, I. (2015). Obrazovanje kao i razvojni resurs: strateški pogled. In A. Kostic (Ed.). Obrazovanje kao
razvojni resurs Srbije (pp. 27-55). Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Ivic, I., & Pesikan, A. (2012). Education system reforms in an unstable political situation: the case of
Serbia in the first decade of the 21st century. CEPS Journal, 2(2), 31-53.
Ivic, I., Jankov, R., Pešikan, A., & Antic, S. (2004). Optimalizacija mreže škola u opštini Sjenica
(elaborat projekta). Beograd: Obrazovni forum.
Leseman, P. (2002). Early Childhood and Care for Children from Low-income or Minority Backgrounds, Paris: OECD.
Living Standard Measures, National Office for Statistics, Belgrade, 2008.
Lucas, S. R., & Beresford, L. (2010). Naming and classifying: Theory, evidence, and equity in
education. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 25-84.
Machin, S. (2006). Social Disadvantage and Education Experiences. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 32, OECD Publishing.
Maiztegui-Oñate, C., & Santibáñez-Gruber, R. (2008). Access to education and equity in plural
societies. Intercultural education, 19(5), 373-381.
Multiple Index Cluster Survey (MICS) 4 (2005). Belgrade: UNICEF.
Multiple Index Cluster Survey (MICS) 5 (2014). Belgrade: UNICEF.
Nacionalna stretegija privrednog razvoja Srbije od 2006. do 2012. (2007). (The National Strategy for Economic Development in the RS). Vlada Republike Srbije. Retrieved 6. 5. 2013 from http://www. srbija.gov.rs/vesti/dokumenti_sekcija.php?id=45678.
OECD (2012). Strengthening integrity and fighting corruption in education - Serbia. OECD Publishing.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 123
Pavlovic Babic, D., & Baucal, A.(2013). Inspiriši me, podrži me, PISA 2012 u Srbiji: prvi rezultati. Beograd: Institut za psihologiju.
Pešikan, A. (2012a). Predskolsko vaspitanje i obrazovanje. In A. Pešikan (Ed.), Osnovni resursi u preduniverzitetskom obrazovanju u Srbiji (pp. 15-38). Beograd: Filozofski fakultet. Pešikan, A. (2012b). Obrazovna statistika u Srbiji: metodološki problemi. In A. Pešikan (Ed.), Osnovni resursi u preduniverzitetskom obrazovanju u Srbiji (pp. 127-145). Beograd: Filozofski fakultet. Pešikan, A. (2015). Preduniverzitetsko obrazovanje i vaspitanje u Srbiji: stanje, izazovi i pravci razvoja. In A. Kostic (Ed.). Obrazovanje kao razvojni resurs Srbije (pp. 55-107). Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Pešikan, A. (2016). Serbia: An Overview. In T. Sprague (Ed.), Education in Non-EU Countries in Western and Southern Europe (pp. 247-269). London and New York: Continuum Book Series Education around the World, Bloomsbury.
Pešikan, A., & Ivic, I. (2009). Obrazovanjem protiv siromaštva - Analiza uticaja uvodenja pripremnog predškolskogprograma u Srbiji. Beograd: Ministarstvo prosvete RS i Tim potpredsednika Vlade za implementaciju SSS.
Pravilnik o dodatnoj obrazovnoj, zdravstvenoj i socijalnoj podršci detetu i učeniku, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije br. 63 od 8. septembra 2010.
Rado, P., & Lazetic, P. (2010). Rapid assessment of the implementation of inclusive education. Belgrade: UNICEF.
Rado, P. (2009). Improving the inclusive capacity of schools in Serbia. Expert study for the DILS Program Serbia.
Schleicher, A. (2009). Securing quality and equity in education: Lessons from PISA. Prospects, 39(3), 251-263.
Simon, F., Malgorzata, K., & Beatriz, P. (2007). Education and Training Policy No More Failures Ten Steps to Equity in Education: Ten Steps to Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Statistički godišnjak za 2010 (Statistical Bulletin) (2010). Beograd: Republički zavod za statistiku. Statistički godišnjak za 2011 (Statistical Bulletin) (2011). Beograd: Republički zavod za statistiku. Statistički godišnjak za 2014 (Statistical Bulletin) (2014). Beograd: Republički zavod za statistiku. Strategy for education development in Serbia 2020 (SEDS) (2013), Ed. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Belgrade: Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development.
World Bank (2010). Economic Price of Roma Exclusion. Retrieved 16.11.2013 from http://siteresources. worldbank.org/EXTROMA/Resources/Economic_Costs_Roma_Exclusion_Note_Final.pdf.
124
the sources of inequity in the education system of serbia and how to combat them
Biographical note
Ana Pesikan is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia. Her professional expertise is in the educational and developmental psychology. The focus of her work is on theoretical and practical issues of the active learning methodology, the construction and analysis of the textbook; teaching/learning history in school and the analysis of education system. She is the coauthor of the project Active Learning. She is national and UNICEF expert for education, and she was the consultant of the Georgian Ministry of Education (1998-2000). She was the minister of science in Serbian Government (2007-2008). She is one of the founders and member of Education Forum, think-tank organization for educational issues. She is the member of the Committee for Education of Serbian Academy of Science and Art. She is one of the authors of the Strategy of education development in Serbia 2020+.
Ivan Ivic is a full professor on Developmental Psychology, at the Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia. He is leading developmental psychologist and educational expert in Serbia and ex-Yugoslavia but also in the international organizations (OECD expert for education; high level expert in CERI/OECD; OMEP; UNICEF). He was the coordinator of the major project on the evaluation of the education system in FR Yugoslavia, UNICEF, Belgrade); consultant of the Georgian Ministry of Education (1998-2000); and member of UNESCO International Peer Group Review in Educational Evaluation. He was the minister of culture in ex Yugoslavia (1991). He is one of the founders and the president of Education Forum, think-tank organization for educational issues. He is the member of the Committee for Education of Serbian Academy of Science and Art. Professor Ivic was the coordinator and main author of the Strategy of education development in Serbia 2020+.
reviews
C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 125
Comics as a Literary-Didactic Method and Their Use for Reducing Gender Differences in Reading Literacy at the Primary Level of Education
Maja Kerneza*1 and Katja Kosir2
^^ The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of the systematic use of comics as a literary-didactic method to reduce gender differences in reading literacy and reading motivation at the primary level of education. It was assumed that the use of comics would have a positive effect on pupils' reading literacy and reading motivation, while also reducing the aforementioned differences between boys and girls. The dimensions of reading literacy and reading motivation were examined in experimental and control groups, before and after the intervention, by means of questionnaires and tests for pupils. The sample consisted of 143 pupils from second to fifth grade from two Slovenian primary schools in a rural environment, of which 73 pupils participated in the experimental group and 70 pupils represented the control group. Effects of the use of comics as a literary-didactic method were not found: using comics as a literary-didactic method did not have a statistically significant effect on pupils' reading literacy and reading motivation. However, when the four-way structure of the research (taking into account the age and gender of the pupils) was considered, some subgroups showed a statistically significant increase in reading interest and attitude towards reading. No reduction of gender differences in reading literacy and reading motivation was found. Based on the results, guidelines for further research are established and suggestions are offered for teachers' work.
Keywords: comics, gender differences, primary level pupils, reading literacy, reading motivation
1	^Corresponding Author. maja.kerneza@gmail.com.
2	Faculty of Education, University of Maribor, Slovenia.
126 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
Strip kot literarnodidaktična metoda dela in njegova uporaba za zmanjšanje razlik med spoloma v bralni pismenosti na razredni stopnji šolanja
Maja Kerneža in Katja Košir
^^ Namen prispevka je preveriti učinke sistematične uporabe stripa kot literarnodidaktične metode dela na zmanjšanje razlik med spoloma v bralni pismenosti na razredni stopnji šolanja. Predvidevali smo, da bo uporaba stripa pozitivno vplivala na bralno pismenost učencev in njihovo motivacijo za branje, hkrati pa zmanjšala razlike v navedenih spremenljivkah med spoloma. Izbrane dimenzije bralne pismenosti in bralne motivacije so bile pred intervencijo in po njej v eksperimentalni in kontrolni skupini preverjane s pomočjo vprašalnikov in testov za učence ter ocenjevalne lestvice za učitelje. V raziskavo je bilo vključenih 143 učencev od 2. do 5. razreda dveh slovenskih osnovnih šol iz podeželskega okolja, od katerih je 73 učencev sodelovalo v eksperimentalnem delu raziskave, 70 učencev pa je predstavljalo kontrolno skupino. V izvedeni raziskavi uporaba stripa kot literarnodidaktične metode dela v okviru zastavljenih hipotez ni imela statistično pomembnega učinka na bralno pismenost in bralno motivacijo učencev. Ko smo upoštevali štirismerno strukturo raziskave, pa se je strip kot literarnodidaktična metoda dela v nekaterih podskupinah udeležencev (upoštevajoč starost in spol učencev) pokazal kot primeren za zviševanje zanimanja za branje in izboljšanje odnosa do branja. Do pomembnega zmanjšanja razlik med spoloma ni prišlo v nobenem primeru. Na podlagi rezultatov v sklepnem delu predstavljamo predloge za nadaljnje raziskave in smernice za učiteljevo delo.
Ključne besede: strip, razlike med spoloma, učenci razredne stopnje, bralna pismenost, bralna motivacija
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 127
Introduction
International studies assessing pupils' knowledge show differences between genders in various fields of education, thus encouraging the exploration of gender differences in reading and reading literacy (e.g., Below, Skinner, Fe-arrington & Sorrell, 2010; Lynn & Mikk, 2009). The latest results in the most notable educational studies, PISA and PIRLS, are as follows: PISA (pupils in the transition from primary to secondary school) shows Slovenian pupils achieving lower results than the OECD average (scoring 481 points, compared to the OECD average of 496 points), while the difference between genders is higher than the OECD average (girls average: 510 points, boys average: 454 points). The results have deteriorated in comparison with surveys conducted in previous years (Straus, Sterman Ivancic & Stigl, 2013). PIRLS (fourth grade primary school pupils) also reveals the difference between genders in reading literacy. In the most recent test, girls achieved 16 points more than their male peers, which is also the average difference between genders in other participating countries. Compared to previous years, however, the results show that reading literacy among Slovenian pupils is increasing, with girls achieving higher performance in each year of Slovenian participation in the survey (Doupona Horvat, 2012; Prvi rezultati PIRLS 2011, n. d.).
Pupils' academic achievement, as well as literacy, is influenced by many factors (Sheridan et al., 2011). Based on the results of PIRLS, Martin, Mullis and Kennedy (2007) highlight the important factors affecting pupils' literacy: early educational activities and resources at home, parents' attitudes towards reading and their perception of the school environment, reading for homework, the availability of school resources, family-school interaction, principals' perception of the school climate and safety, teachers' satisfaction with their career, school safety, pupils' attitudes towards reading and their reading self-concept. Based on PISA results, Puklek Levpuscek, Podlesek and Sterman Ivancic (2012) highlight the importance of school, the education programme, language spoken at home, and pupils' attitudes towards reading, as well as their frequency of reading activity and computer usage. The above studies also emphasise pupils' psychological characteristics as well as environmental factors, especially those related to the family, school and libraries.
The impact of school on reading literacy begins in kindergarten, when most children enter the education system (Linklater, O'Connor & Palardy, 2009), and continues on entering school, where teachers affect pupils' achievements with their attitudes (Graziano, Reavis, Keane & Calkins, 2007), competences (Cadima, Leal & Burchinal, 2010; Hall, Johnson, Juzwik, Wortham
128 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
& Mosley, 2010) and knowledge (Grosman, 2006). Teachers seeking to reduce the difference between genders in reading literacy should continuously educate themselves about new reading and teaching strategies and new learning styles, reflect on their way of teaching, work on pupils' individual strengths, accept boys' preferences and provide male role models (Lester Taylor, 2004).
Pupils' reading motivation depends on multiple motivational factors that encourage reading (Guthrie & Alao, 1997; Guthrie, Wigfield & VonSecker, 2000; Stipek, 1996), including teachers, family, friends, books, environment, activities (Ulper, 2011), reading technique, reading comprehension level, reading interest (Kramarič, Ropič & Urbančič Jelovšek, 2000), predispositions, beliefs and goals (Conradi Gee Jang & McKenna, 2014). By fostering intrinsic reading motivation, teachers encourage lifelong reading (Bucik, 2009) and contribute to a higher level of reading and increased academic achievement (Pečjak, Bucik, Gradišar & Peklaj, 2006). Pupils who are more intrinsically motivated and competent at reading have teachers who use diverse reading materials, encourage reading and discussion about content, include reading in lessons and regularly read in class, promote reading in the classroom, and give pupils a choice of reading materials (Pečjak & Košir, 2004).
Although reading education is a goal of all school subjects, Slovenian pupils start learning to read systematically in Slovene language classes, which, at primary level in the first and second grades of the first educational period, begin as literacy training with systematic reading and writing technique acquisition. In the third grade, this continues via improvement and consolidation, and is then further promoted in the second educational period in an upgraded form, supplemented by receiving, parsing and evaluating spoken and written literary and non-literary texts (Poznanovič Jezeršek et al., 2011). Teaching literature is based on the communication model of literature education, according to which learning to read and write is a long process. In this process, pupils begin to read children's literature by themselves when their reading fluency reaches a level whereby their desire to find out the end of the story is stronger than their desire to avoid reading (Kordigel Aberšek, 2008). In the first educational period, the teacher and pupils should take as much time as the pupils needs to acquire the aforementioned skills (Kordigel & Saksida, 1999), while in the second educational period, the teacher should maintain and develop the pupils' interest in literary texts (Krakar Vogel et al., 2005). With the activities before, during and after reading, the communication model leads the reader from spontaneous to reflexive reception of literary texts (Kordigel, 1999).
When working with a literary text, teachers can use graphic organisers that enable the illustration of the relationship between text signals, i.e., groups of
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 129
content based on similarity or dissimilarity, hierarchies, relationships between the whole and the parts, chronological orders, and causal relationship (Kordigel Aberšek, 2008). This can be done with thematic illustrations, structured overviews, semantic networks, episodic maps, concept maps (Horton, Lovitt & Bergerud, 1990), curves, lines, flowcharts, circles, ellipses and speech balloons as used in comics (Kordigel Aberšek, 2008). A combination of visual and verbal information helps pupils to create their own meaning of the text (Crane Williams, 2008). When using comics in the classroom, pupils are allowed to create their own stories, including characterisation, scenes, actions, problems and solutions to problems (Lyga, 2006). When pupils work with and design their own comics, they carefully apply learned strategies, define the main tasks, summarise their knowledge, and display information in an educational and entertaining way, as well as exploring the use of dialogue, dramatic dialogue, conciseness and nonverbal communication, while simultaneously enhancing linguistic and artistic skills (Morrison, Bryan & Chilcoar, 2002), their writing and handwriting (Bitz, 2004).
Comics are one of the non-traditional literary genres that has a particular appeal for boys (Sadowski, 2010). Comics draw readers into the world they are reading about and enable them to mingle with the characters, who appear real to the readers. This attracts boys to read and has an impact on their interest in reading, their immersion and their feeling of competence (McCloud, 2010), which are the most important components of reading comprehension in boys (Pečjak, Bucik, Peštaj, Podlesek and Pirc, 2010).
The present study
Originating from the theoretical foundations and empirical findings reported above, the aim of the present study was to systematically investigate comics as a literary-didactic method to reduce gender differences in reading literacy and reading motivation at the primary level of education. In view of the results of existing studies that examine the use of comics in the classroom, but that do not investigate the use of comics as a literary-didactic method and do not cover the primary level of education, we predicted that the use of comics in the classroom would have a positive effect on pupils' reading literacy and reading motivation. This premise was systematically examined through the structured inclusion of comics in Slovene language and art instruction.
Reading literacy was assessed using two distinctive measures - as reading comprehension and as the ability to perceive text incoherence - while reading motivation was operationalised as interest in reading literary texts,
130 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
perception of reading as a difficult activity, and attitude towards reading literary texts. Due to the structure of the questionnaire, the dimensions of interest in reading literary texts and perception of reading as a difficult activity were named motivation for reading literary texts; however, it should be noted that the dimension of pupils' attitude towards reading also represents an aspect of reading motivation, and is therefore discussed as such when presenting and interpreting the results. Distinguishing between various dimensions of reading motivation contributes to clearer and more precise results (Baker, 2003; Maz-zoni, Gambrell & Korkeamaki, 1999).
Originating from the general aims of the study, the following hypotheses were tested:
Hi: The use of comics as a literary-didactic method is effective in reducing the gender differences in reading literacy at the primary level of education.
H2: The use of comics as a literary-didactic method is effective in raising
overall literacy at the primary level of education. H3: With the use of comics as a literary-didactic method, the gender differences in motivation for reading literary texts at the primary level of education can be reduced. H4: The use of comics as a literary-didactic method contributes to raising the overall motivation for reading literary texts at the primary level of education.
H5: With the use of comics as a literary-didactic method, the gender differences in attitude towards reading literary texts at the primary level of education can be reduced. H6: Comics as a literary-didactic method is effective in improving the overall attitude towards reading literary texts at the primary level of education.
Method
Participants and procedure
Using a convenient sampling procedure, 143 pupils from eight classes in two primary schools from the rural environment participated in the study, including two second-grade classes (32 pupils), two third-grade classes (35 pupils), two fourth-grade classes (33 pupils), and two fifth-grade classes (43 pupils). In both schools, two classes (second and third grade in school 1, and fourth and fifth grade in school 2) represented the experimental group (73 pupils) and two classes (fourth and fifth grade in school 1, and second and third grade in school
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 131
2) were the control group (70 pupils). A total of 76 of the participating pupils were boys (41 in the experimental group and 35 in the control group), while 67 were girls (32 in the experimental group and 35 in the control group).
The study design was quasi-experimental, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods, and was conducted in three phases:
1.	An initial evaluation of pupils' reading literacy and their reading motivation was conducted in both the experimental and control groups before the implementation of the intervention.
2.	The evaluation was followed by the implementation of a programme in which the new factor of comics as a literary-didactic method entered the existing educational practice in Slovene lessons and art classes.
3.	A final evaluation of pupils' reading literacy and reading motivation was conducted at the end of the experiment for all participants.
The intervention lasted for approximately seven weeks (depending on the inclusion of lessons in the annual work plan) and was delivered during eight units, at 19 Slovene and art lessons. A detailed arrangement of the programme, with lesson numbers, arrangement of lessons and the aims of the lessons, is presented in Table 1.
A short educational programme and training was conducted for the teachers involved in the experimental part of the programme. In the first part, they were introduced to comics as a literary-didactic method, then, in the second part, they were familiarised with a detailed lesson plan, designed as a manual (one version for the second and third grades, and another version for the fourth and fifth grades, the differences being mainly due to the difficulty of the selected texts, not due to the content itself). The third part of the training was conducted individually, so that any questions about the lesson plan could be addressed. The training for each individual teacher lasted six hours. During the implementation of the programme, the research team was available to the teachers for consultation; however, none of the teachers required additional help, since comics as a literary-didactic method had been presented to them thoroughly in the first phase of the training.
In the control group, the teachers taught according to the annual work plan set at the beginning of the school year. If teachers from the control group had comics in any form planned during the time of the intervention, they were asked to move this unit to a time after the completion of the study. Furthermore, the control group teachers were instructed that any ideas obtained by observing their colleagues who had participated in the experimental part of the research may only be used in their work after the completion of the survey.
132 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
Table 1. Detailed arrangement of the programme, with lesson numbers, arrangement of lessons and the aims of the lessons.
Lesson number	Class	Aim
1, 2	Slovene	Pupils get to know comics and their basic characteristics.
3	Slovene	Pupils independently explore and learn about comics.
4, 5	Slovene	Pupils learn about various displays of text in comics, about meaning and the use of speech bubbles in comics, and about distinguishing which part of the text can be displayed with writing and which part of the text can be displayed visually.
6, 7	Art	Pupils learn the steps of creating comics, which they then use in creating their first comic.
8, 9	Art	For the first time, pupils work with comics completely independently. They draw a comic scene using a given text. They practise determining which part of the text to show with text and which part to show visually.
10, 11	Slovene	By making a comic, pupils determine the incoherence in a given text.
12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 17, 18, 19	Slovene and Art	The use of comics as a literary-didactic method to increase pupils' literacy and reading motivation focuses on: motivation to read literary texts, active work with text, engaging with the deeper meaning of the text, detection of several text elements, creating comics using a given text, determining which part of the text to show with text and which part to show visually, actively working with text using a planning sheet, independently and coherently following the original story and the order of events.
Note: The use of comics has a great motivational power per se (Norton, 2003; Schwarz, 2002, 2006; Versaci, 2001), which is why we do not specifically list reading motivation as an aim of the first seven units presented in the above table.
Measures
All of the data were obtained before and after the implementation of the intervention, both in the experimental group and the control group. A reading literacy test and a questionnaire measuring pupils' attitude towards reading literature and their motivation to read literary texts were used to assess the variables included in the study. These data were triangulated using teachers' reports of the pupils' literacy level, their attitude towards reading and their reading motives.
Reading literacy (two-part test): The first part of the test, verifying the pupils' reading comprehension, was adapted according to Mueller's test (1969; as cited in Pecjak, 1999). The number of tasks varied for each age group, with each task having two sub-questions. For each correct answer, the pupils received one point (number of tasks/maximum number of points: second grade:
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 133
3/6, third grade: 5/10, fourth and fifth grade: 10/20). Due to the unequal maximum number of points with regard to the class level, the results were standardised within each class using z-scores. The second part of the test, examining the ability to perceive text incoherence, consisted of three tasks. An incoherent sentence was added to a passage of an original literary text, and the pupils were asked to find and underline it. The literary texts were identical for fourth- and fifth-grade pupils, while the texts differed for the second and third grades. Each correctly solved task earned the pupil one point. The maximum number of points for all test versions was three; a higher score indicates a higher expression of the variable.
Reading motivation (two-part questionnaire): The first part of the questionnaire, examining pupils' attitude towards reading via ten questions, was based on a questionnaire by McKenna and Kear (1990; as cited in Pečjak, 1999). Pupils evaluated ten statements, ranging on a four-point scale (1 - very bad, 4 - very good). The maximum number of points was 40, whereby a higher score indicates a higher expression of the variable. The reliability of the questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.79 for the first measurement and 0.87 for the second measurement. The second part of the questionnaire, adapted from a questionnaire by Pečjak et al. (2006), consisted of 14 items that measured two dimensions of pupils' motivation to read literary texts on a three-point scale (1 - not true, 3 - true). Ten items were intended to measure interest in reading literary texts, and four items represented a measure of perception of reading as a difficult activity. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) for the dimension of interest in reading literary texts was 0.78 for the first measurement and 0.83 for the second measurement, and for the dimension perception of reading as a difficult activity was 0.52 for the first measurement and 0.33 for the second measurement. The maximum number of points was 30; a higher score indicates a higher expression of the variable.
Teacher's report (three-part questionnaire): A five-point scale was designed in order to obtain the teacher's evaluation of the pupils' level of literacy (1 - the pupil's reading comprehension is very poor, 5 - the pupil's reading comprehension is excellent), their attitude towards reading (1 - the pupil has a strong aversion to reading, 5 - the pupil is very fond of reading) and their motivation to read literary texts. The scale for the evaluation of reading motivation was formed on the basis of eight goals pupils reported as reasons for reading, as reported by Sweet and Guthrie (1996): involvement, curiosity, recognition, work avoidance, challenge, social interaction, compliance and competition. Teachers validated statements for individual pupil's on a five-point scale (1 - the claim does not apply to the designated pupil, 5 - the claim applies strongly to
134 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
the designated pupil). As only teachers who were not included in the intervention programme returned completed questionnaires, more detailed analyses of teacher evaluations were not conducted.
Results
In order to determine the effect of comics as a literary-didactic method to reduce the gender differences in pupils' reading literacy and reading motivation at the primary level of education, the effect of pupils' inclusion in the quasi-experimental programme on aspects of reading literacy and reading motivation was investigated. Correlations between dependent variables are presented in Table 2 and correlations between variables included in the study with regard to gender are presented in Table 3. The correlations between variables for the first measurement are presented below the diagonal and the correlations for the second measurement above the diagonal.
Table 2. Correlations between dependent variables included in the study.
	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	Test-retest
1. Comprehension	-	0.30"	0.09	0.00	-0.27"	0.44"
2. Incoherence	0.38"	-	0.02	0.02	-0.09	0.20*
3. Attitude	0.11	0.08	-	0.52"	-0.10	0.62"
4. Interest	-0.04	0.07	0.61"	-	-0.02	0.55"
5. Difficult activity	-0.20	0.01	0.01	-0.00	-	0.12
Note: 1. Comprehension: pupils' reading comprehension. 2. Incoherence: pupils' ability to perceive text incoherence. 3. Attitude: pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts. 4. Interest: pupils' interest in reading literary texts. 5. Difficult activity: perception of reading as a difficult activity. Test-retest: correlation within variables between the first and second measurement.
As seen in Table 2, the dependent variables are mostly positively correlated, with the exception of the correlation between variables regarding perception of reading as a difficult activity and reading comprehension, which are moderately negatively related. The test-retest correlations are statistically significant and positive, except in the case of perception of reading as a difficult activity. The test-retest correlation within the pupils' ability to perceive text incoherence is low, while the test-retest correlation for the pupils' reading comprehension and interest in reading literary texts is moderate. The correlation within attitude towards reading literary texts between the test and the retest is high. Due to various indicators that question the reliability and validity of the measure perception of reading as a difficult activity (inadequate internal
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 135
consistency coefficient, low test-retest correlation, negative correlation with reading comprehension), this measure was eliminated from further analyses. Pupils with a higher score in the reading comprehension test also achieved a higher score in a test of ability to perceive text incoherence on both measurements. Similarly, on both measurement points, a better attitude towards reading is reported by pupils with a higher level of interest in reading.
Table 3. Correlations between variables included in the study with regard to gender.
		1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1. Comprehension	Boys	-	0.32*	0.17	0.22	-0.25*
	Girls	-	0.31*	0.07	0.20	-0.05
2. Incoherence	Boys	0.49"	-	0.02	0.15	-0.17
	Girls	0.27*	-	0.18	0.15	-0.23
3. Attitude	Boys	0.23	0.12	-	0.75**	-0.02
	Girls	-0.11	0.00	-	0.65**	-0.37**
4. Interest	Boys	0.19	0.13	0.68**	-	-0.12
	Girls	-0.01	-0.09	0.44**	-	-0.27*
5. Difficult activity	Boys	0.00	0.07	0.11	0.02	-
	Girls	-0.01	-0.04	-0.11	-0.04	-
Note: 1. Comprehension: pupils' reading comprehension. 2. Incoherence: pupils' ability to perceive text incoherence. 3. Attitude: pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts. 4. Interest: pupils' interest in reading literary texts. 5. Difficult activity: perception of reading as a difficult activity.
As seen in Table 3, the variables are mostly positively correlated, with the exception of the correlation between variables regarding girls' interest in reading literary texts and both genders' perception of reading as a difficult activity.
Both genders showed a statistically significant and positive correlation between reading comprehension and the ability to perceive text incoherence on first measurement. Pupils with a higher score in the reading comprehension test also achieved higher results in the test of ability to perceive text incoherence on both measurements. The correlation between variables was stronger for boys than for girls. On the second measurement, the strength of correlations almost equalised, with a lower correlation for boys and a stronger correlation for girls.
Pupils with a better attitude towards reading literary texts showed a higher level of interest in reading literary texts on both measurements. The correlation between pupils' interest in reading literary texts and their attitude
136 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
towards reading increased between measurements for both genders.
The correlation between reading comprehension and perception of reading as a difficult activity is almost the same for girls on both measurements, while there is a decrease in the correlation among boys on second measurement, which shows that boys with better reading comprehension perceived reading as a difficult activity less often.
The correlation between girls' attitude towards reading and their perception of reading as a difficult activity was negative and stronger on second measurement: girls who showed a better attitude towards reading perceived reading as a difficult activity less often. While there was also an improvement among boys, the correlation is not statistically significant.
Similarly, the correlation between girls' interest in reading and their perception of reading as a difficult activity is negative and stronger on second measurement. Girls who showed a higher interest in reading perceived reading as a difficult activity less often, while the correlation is not statistically significant for boys.
The effects of using comics as a literary-didactic method on the aspects of reading literacy and reading motivation were studied using a four-way repeated measures ANOVA and a Bonferroni post hoc test with regard to measurement period, inclusion in the programme, gender and classroom (age group) level.
Reading literacy
Reading literacy was operationalised using two variables: reading comprehension and the ability to perceive text incoherence. The average values and standard deviations of reading comprehension for the experimental group and control group before and after the implementation of the programme can be found in Table 4, while the average values and standard deviations of pupils' ability to perceive text incoherence are presented in Table 5.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 137
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for reading literacy - reading comprehension test - with regard to measurement point (before/after the implementation of the programme), condition (control/experimental), gender and class.
Before	After
Gender	Class		M			SD			M			SD	
		EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total
	2	-0.41	0.28	-0.02	1.17	0.96	1.08	-0.21	-0.38	-0.31	1.07	1.55	1.32
	3	0.19	-0.90	-0.41	0.53	1.21	1.09	0.43	-0.48	-0.07	0.49	1.57	1.27
Boys	4	0.13	0.21	0.16	0.73	0.68	0.70	-0.14	0.25	-0.01	1.15	0.70	1.02
	5	0.10	-0.37	-0.10	1.12	1.15	1.18	0.20	-0.53	-0.11	0.68	1.14	0.96
	Total	0.04	-0.27	-0.10	0.94	1.13	1.04	0.07	-0.34	-0.12	0.90	1.32	1.12
	2	0.35	-0.31	0.02	1.08	0.95	0.31	0.26	0.35	0.95	0.39	0.35	0.36
	3	0.63	0.48	0.55	1.09	0.40	0.10	0.16	0.05	0.48	0.53	0.45	0.47
Girls	4	0.52	-0.25	0.26	0.70	0.52	-0.07	0.26	-0.25	0.57	0.71	1.39	1.18
	5	-0.48	0.45	-0.60	1.18	0.51	0.16	0.10	0.23	1.26	1.00	0.92	0.94
	Total	0.13	0.10	0.11	1.04	0.70	0.14	0.18	0.09	0.94	0.72	0.89	0.81
	2	-0.01	0.01	0.00	1.06	0.97	1.00	0.40	-0.03	0.00	0.80	1.18	1.00
	3	0.38	-0.32	0.00	0.58	1.17	1.00	0.31	-0.26	0.00	0.51	1.23	1.00
Total	4	0.24	-0.07	0.10	0.65	0.61	0.64	-0.02	-0.05	-0.35	1.05	1.15	1.08
	5	-0.19	0.06	-0.78	1.39	0.94	1.21	0.15	-0.13	0.03	0.84	1.07	0.95
	Total	0.08	-0.08	0.00	1.03	0.95	0.99	0.12	-0.12	0.00	0.82	1.14	0.99
Note: EG: experimental group; CG: control group.
138 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for reading literacy - pupils' ability to perceive text incoherence test - with regard to measurement point (before/after the implementation of the programme), condition (control/experimental), gender and class.
Before	After
Gender	Class		M			SD			M			SD	
		EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total
	2	2.20	1.13	1.54	1.30	0.84	1.13	2.00	2.13	2.08	0.71	1.36	1.12
	3	1.50	0.25	0.88	1.00	0.50	0.99	1.50	2.75	2.13	1.29	0.50	1.13
Boys	4	0.89	1.00	0.92	0.78	0.00	0.67	0.78	1.00	0.83	1.30	1.73	1.34
	5	1.00	0.83	0.92	0.63	0.75	0.67	0.50	1.00	0.75	0.55	1.10	0.87
	Total	1.29	0.86	1.09	1.00	0.73	0.90	1.08	1.76	1.40	1.14	1.34	1.27
	2	1.57	1.13	1.33	0.98	0.99	0.98	1.86	1.75	1.80	1.0	1.17	1.08
	3	2.00	0.67	1.50	1.23	0.58	1.20	1.80	3.00	2.25	0.94	0.00	0.97
Girls	4	1.20	0.60	0.90	1.10	0.55	0.88	1.80	2.00	1.90	1.64	1.41	1.45
	5	1.29	1.70	1.53	0.49	0.71	0.64	1.71	1.38	1.53	1.38	1.42	1.36
	Total	1.50	1.17	1.33	0.93	0.87	0.91	1.79	1.83	1.81	1.18	1.27	1.21
	2	1.83	1.13	1.43	1.12	0.89	1.03	1.92	1.94	1.93	0.90	1.24	1.09
	3	1.78	0.43	1.19	1.09	0.54	1.11	1.67	2.86	2.19	1.00	0.38	0.98
Total	4	1.00	0.75	0.91	0.88	0.46	0.75	1.14	1.62	1.32	1.46	1.51	1.46
	5	1.15	1.36	1.26	0.56	0.84	0.71	1.15	1.21	1.19	1.21	1.25	1.21
	Total	1.40	1.02	1.22	0.96	0.81	0.91	1.44	1.80	1.61	1.20	1.29	1.25
Note: EG: experimental group; CG: control group.
The results reported in Table 4 show that the boys in the fifth grade in the experimental group and second and fourth grades of the control group exhibited a higher level of reading comprehension than girls.
In order to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the experimental and control groups with regard to changes in dependent variables between both measurement points, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted, taking pupils' gender and class as potential mediators. The interaction between the measurement period and inclusion in the programme represents a measure of the overall impact of the programme; all further interactions were used to investigate the moderating role of gender and class in the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 139
Table 6. Repeated measures ANOVA results: the effect of using comics as a literary-didactic method on pupils' reading comprehension.
			Wilks' Lambda	df	F	P
Measurement	* inclusion		1.00	1, 127	0.07	0.80
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender	1.00	1, 127	0.37	0.54
Measurement	* inclusion	* class	0.98	3, 127	1.04	0.38
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender * class	0.96	3, 127	1.74	0.16
Note: Measurement: measurement period; inclusion: inclusion in the programme.
Table 7. Repeated measures ANOVA results: the effect of using comics as a literary-didactic method on pupils' ability to perceive text incoherence.
			Wilks' Lambda	df	F	P
Measurement	* inclusion		0.90	1, 127	14.84	0.30
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender	1.00	1, 127	0.13	0.47
Measurement	* inclusion	* class	0.90	3, 127	4.65	0.45
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender * class	0.98	3, 127	0.84	0.48
Note: Measurement: measurement period; inclusion: inclusion in the programme.
As can be seen from the results presented in Tables 6 and 7, the effect of inclusion in the programme (measurement * inclusion) is not significant for any of the aspects of reading literacy. Compared to the pupils in the control group, the pupils in the experimental group did not significantly improve their result in reading comprehension and incoherence perception tests.
Interest in reading literature
In addition, the effect of inclusion in the programme on pupils' interest in reading literary texts was examined. Descriptive statistics for this measure are presented in Table 8.
140 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
Table 8. Descriptive statistics for pupils' interest in reading literary texts questionnaire with regard to measurement point (before/after the implementation of the programme), condition (control/experimental), gender and class.
Before	After
Gender	Class		M			SD			M			SD	
		EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total
	2	25.57	27.22	26.50	3.60	2.05	2.85	23.14	27.67	25.69	2.34	3.43	3.71
	3	24.44	23.55	23.95	3.47	4.46	3.97	21.56	23.18	22.45	4.53	4.12	4.27
Boys	4	25.15	26.17	25.47	3.05	3.76	3.22	25.77	20.83	24.21	3.49	5.04	4.55
	5	24.67	19.89	22.62	3.97	5.82	5.26	24.67	19.89	22.62	3.47	6.35	5.35
	Total	24.93	24.00	24.50	3.38	5.00	4.20	24.07	23.09	23.62	3.81	5.49	4.65
	2	27.13	27.63	27.38	2.03	2.92	2.45	25.00	27.88	26.44	4.34	2.10	3.63
	3	25.71	27.88	26.87	2.98	1.96	2.64	22.57	27.13	25.00	3.31	2.03	3.51
Girls	4	28.60	26.00	26.93	1.14	2.69	2.56	27.60	25.44	26.21	1.67	2.88	2.67
	5	27.67	24.90	26.41	29	1.73	2.79	28.42	21.60	25.32	1.68	4.14	4.57
	Total	27.25	26.49	26.85	2.60	2.57	2.60	26.16	25.29	25.70	3.65	3.83	3.74
	2	26.40	27.41	26.94	2.87	2.43	2.65	24.13	27.76	26.06	3.56	2.82	3.64
	3	25.00	25.37	25.20	3.22	4.17	3.72	22.00	24.84	23.54	3.95	3.88	4.11
Total	4	26.11	26.07	26.10	3.07	3.03	3.00	26.28	23.60	25.06	3.16	4.39	3.94
	5	26.17	22.53	24.56	3.69	4.81	4.55	26.54	20.89	24.00	3.28	5.22	5.09
	Total	25.95	25.24	25.60	3.26	4.14	3.72	24.99	24.19	24.59	3.86	4.83	4.36
Note: EG: experimental group; CG: control group.
The effect of the use of comics as a literary-didactic method at the primary level of education was examined using a repeated measures ANOVA and a Bonferroni post hoc test.
Table 9. Repeated measures ANOVA results: the effect of using comics as a literary-didactic method on pupils' interest in reading literary texts.
			Wilks' Lambda	df	F	p
Measurement	* inclusion		1.00	1, 127	0.01	0.91
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender	1.00	1, 127	0.11	0.74
Measurement	* inclusion	* class	0.90	3, 127	4.95	0.00
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender * class	0.94	3, 127	2.85	0.04
Note: Measurement: measurement period; inclusion: inclusion in the programme.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 141
Table 9 shows a statistically significant interaction effect between inclusion in the programme, measurement period and class, as well as between measurement period, gender and class. The Bonferroni post hoc test showed a statistically significant difference between second- and third-grade pupils (p = 0.02), as well as between second- and fifth-grade pupils (p = 0.01). The results in Table 8 show that second-grade pupils achieved better results than third-grade pupils, and fifth-grade pupils achieved better results than second-grade pupils. The repeated measures ANOVA and the results presented in Table 8 show that fourth- and fifth-grade pupils in the experimental group reported a significantly improved level of interest in reading literary texts than their peers in the control group, while the results of second- and third-grade pupils indicate an improved level of interest in the control group. The differences between measurements, taking into account class as well as gender, show an improvement in the results among fourth-grade boys and among both genders in the fifth grade, but not among other participants in the experimental group.
Attitude towards reading
The effect of the use of comics in the classroom was also examined in the context of pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts. Descriptive statistics for this measure are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Descriptive statistics for pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts questionnaire with regard to measurement point (before/after the implementation of the programme), condition (control/experimental), gender and class.
Before	After
Gender	Class		M			SD			M			SD	
		EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total
	2	32.43	34.89	33.81	2.82	3.06	3.12	31.43	37.00	34.56	4.24	2.69	3.38
	3	31.00	32.27	31.70	5.36	5.27	5.21	27.67	30.27	29.10	4.80	6.28	5.68
Boys	4	32.08	32.33	32.10	5.20	2.42	4.43	33.54	27.17	31.53	5.21	4.54	5.75
	5	32.17	27.33	30.10	2.29	9.12	6.50	29.91	24.33	26.10	6.32	6.60	9.00
	Total	31.93	31.69	31.82	4.09	6.23	4.15	30.10	29.94	30.03	7.32	7.03	7.14
142 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
Before	After
Gender	Class		M			SD			M			SD	
		EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total	EG	CG	Total
	2	31.75	34.13	32.94	5.01	4.88	4.93	32.63	31.50	32.06	3.42	8.77	6.46
	3	30.71	34.63	32.80	2.69	4.81	4.33	27.14	36.88	32.33	5.70	1.73	6.38
Girls	4	35.80	31.67	33.14	2.17	2.60	3.13	37.40	31.67	33.71	0.89	2.29	3.41
	5	35.69	30.80	33.55	2.66	3.99	4.14	36.25	27.20	32.14	3.25	4.71	6.23
	Total	33.69	32.66	33.15	3.96	4.26	4.12	33.53	31.54	32.49	5.24	5.98	5.69
	2	32.07	34.53	33.38	4.01	3.91	4.09	32.07	34.41	33.31	3.73	6.73	5.57
	3	30.88	33.26	32.17	4.27	5.09	4.82	27.44	33.05	30.49	5.03	5.85	6.11
Total	4	33.11	31.93	32.58	4.80	2.46	3.91	34.61	29.87	32.45	4.74	3.94	4.95
	5	34.00	29.60	31.86	3.07	6.94	5.63	31.83	25.84	29.19	8.86	5.71	8.12
	Total	32.70	32.17	32.44	4.10	5.32	4.73	31.60	30.74	31.18	6.67	6.53	6.60
Note: EG: experimental group; CG: control group.
In order to investigate the programme's impact on the pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted (Table 11).
Table 11. Repeated measures ANOVA results: the effect of using comics as a literary-didactic method on pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts.
			Wilks' Lambda	df	F	p
Measurement	* inclusion		1.00	1, 127	0.31	0.31
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender	0.99	1, 127	0.18	0.92
Measurement	* inclusion	* class	0.93	3, 127	3.38	0.00
Measurement	* inclusion	* gender * class	0.92	3, 127	3.54	0.01
Note: Measurement: measurement period; inclusion: inclusion in the programme.
The effect of inclusion in the programme on pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts is statistically significant in interaction with measurement period and class, as well as in interaction with measurement period, gender and class (Table 11). However, only one of the paired Bonferroni comparisons was statistically significant. A more detailed analysis of the results presented in Table 10 shows better results for second- and fourth-grade pupils in the experimental group, while for third- and fifth-grade pupils better results were achieved in the
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 143
control group. The study also shows better results for older girls, while for boys no major differences were found with regard to the pupils' age group.
Discussion
The main purpose of the study was to examine the short-term effect of the systematic use of comics as a literary-didactic method to reduce gender differences in reading literacy and reading motivation at the primary level of education, and to create a basis for a longer lasting experiment. The results of the present study provide an important insight into the use of comics as a literary-didactic method in teaching at the primary level of education. Moreover, they indicate that for a complete insight into the use of comics at the primary level both the pupils' age and gender should be taken into account. These factors should also be considered when drawing up guidelines for further research and for use in the classroom. Our results did not confirm the hypotheses regarding gender and class as potential mediators of the relationship between inclusion in the programme and aspects of reading literacy and reading motivation.
Hypotheses Hi and H2, regarding overcoming gender differences and increasing overall reading literacy, were not confirmed in any of the studied segments of reading literacy and reading motivation, and are therefore rejected entirely. Based on the results of a repeated measures ANOVA referring to pupils' interest in reading literary texts, we also reject hypothesis H3, which assumes a reduction in gender differences, and hypothesis H4, which assumes the overall positive effect of the programme. However, the assumed effect of the use of comics as a literary-didactic method on pupils' reading interest was found in some subgroups, i.e., among fourth-grade boys and fifth-grade pupils of both genders. The hypotheses regarding pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts (H5 and H6) should also be rejected, as the expected effect of inclusion in the programme was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the estimated impact of the use of comics on pupils' attitude towards reading literary texts was evident in the case of boys in the fourth grade and in the case of girls in the second, fourth and fifth grades. It should, however, be noted, that boys in the second, third and fifth grades, as well as girls in third grade, showed a greater improvement in the control group.
Pressley, Graham and Harris (2006) defined features of literacy intervention research that, as limitations, also occur in our study. In the present study, randomisation was not possible because the study is quasi-experimental. Quasi-experimental evaluations can find larger intervention effects than true experiments (Cook & Campbell, 1979; as cited in Pressley, Graham & Harris, 2006).
144 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
However, based on the results of several studies, Pressley, Graham and Harris (2006) estimate that true experiments and quasi-experiments can still produce roughly the same size effect, with slightly more variable differences for quasiexperiments. The authors also suggest that when the findings are reported only by one experimental or quasi-experimental study, the question of generalising the effects arises: general conclusions can only be drawn by replication of evaluations over different variables (populations, settings, materials and others).
Educational interventions vary in complexity and duration. The majority of interventions are concentrated on smaller, focused interventions with an immediate impact on a specific task. It is rare that evaluations are focused on large interventions with many components that have long-term impacts (Hsieh et al, 2005). The duration of an intervention is not necessarily associated with outcomes, as short, intensive interventions can sometimes offer the most efficient approach (Brooks, 2007; Kerneza & Kordigel Abersek, 2014; Vaughn, Gerten & Chard, 2000). In the area of literacy research, most conclusions are drawn from the results of focused interventions. These focused studies usually provide information for developing more encompassing interventions, as they offer information about shaping more complex treatments (Pressley et al., 2006). Since our study represents one of the first studies that has empirically verified the effect of the use of comics as a literary-didactic method to reduce gender differences in reading literacy and reading motivation at the primary level of education, a short, intensive programme was developed, allowing us to implement the intervention in educational practice for the first time.
Several other limitations should be taken into account when interpreting and generalising the results of our study. Among the teachers who were willing to participate in our research, there were also teachers who expressed concerns about using a comic as a literary work and literary-didactic method. Furthermore, except for the reports of teachers, we did not have any additional insight into the implementation of the programme in practice, which could have enhanced the relevance of the implemented research. The teacher can have a significant impact on the differences in literacy between genders (Lester Taylor, 2004), a fact that is also reflected in the present research. In classes where teachers expressed concerns, the expected effect of the comics was not found. Further studies should therefore examine and monitor teachers' beliefs about using comics as a literary-didactic method and consider them as a factor of the effectiveness of the implemented programme. The impact of teacher's beliefs could be eliminated if the same teacher were to teach in all of the classes. In addition, in some classrooms, boys proved a higher baseline level of the dependent variables than girls, which may have had a significant impact
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 145
on the results of our survey. Due to the small size of the sample, results may be attributed to random factors that were not controlled, thus limiting the ability to generalise our findings.
As one of the first studies to empirically examine the effect of the use of comics in reading literacy and reading motivation, the present research provides an in-depth insight into the use of comics as a literary-didactic method at the primary level of education and can serve as a good basis for further research.
Using comics at the primary level of education has proven to be much more complex than anticipated; it has been shown that the use of comics to reduce gender differences in reading literacy must be explored in four-way methods, and not only in the two-way methods (measurement period * inclusion in the programme) or three-way methods (measurement period * inclusion in the programme * gender; measurement period * inclusion in the programme * class) planned in the present research. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide the comics used in the literary-didactic method programme specifically for each class separately, not pairwise for the second and third grades and the fourth and fifth grades, taking the pupils' age into account. Furthermore, the programme should be implemented on a larger sample, which involves agreeing with teachers at least several months prior to the start of the school year. The programme should be carried out by the same teacher in all classes, and this teacher should be qualified to use comics as a literary-didactic method in the classroom, and should have no concerns about doing so. The intervention programme should be extended. It is necessary to add a few sets in which pupils deepen their knowledge about comics as a literary-didactic method, and have an opportunity to use and self-apply the method. The long-term effect of the intervention on pupils' reading comprehension and reading motivation should also be examined.
Both the experience and the results of the research showed that comics as a literary-didactic method used at the primary level of education should be further investigated. In particular, in future studies it is necessary to provide a larger sample of pupils from various backgrounds. In the present study, the designed programme was not proved to be a suitable method for reducing gender differences in reading literacy. In most cases, improvement was identified in the outcome of one gender or the other. This confirms Monica Rosen's (University of Goteborg) argument at an IRC IEA conference, claiming that the best course of action to raise boys' reading literacy is to raise the reading literacy of girls (Rosen, 2007; as cited in Doupona Horvat, 2012), which implies that focusing on a general increase in reading capabilities would also improve the reading results of boys.
146 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
References
Baker, L. (2003). The role of parents in motivating struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 87-106.
Below, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Fearrington, J. Y., & Sorrell, C. A. (2010). Gender differences in early literacy: Analysis of kindergarten through fifth-grade dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills probes. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 240-257.
Bitz, M. (2004). The comic book project: Forging alternative pathways to literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(7), 574-586.
Brooks, G. (2007). What works for pupils with literacy difficulties? The effectiveness of intervention
schemes. Retrieved 10.1.16 from: https://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-Partners/Partners/Schools/One-
to-one-tuition/Documents/what_works_for_children_with _literacy_difficulties.pdf.
Bucik, N. (2009). Razvijanje otrokove motivacije za branje v domačem okolju [Development of
children's motivation for reading at home]. In L. Knaflič (Ed.), Branje za znanje in branje za zabavo:
priročnik za spodbujanje družinske pismenosti [Reading for learning and reading for fun: A manual
for enhancing family literacy] (p. 17-26). Ljubljana: Andragoški center Slovenije.
Cadima, J., Leal, T., & Burchinal. M. (2010). The quality of teacher-student interactions: Associations
with first graders' academic and behavioural outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 457-482.
Conradi, K., Gee Jang, B., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivational terminology in reading research: a
conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 127-164.
Crane Williams, R. M. (2008). Image, text and story: Comics and graphic novels in the classroom.
Art Education, 61(6), 13-19.
Doupona Horvat, M. (2012). Poročilo PIRLS 2011 [PIRLS 2011 report]. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Retrieved 13.12.2013 from http://193.2.222.157/Sifranti/International Project.aspx?id=20. Edmunds, K. M. & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. Reading Teacher, 59(5), 414-424. Geske, A. & Ozola, A. (2008). Factors influencing reading literacy at the primary school level. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 6, 71-77.
Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in children's early academic success. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 3-19. Grosman, M. (2006). Razsežnosti branja. Za boljšo bralno pismenost [Dimensions of reading. For better reading literacy]. Ljubljana: Karantanija.
Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 95-107.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341. Hall, L. A., Johnson, A. S., Juzwik, M. M., Wortham, S. E. F., & Mosley, M. (2010). Teacher identity in the context of literacy teaching: Three explorations of classroom positioning and interaction in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 234-243.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 147
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 12-22.
Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W. H., Hsieh, Y. P., Kim, H., Thomas, D. G. et al. (2005). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 523-529. Kerneža, M. & Kordigel Aberšek, M. (2014). Strip - metoda, ki fantom omogoča uspešnejšo interpretacijo literarnega besedila [Comics - a method that allows boys a deeper experience of children's literature]. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje, 7(2), 129-145.
Kordigel Aberšek, M. (2008). Didaktika mladinske književnosti [Didactics of juvenile literature]. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo.
Kordigel, M. (1999). Komunikacijski model književne vzgoje [A communication model of literary education]. Jezik in slovstvo, 44(5), 151-162.
Kordigel, M., & Saksida, I. (1999). Jaz pa berem 1. Priročnik za učitelje [I read 1. A handbook for teachers]. Ljubljana: Rokus.
Krakar Vogel, B., Blažic, M. M., Kend, J. J., Seliškar Kenda, M., Cigut, N., & Meglič, D. (2005). Svet iz besed za učitelje 4 5 6. Priročnik za učitelje [World of words for teachers 4 5 6. Handbook for teachers]. Ljubljana: Rokus.
Kramarič, M., Ropič, M., & Urbanič Jelovšek, M. (2000). Na vrtiljaku črk 2: priročnik za učitelje pri pouku slovenščine v 2. razredu devetletne osnovne šole [On the carousel of letters: A teachers' manual for teaching Slovene in the second grade of primary school]. Ljubljana: Rokus. Lester Taylor, D. (2004). "Not just boring stories": Reconsidering the gender gap for boys.
International reading association, 48(4), 290-298.
Linklater, D. L., O'Connor, R. E., & Palardy, G. J. (2009). Kindergarten literacy assessment of English only and English language learner students: An examination of the predictive validity of three phonemic awareness measures. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6), 369-394. Lyga, A. A. W. (2006). Graphic novels for (really) young readers: Owly, buzzboy, pinky and stinky. Who are these guys? And why aren't they ever on the shelf? School Library Journal, 52(3), 56-61. Lynn, R., & Mikk, J. (2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 13(1), 3-13.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Kennedy, A. M. (2007). PIRLS 2006 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Mazzoni, S. A., Gambrell, L. & Korkeamaki, R. L. (1999). A cross-cultural perspective of early literacy motivation. Reading Psychology, 20(3), 237-253.
McCloud, S. (2010). Kako nastane strip: pripovedne skrivnosti stripa, mange in risanega romana [Making comics]. Ljubljana: Društvo za oživljanje zgodbe 2. koluta: Društvo za širjenje filmske kulture KINO!.
Morrison, T. G., Bryan, G., & Chilcoat, G. W. (2002). Using student-generated comic books in the classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(8), 758-767.
Norton, B. (2003). The motivating power of comic books: insight from Archie comic readers. The
148 comics as a literary-didactic method and their use for reducing gender
Reading Teacher, 57(2), 140-147.
Pečjak, S. (1999). Osnove psihologije branja. Spiralni model kot oblika razvijanja bralnih sposobnosti učencev [The basics of reading psychology. A spiral model as a form of developing students' reading skills]. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.
Pečjak, S., & Košir, K. (2004). Pupils' reading motivation and teacher's activities for enhancing it.
Review of Psychology, 11(1-2), 11-24.
Pečjak, S., Bucik, N., Gradišar, A., & Peklaj, C. (2006). Bralna motivacija v šoli: merjenje in razvijanje [Reading motivation in school: Measuring and developing]. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo.
Pečjak, S., Bucik, N., Peštaj, M., Podlesek, A., & Pirc, T. (2010). Bralna pismenost ob koncu osnovne šole - ali fantje berejo drugače kot dekleta [Reading literacy at the end of primary schools - Do boys read differently than girls]? Sodobna pedagogika, 61(1), 86-102.
Poznanovič Jezeršek, M., Cestnik, M., Čuden, M., Gomivnik Thuma, V., Honzak, M., Križaj Ortar, M. et al. (2011). Učni načrt. Program osnovna šola. Slovenščina [Primary school curriculum for Slovene language]. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport: Zavod RS za šolstvo. Pressley, M., Graham, S. &Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 1-19. Prvi rezultati PIRLS 2011 [PIRLS first results 2011]. (n. d.). Retrieved 19.12.13 from http://www.pei.si/ UserFilesUpload/file/raziskovalna_dejavnost/PIRLS/IRLS%202011/Kratka%20informacija%20o%20 rezultatih%20PIRLS%202011.pdf.
Puklek Levpušček, M., Podlesek, A., & Šterman Ivančič, K. (2012). Dejavniki bralne pismenosti v raziskavi PISA 2009 [Reading literacy factors in the PISA 2009 survey]. Pedagoški inštitut, Ljubljana. Sadowski, M. (2010). Putting the 'boy crisis' in context: Finding solutions to boys' reading problems may require looking beyond gender. Harvard Education Letter, 26(4), 10-13. Schwarz, G. (2002). Graphic novels for multiple literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(3), 262-265.
Schwarz, G. (2006). Expanding literacies through graphic novels. The English Journal, 95(6), 58-64. Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Kupzyk, K. A., Edwards, C. P., & Marvin, C. A. (2011). A randomized the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy: The Getting Ready intervention.
Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 361-383.
Stipek, D. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner, R. C. Calfee (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-113). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sweet, A. P. & Guthrie, J. T. (1996). How children's motivation relate to literacy development and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 49(8), 660-662.
Štraus, M., Šterman Ivančič, K., & Štigl, S. (2012). Program mednarodne primerjave dosežkov učencev 2012 - matematični, bralni in naravoslovni dosežki slovenskih učencev: nacionalno poročilo [International students' assessment programme 2012 - Mathematics, reading and science achievements of Slovenian students: National report]. Retrieved 23.09.15 from http://www.pei.si/ UserFilesUpload/file/raziskovalna_dejavnost/PISA/PISA2012/ PISA_2012_Povzetek_rezultatov_za_
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 149
Slovenijo.pdf.
Ulper, H. (2011). The motivational factors for reading in terms of students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 954-960.
Vaughn, S., Gerten, R. & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in learning disabilities intervention research: findings from research synthesis. Exceptional children, 67(1), 99-114. Versaci, R. (2011). How comic books can change the way our students see literature: one teacher's perspective. The English Journal, 91(2), 61-67.
Biographical note
Maja Kerneza, graduated in Elementary Education and is currently a Ph.D. student of Education Science in Faculty of Education, University of Maribor, Slovenia. She works with children, parents and teachers. Her recent research focus is concerned with the field of elementary education, reading literacy and the gender gap in education.
Katja Kosir, PhD, works as associate professor at Faculty of Education, University of Maribor. She teaches students of elementary education, primary education, fine arts and music education, and psychology. She also takes part in teacher trainings and carries out psychological counselling for students. Her research and professional work is mainly focused on examining social relations in school context, bullying, teachers' professional development, psychological counselling in school and socioemotional characteristics of gifted pupils. She is an author and co-author of professional and scientific monographs and author of various scientific articles published in national and international scientific publications.
l50
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 151
An Analysis of Critical Issues in Korean Teacher Evaluation Systems
Hee Jun Choi1 and Ji-Hye Park*2
^^ Korea has used three different teacher evaluation systems since the 1960s: teacher performance rating, teacher performance-based pay and teacher evaluation for professional development. A number of studies have focused on an analysis of each evaluation system in terms of its advent, development, advantages and disadvantages, but these studies have been critically limited in that they have focused only on the partial integration of the three current teacher evaluation systems, without addressing the problems embedded in each of them. The present study provides a systematic analysis of the three current Korean teacher evaluation systems based on a sound analytical framework and proposes appropriate directions for designing an effective and efficient system. It is found that the three systems share commonalities in terms of stakeholders, evaluators, scope, criteria and methods, further supporting the rationale for developing a single comprehensive teacher evaluation system in Korea. Finally, several steps to establish a comprehensive teacher evaluation system based on the analysis results are suggested.
Keywords: Korea teacher evaluation system, teacher evaluation for professional development, teacher performance-based pay system, teacher performance rating
1	Department of Education, Hongik University.
2	^Corresponding Author. Department of Education, Kookmin University; jpark22@kookmin.ac.kr.
152 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
Analiza ključnih problemov v korejskem evalvacijskem sistemu učiteljev
Hee Jun Choi in Ji-Hye Park
^^ Koreja je od leta 1960 uporabljala naslednje tri evalvacijske sisteme učiteljev: ocenjevanje uspešnosti učiteljev, plačilo na osnovi uspešnosti učiteljev in ocenjevanje strokovnega razvoja učiteljev. Številne študije so se osredinjale na analizo vsakega izmed evalvacijskih sistemov v smislu njihovih začetkov, razvoja, prednosti in pomanjkljivosti. Njihova ključna omejitev je bila v tem, da so se osredinjale le na delno integracijo treh obstoječih sistemov evalvacije učiteljev, ne da bi naslavljale probleme, ki se pojavljajo v vsakem izmed teh. Ta študija daje sistematično analizo treh obstoječih korejskih sistemov za evalvacijo učiteljev, ki temelji na tehtnem analitičnem okviru ter predlaga primerne usmeritve za učinkovit in uspešen sistem. Študija pokaže, da so vsem trem sistemom skupni deležniki, evalvatorji, področja, merila in metode, kar še krepi razloge za razvoj enega samega skupnega sistema evalvacije učiteljev v Koreji. Na koncu so predlagani številni koraki v smeri vzpostavitve skupnega sistema evalvacije, ki temelji na analizi rezultatov.
Ključne besede: korejski evalvacijski sistem učiteljev, ocenjevanje strokovnega razvoja učiteljev, plačilo na osnovi uspešnosti učiteljev, ocenjevanje uspešnosti učiteljev
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 153
Introduction
Teacher quality is a core educational issue throughout the world. Indeed, many research studies have indicated that the quality of teachers is the single most significant factor determining the quality of a student's education (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996; GreatKids, n. d.). Since teacher evaluation is essential in providing students with the best educational experience possible and is at the centre of the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom (Strong & Tucker, 2012; Toch & Rothman, 2008), many efforts have been made to establish efficient and effective teacher evaluation systems in a range of countries. For example, the effort to transform the evaluation system for teachers across their career span is at the heart of education policy efforts in the U.S., in association with President Obama's Race to the Top Initiative, which incentivises states adopting new evaluation systems that link teacher evaluation to student outcomes (Clayton, 2013).
Korean parents are passionate about educating their children and place heavy demands on the public education system, as well as on individual teachers within the system. Currently, some of the foremost problems surrounding the Korean education system involve the use of private tutoring, distrust of public education and excessive performance pressure placed on students (Choi & Park, 2013). In particular, the issue of distrust of public education, resulting in the use of private tutoring, is the most urgent education problem upon which administrators need to focus their attention, and this directly relates to the issue of teacher quality. Thus, the development of a valid and reliable teacher evaluation system is a critical starting point in regaining people's trust in public education.
Korea has implemented three different teacher evaluation systems since the 1960s: teacher performance rating, teacher performance-based pay system and teacher evaluation for professional development. First adopted in 1964, teacher performance ratings evaluate teachers' past, current and potential performance, and aid decision-making regarding promotion and school transferal. The teacher performance-based pay system, first introduced in 2001, further aims to generate constructive competition between teachers and offers monetary rewards for their efforts. Finally, the teacher evaluation for professional development system, established nationwide in 2010, provides teachers with corrective feedback on their teaching and, in turn, assists in the development of their professional competence. Due to the unique nature of the teacher community in Korea, when the need for enhanced teacher evaluation was identified, a new type of teacher evaluation system was developed and implemented, rather than the existing system being revised or transformed. Consequently, there is criticism that teachers
154 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
are evaluated under three different evaluation systems, each with different underlying assumptions and evaluation standards, which both complicates the evaluation system and increases teacher workload (Jeon, 2009).
A number of studies have focused on an analysis of each evaluation system in terms of its advent, development, advantages and disadvantages (e.g., Kang & Kim, 2004; Kim, Park, & Joo, 2009; Lee, 2006; Park, 2010). These studies have, however, mainly focused on one of the three individual evaluation systems, with little attention being paid to an integrated analysis of the three systems as a whole. On the other hand, several studies have aimed to explore the possibility of integrating certain parts of each evaluation system, investigating the feasibility of developing an integrated system of teacher evaluation (Jeon, 2009; Kim & Joo, 2014; Kim, Jung, Jeon, Shin, & Kang, 2010; Park, Choi, & Choi, 2009). For example, Jeon (2009) proposed the possibility of integrating teacher evaluation for professional development and performance rating for promotion, as both are based on common evaluation areas (i.e., instruction and student guidance). Similarly, Kim and Joo (2014) suggested certain changes and modifications to the evaluation system based on comparative and correlational analyses of results from the three systems, combined with the results of a comprehensive survey among stakeholders. Additionally, Kim et al. (2010) proposed four alternatives for the integration of the three evaluation systems: the first option was to retain the three systems with minor revisions to each; the second option was to combine performance ratings for promotion with the performance-based pay system and to leave teacher evaluation for professional development as it is; the third option was to replace the evaluation results for instruction and student guidance of the performance-based pay system with those of teacher evaluation for professional development; and the final option was to combine teacher evaluation for professional development with performance ratings for promotion. Nevertheless, these studies have been critically limited in that they have focused only on the partial integration of the three current teacher evaluation systems, without addressing the problems embedded in each of them.
The current Korean government is attempting to revise the teacher evaluation systems, as one of the main election pledges offered by the incumbent President was to solve the problems of the three systems. Since the systems were designed and introduced to meet the particular social needs at the time, careful consideration and revision are now required for an integrated system. Accordingly, the present paper aims to provide a systematic analysis of the three current Korean teacher evaluation systems based on a sound analytical framework, and to propose appropriate directions for designing an effective and efficient system.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 155
Analytical Framework
The study reported here adopts a two-tier analytical framework consisting of a conceptual framework for teacher evaluation and criteria for an effective teacher evaluation system. In 2009, Isore presented a conceptual framework for teacher evaluation that reflects the main features of current teacher evaluation systems. This framework involves a variety of components generally used to evaluate teachers, including stakeholders, the scope of evaluation, eval-uators, criteria and standards, and methods and instruments, as well as identifying potential consequences in summative and formative teacher assessments (Figure 1). Furthermore, Isore (2009) suggested that this conceptual framework emphasises the clarification of the main purposes of each teacher evaluation system. This implies that Isore's (2009) conceptual framework for teacher evaluation is useful as a basic tool to provide an overview of a teacher evaluation system in terms of the coherence of its components in successfully achieving its main purpose. Accordingly, the present study utilises this conceptual framework for teacher evaluation as an initial analytical framework to analyse the three teacher evaluation systems currently used in Korea.
Figure 1. Adopted from the conceptual framework for teacher evaluation (Isore, 2009)
156 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
On the other hand, Darling-Hammond (2013) recently proposed criteria for an effective teacher evaluation system based on an analysis of a range of comprehensive teacher evaluation systems used in many schools and districts throughout the U.S. These criteria are useful to determine the critical issues embedded in a teacher evaluation system, which are required for both judging its effectiveness and improving it. Darling-Hammond (2013) summarised the criteria for an effective teacher evaluation system as follows:
•	The teacher evaluation should be based on professional teaching standards;
•	Evaluations should include multifaceted evidence of teacher practice, student learning and professional contributions;
•	Evaluators should be knowledgeable about instruction and well trained in the evaluation system;
•	Evaluation should be accompanied by useful feedback, and connected to professional development opportunities;
•	The evaluation system should value and encourage teacher collaboration;
•	Expert teachers should be part of the assistance and review process;
•	Panels of teachers and administrators should oversee the evaluation process. (p.153)
The present study adopts these criteria for an effective teacher evaluation system as an analytical framework to facilitate the proposal of an ideal integrated system that can simultaneously attain the goals of the three different existing systems by determining priority issues to be addressed.
Performance Rating for Promotion
A presidential executive order of 1963 regarding the promotion of public education officials prompted the adoption of a system of teacher performance ratings for promotion in 1964. According to this regulation (recently amended on 4 November 2014), teacher performance ratings aim to ensure fair and objective personnel management and promotion. The main format of the rating remains, but several aspects (e.g., evaluation criteria and their weightings, the rating cycle, the evaluators, etc.) have been revised over the course of approximately 30 partial or complete amendments of the regulations (Jeon, 2009).
Currently, teacher performance ratings for promotion targets two groups: teachers and vice-principals. Although the rating system has the same purpose for the two groups (i.e., to ensure fair and objective personnel management and promotion), several aspects (e.g., evaluation areas and evaluators) are
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 157
quite different. In addition, the evaluation does not concern principals, as they fill the highest ranked position within a school, with no scope for promotion. For this evaluation, teachers and vice-principals are required to submit a self-report on performance by 31 December of every year. Teachers' self-reports are evaluated by the principal, the vice-principal and three or more peer teachers, with weightings of 30%, 40% and 30%, respectively. Vice-principals are evaluated by the principal (with a weighting of 50%) and the education policy supervisor of the municipal Ministry of Education (with a weighting of 50%). The total possible score is 100 points, but the evaluation is, in principle, norm-referenced and designed to compare and rank teachers in relation to one another. Specifically, only 30% of teachers in a school can achieve an A, 40% a B, 20% a C and 10% a D. The same percentages apply to vice-principals in a school district.
This performance rating for promotion system of evaluation covers two evaluation areas: "qualification and attitude" for both groups, "management and support" for vice-principals and "work performance" for teachers. Attitude is measured using a number of elements, including "characteristics as an educator" and "attitude as a public official". Elements of work performance differ for the two groups. The elements for teachers include "instruction", "student guidance", and "educational research and administrative service", while those for vice-principals include "support for educational activities and research", "teacher support", and "administration and management". The questions relating to each element also differ between the groups. An example of a question targeting a teacher's "characteristics as an educator" is "Does (s)he gain trust and respect from students and parents?"; whereas, for a vice-principal, an example is "Does (s)he gain the trust and respect of school community members?" These questions are given to the evaluators, who subsequently rate teachers' or vice-principals' performances by answering the questions and considering the previously submitted self-reports. The evaluation areas, elements and questions for vice-principals and teachers are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
The information obtained from the performance rating described herein informs decision-making regarding transfers between schools and promotions. The evaluation results are available to the individual upon request.
158 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
Table 1. Performance rating for promotion evaluation standards for teachers
Areas
Elements
Questions
Qualification & attitude
Characteristics as an educator
Attitude as a public official
Does (s)he take responsibility for and pride in his (her) mission and duties as a teacher?
Does (s)he have integrity and courteousness as an educator? Is (s)he devoted to education based on understanding and love of students?
Does (s)he gain the trust and respect of students and their parents?
Does (s)he have an appropriate education creed? Is (s)he diligent, faithful to his (her) duties, and a role model? Does (s)he have cooperative relationships with peer teachers and embrace students?
Does (s)he perform his (her) own duties actively and voluntarily?
Instruction
Does (s)he do his (her) best in terms of instructional research and preparation?
Is (s)he eager to improve teaching methods and coach students' learning?
Does (s)he creatively construct education curricula and efficiently utilise textbooks?
Does (s)he have a proper evaluation plan and use the results efficiently?
Is (s)he enthusiastic about education that builds students' character, and about career guidance? Does (s)he do his(her) best in school events and student guid-Student	ance within and/or outside school?
guidance	Does (s)he try to understand students' psychological status and
personal problems and provide proper guidance? Does (s)he show sufficient consideration to students' health and safety?
Work
performance
Does (s)he take the initiative in research and training for his (her) professional development?
Does (s)he accurately and reasonably deal with his (her) own duties?
Is (s)he active in performing duties for attaining the educational goals of the school?
Does (s)he creatively improve and adjust his (her) own duties?
Educational research & administrative service
Table 2. Performance rating for promotion evaluation standards for vice-principals
Areas
Elements
Questions
Moral character as an educator
Does (s)he gain the trust and respect of education personnel in terms of school management?
Does (s)he realise his(her) responsibilities, duties and sense of mission as an educator?
Does (s)he understand and embrace others' opinions and different perspectives?
Does (s)he have integrity and courteousness as an educator? Does (s)he have an appropriate education creed? Attitudes as a Is (s)he diligent, faithful to his (her) duties, and a role model? public official Does (s)he make an effort to improve educational planning?
Does (s)he keep his (her) private and public life separate?
Qualification & attitude
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 159
Areas
Elements
Questions
Support for instructional activities and research
Does (s)he identify and solve problems appropriately?
Is his (her) pedagogical consideration of educational activities
appropriate?
Does (s)he assign duties and provide support depending on teachers' qualifications, capabilities and experience? Does (s)he efficiently initiate and support teachers' research and training?
Management Teacher & support support
Does (s)he exercise leadership and make an effort to maintain order within the school?
Does (s)he evaluate educational activities appropriately? Does (s)he consider the welfare of school personnel? Does (s)he listen to and reflect on teachers' opinions regarding human resource matters in an appropriate manner?
Administration & management
Does (s)he deal with office matters reasonably, accurately and appropriately?
Does (s)he appropriately modify and apply internal regulations and rules?
Does (s)he effectively utilise educational facilities and equipment?
Does (s)he take appropriate actions on school safety?
The Performance-Based Pay System
In 2001, a performance-based pay system for public education officials was introduced, along with a performance-based pay system for general public officials. Following the financial crisis of the late 1990s, the Korean government aimed to foster a creative and performance-based work environment for public officials by complementing the seniority-based personnel management system with a performance-based one (Lee, Yoon, Kwak, & Lee, 2014). In particular, the system for public education officials was adopted in order to encourage constructive competition between teachers, to make monetary rewards for teachers' efforts available, and ultimately to regain public trust in the education system (Ministry of Education, 2001).
Teachers, vice-principals and principals are all evaluated in terms of the performance-based pay system. When the system was first adopted, 90% of an individual's remuneration was based on performance, with the remaining 10% being evenly distributed. Due to extreme backlash from teachers, the ratio was changed in the period from 2002 to 2005, so that 10% was performance-based and 90% was evenly distributed; however, the pay ratio based on performance subsequently gradually increased to 50% (Park, 2010).
In 2011, school performance was incorporated into the performance-based pay system (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2010), with 90% of remuneration being based on individual performance and 10% on school performance in the first year. These ratios changed to 80% and 20%, respectively, in 2012. Of the 80% of remuneration related to individual performance, the
160 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
teacher's individual performance accounts for approximately 50%, with the remaining 50% being distributed evenly among teachers within a school based on the school's performance. Currently, the abolition of the school performance-based pay system is under discussion, due to a range of drawbacks and problems arising over the past five years (Ministry of Education, 2015).
Theoretically, each school is required to develop its own standards for performance-based pay; however, the Ministry of Education distributes guidelines and illustrative examples of the standards to the schools in each district. Table 3 presents an example of the 2015 evaluation standards for school performance-based pay from the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education. The evaluation areas are "instruction", "student guidance", "administrative service" and "professional development". Since the evaluation standards for the performance-based pay system are determined by each school, the standards used vary from one school to another.
This type of evaluation is norm-based, whereby the top 30% of teachers within a school receive a ranking of S, the next 40% an A, and the remaining 30% a B. Remuneration incentives are then distributed to each group based on the evaluation results.
Table 3. An example of evaluation standards in the performance-based pay system
Area	Elementary school	Middle school	High school
	Number of teaching hours	Number of teaching hours	Number of teaching hours
	Frequency of class demonstrations, etc.	Frequency of class demonstrations	Frequency of class demonstrations
		Guidance for student development	Guidance for student development
Instruction		Guidance for self-governing activities	Guidance for self-governing activities
		Teaching students in multi-grades and multi-subjects, etc.	Teaching students in multi-grades and multi-subjects
			Guiding evening self-study sessions, etc.
	Performance of parent consultation	Performance of parent consultation	Performance of parent consultation
guidance
Guiding student commuting and school meals, etc.
Guiding student commuting and school meals, etc.
Guiding student commuting and school meals, etc.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 286
Area	Elementary school	Middle school	High school
Home room teacher	Home room teacher	Home room teacher
Difficulty levels of ad-	Difficulty levels of admin-	Difficulty levels of admin-
ministrative service	istrative service	istrative service
Performing tasks avoid-	Performing tasks avoided	Performing tasks avoided
ed by other teachers	by other teachers	by other teachers
Guiding students' prize-	Guiding students' prize-	Guiding students' prize-
winning experiences	winning experiences	winning experiences
Keeping absenteeism	Keeping absenteeism and	Keeping absenteeism and
and tardiness records	tardiness records	tardiness records
Administrative contribution
Being in charge of operating model or policy research school
Being in charge of operating model or policy research school
Being in charge of operating model or policy research school
Being in charge of a special or integrated classroom
Being in charge of a special or integrated classroom
Being in charge of a special or integrated classroom
Difficulty level of grade Guiding club activities Guiding club activities of which the teacher is in charge
Teaching students for Teaching students for academic contests	academic contests
Manager of a subject Manager of a subject area area, etc.
Guidance for students entering a higher grade school or employment, etc.
Number of training Number of training hours Number of training hours hours
Professional development
Obtaining professional certificates related to educational activities	Obtaining professional certificates related to educational activities	Obtaining professional certificates related to educational activities
Winning an award for educational research	Winning an award for educational research	Winning an award for educational research
Playing a role as teaching supervisor	Playing a role as teaching supervisor	Playing a role as teaching supervisor
Performance of educational development and research	Performance of educational development and research	Performance of educational development and research
Winning other awards, etc.	Winning other awards	Winning other awards
Participating in subject Participating in subject study communities, etc. study communities, etc.
Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development
In 2004, the OECD reported that the existing Korean teacher evaluation system (i.e., teacher performance rating for promotion) had certain critical
162 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
problems (Coolahan, Santiago, Phair, & Ninomiya, 2004). One of the most urgent problems was the fact that the performance rating for promotion system does not relate to teachers' professional development. Thus, this system failed to formally encourage or require poorer performing teachers to take action to enhance their performance. In other words, the evaluation process failed to supply Korean teachers with constructive feedback, advice or learning opportunities. One of the main reasons for this was the lack of clear, concrete and systematic evaluation standards and procedures. In time, Korean researchers began to voice concerns regarding the problems associated with the teacher performance rating for promotion system (Lee, 2006). Subsequently, in 2004, the Minister of Education announced the development of a new system based on a pool of stakeholders' opinions for the purposes of both the professional development of teachers and the reduction of private tutoring expenditure (Ministry of Education & Human Resource Development, 2005). Consequently, the teacher evaluation system for professional development was developed and implemented in accordance with departmental directions in 2005. The purpose of this particular evaluation system was to develop the skills and abilities of teachers, including principals and vice-principals, by providing productive feedback and customised training programmes (Ministry of Education & Human Resource Development, 2006).
This system is used to evaluate regular teachers, including master teachers, principals and vice-principals, in elementary, middle, high and special schools. In accordance with related legislation, all teachers must participate in such evaluations for professional development. In additional, in order to elicit 360-degree feedback, students and their parents, as well as principals, vice-principals and peer teachers, participate in the process as evaluators. Furthermore, three groups of stakeholders evaluate all teachers in order to ensure the concreteness of results. The first group is comprised of more than five peer teachers, including at least either the principal or vice-principal and at least either the master teacher or head teacher of the respective school. This group focuses on evaluating the teacher's teaching performance (i.e., peer-teacher evaluation). The second group comprises all of the students taught by the teacher in the respective year. Students are required to rate their level of satisfaction with their classes (i.e., student-class satisfaction). The third group includes the parents of these students. Specifically, parents rate their levels of satisfaction with their child's teachers and school. In the case of master teachers, the groups are similar, except that the principal, vice-principal and head teacher do not necessarily need to act as evaluators. Finally, the principal and vice-principal of every school are evaluated by parents and teachers, but not by students.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 163
Tables 4 and 5 offer overviews of the standards for the professional development evaluation of regular teachers (i.e., standards for peer-teacher evaluation), principals and vice-principals.
Table 4. Teacher evaluation for professional development evaluation standards for regular teachers
Areas	Elements
Criteria
Understanding the curriculum and making an effort to improve teaching & learning methods Conducting learner analysis & instructional analysis Establishing teaching & learning strategies
Preparation
Instruction
Implementation
Introduction Teacher attitude Instructional materials Summary & synthesis
Teacher questioning Interaction between teacher and students Teaching activities
Assessment &	Assessment of student learning (Criteria & methods)
utilisation	Utilisation of assessment results
Understanding students' personal problems & developing a strong character and creativity Personal maturity Student guidance in collaboration with their parents Career guidance considering students' aptitudes and
Student _strengths_
guidance	Cultivating good habits
Enhancing adaptability at school Social Maturity Developing democratic citizenship
Table 5. Teacher evaluation for professional development evaluation standards for principals and vice-principals
Area
Elements
Criteria
Principals
Vice-principals
Educational planning
Management of educational goals at the individual school level
Curriculum organisation & management Management of academic affairs and students
Support for management of educational goals at the individual school level Support for curriculum organisation & management Management of academic affairs and students
School management	School supervision	Improvement of teachers' teaching skills Autonomous supervision	Support for improvement of teachers' teaching skills Support for autonomous supervision
	Personnel affairs	School personnel management	Conducting school personnel affairs
Facility & budget
Facilities management Budget compilation & execution
164 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
The checklist for peer-teacher evaluation and the two questionnaires for measuring student and parental levels of satisfaction contain five-point Likert scale items for each criterion, as well as a number of open-ended questions. Classroom observations and reviews of relevant information and/or documentation inform the teacher evaluation for professional development.
The evaluation results are available to the various stakeholders, including teachers, parents and municipalities. All teachers are subsequently required to develop an individual professional development plan based on the evaluation results. In accordance with such plans, individual teachers are required to participate in training programmes offered by schools, each Municipal Ministry of Education, and others.
Comparative Analysis of the Three Teacher Evaluation Systems
The three Korean teacher evaluation systems for primary and secondary education described above both converge and diverge in certain respects in terms of purpose, stakeholders, evaluators, scope of evaluation, criteria and standards, and methods and instruments (see Table 6). In particular, the purposes of the three systems differ from one another. The evaluation for professional development system aims to improve teachers' expertise through a formative evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses in both instruction and student guidance. On the other hand, the common purpose of the performance rating for promotion and the performance-based pay systems is to provide teachers with rewards based on their job performance, determined through summative evaluations.
The relevant stakeholders of all three systems include representatives from the national and regional governments, teachers, teacher unions, principals, parents and students. All three systems also share similar targets of evaluation (i.e., principals, vice-principals and teachers), except that principals are excluded from the performance rating for promotion system, and the performance-based pay system considers the performance of individual schools as well as that of teachers. It is compulsory for all national and public primary and secondary schools to implement the three systems, while private primary and secondary schools are strongly encouraged to adopt the system of teacher evaluation for professional development. The main evaluators for all three systems are principals, vice-principals and teachers; however, the teacher evaluation for professional development system also includes students and their parents as evaluators.
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 165
In terms of evaluation criteria and standards, the common evaluation areas shared by the three teacher evaluation systems are instruction and student guidance for teacher evaluation, as well as school management and support for the evaluation of principals and vice-principals. In addition to these common evaluation areas, the performance rating for promotion system includes "qualification and attitude", and the performance-based pay system involves two additional evaluation areas: "administrative contribution" and "efforts toward professional development". As indicated in Tables 1 to 5, the evaluation criteria and standards of the three systems differ somewhat in terms of evaluation areas and purposes. Unfortunately, none of the three systems provides clear rubrics for fair, accurate and reliable assessment in terms of evaluation standards.
With regard to instruments, all three systems use a checklist as the main evaluation instrument for each criterion. In terms of the type of data collected, the performance-based pay system mainly collects quantifiable data (e.g., number of teaching hours, frequency of class demonstrations, absenteeism and tardiness records, etc.). However, the performance rating for promotion system uses a checklist targeting the subjective opinions of the evaluators (e.g., Does (s)he have integrity and courteousness as an educator?). The teacher evaluation for professional development system collects evaluators' subjective opinions on the individual teacher's instruction and student guidance through a number of open-ended questions, in addition to the checklist items that collect quantitative information.
Based on Darling-Hammond's (2013) six criteria for an effective teacher evaluation system, the three Korean systems contain serious deficiencies. The systems meet the criterion of having "panels of teachers and administrators oversee the evaluation process", in that evaluation committees oversee each evaluation process. In addition, the teacher evaluation for professional development system meets the criterion that "evaluation should be accompanied by useful feedback, and connected to professional development opportunities". However, the three Korean systems do not meet any of the other established criteria.
166 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
Table 6. Comparison of the three teacher evaluation systems
Analytical Lenses	Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development	Performance Rating for Promotion	Performance-Based Pay System
Purposes	Teachers' professional development	Assisting promotions and school transfers	Distributing monetary incentives based on individual and school performance
	Formative	Summative	Summative
Stakeholders	National and regional governments, teachers, teacher unions, principals, parents and students	National and regional governments, teachers, teacher unions, principals, parents and students	National and regional governments, teachers, teacher unions, principals, parents and students
Evaluators	Principals, vice-principals, teachers, students, parents	Principals (40%), vice-principals (30%), teachers (30%)	N/A
	Principals, vice-principals, teachers	Vice-principals, teachers	Principals, vice-principals, teachers, schools
Scope of evaluation	Annually implemented, compulsory Public and national schools (strongly recommended for private schools)	Annually implemented, compulsory Public and national schools	Annually implemented, compulsory Public and national schools
	Principals/Vice-principals: School management	Vice-principals: Qualification and attitudes, management and support	Principals/Vice-principals: Varying in metropolitan and provincial offices of education
Criteria & standards	Teachers: Instruction & student guidance	Teachers: Qualification and attitudes, work performance	Teachers: Instruction, student guidance, administrative contribution, professional development
			School performance: Improvement in scholastic achievement, operation of specialised events, participation rate in after-school programmes, etc.
Methods & instruments	Checklist including five-point Likert scaled questions and open-ended questions Survey questionnaire for students and parents including open-ended questions	Checklist collecting both quantitative and qualitative information	Checklist collecting mainly quantitative information
	Criterion-referenced	Ranking	Norm-referenced (S-30%, A-40%, B-30%)
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 167
Discussion and Conclusion
The three teacher evaluation systems described above have been applied in Korea since teacher evaluation for professional development was launched nationwide in 2010. However, the evaluation results obtained from the three different systems for an individual teacher have often been inconsistent, consequently raising issues of reliability and fairness (Jeon, Cho, Shin, & Kim, 2008; Kim, 2008). In addition, the increased workload for teachers and school administrators has been criticised (Jeon et al., 2008). This has led stakeholders to posit that an improved teacher evaluation system is required.
An ideal teacher evaluation system would be a single comprehensive system with multiple functions as a vehicle of evaluation for promotion, monetary reward, collegial learning and professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Such a single comprehensive system should include a variety of evaluation criteria and standards meeting multiple purposes. This feature would enable evaluators to assess teachers at any time, as users could select the criteria and standards suitable to their purposes. A single teacher evaluation system may be far more efficient and economical in helping teachers to enhance their expertise and in allowing schools and municipal education offices both to recognise outstanding teachers and to offer the services and developmental opportunities required for those who teach less effectively.
For the above reasons, it is imperative to integrate the three separate Korean systems into one system with multiple purposes for both summative and formative evaluations. The analysis results in Table 6 show the commonalities between the systems in terms of stakeholders, evaluators, scope, criteria and methods, further supporting the rationale for developing a single comprehensive teacher evaluation system in Korea. Such a comprehensive evaluation system may allow schools and municipal education offices to simplify redundant administrative procedures, alleviate teachers' workloads and psychological burdens, and contribute to fewer time and financial constraints related to teacher evaluation.
An initial step in developing a single comprehensive teacher evaluation system is to establish standards for teaching that are consistent with standards for student learning, as all teaching activities ultimately aim to enhance student learning. An evaluation system with standards for teaching aligned with those for student learning might allow teachers to focus on supporting their students' learning, rather than concentrating only on their own teaching practices. One appropriate strategy to develop such an evaluation system might be to adopt value-added methods in determining the effectiveness of teaching practices.
168 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
Value-added analyses of student test score gains ascribed to individual teachers does have certain shortcomings, such as the difficulty of distinguishing student progress resulting from teaching efforts from those resulting from other possible factors influencing student learning, such as out-of-school private tutoring, home conditions and peer relationships (McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood, & Hamilton, 2005). In order to alleviate these issues, a variety of evidence regarding student accomplishments associated with teaching activities selected by teachers themselves should be used (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Such evidence might include both alternative and traditional assessments, such as portfolios, essays and science investigation reports, as well as pre- and posttest measures of student learning.
It is undeniable that the ultimate goal of teaching is to enhance student learning. This implies that a teacher evaluation system should examine precisely the practical aspects of teaching directly related to student learning. Accordingly, the critical evaluation elements of a teacher evaluation system should include the results of student learning as well as various sources of evidence supporting teachers' actual accomplishments. One way to put this into practice might be to have teachers set customised learning goals for each individual student at the beginning of the semester and to monitor students' progress by assessing their academic performance through multiple appropriate measuring tools.
Moreover, a number of scholars (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009) have suggested that collaborative learning among teachers has a positive influence on supporting student learning and on student academic achievement. Such findings imply that a revised Korean teacher evaluation system should include standards for teacher collaboration in order to improve student academic performance. Such a teacher evaluation system would encourage teachers to collaborate actively with one another to support student learning, in turn fostering collegial learning and enhancing their own expertise. Collaborative work among teachers for learning and exchanging new teaching strategies and skills may be a particularly effective and practical manner of professional development.
One of the most serious drawbacks common to the current Korean teacher evaluation systems is the absence of clear standards for desirable teaching practices with concrete rubrics based on related research findings. It appears that the developers of the current systems assumed that listing general components of good teaching practices would suffice. Unfortunately, little attention was paid to the development of rubrics to help evaluators to clearly, accurately, consistently and fairly assess the effectiveness of the individual teacher's teaching practices. As a result, it is difficult for evaluated teachers to
reviews	C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 169
identify what steps they should take to improve or enhance their own teaching and student learning. In conclusion, the development of a detailed and concrete rubric for every standard is essential for an effective teacher evaluation system in the context of Korean primary and secondary education.
Acknowledgment:
This work was supported by the Hongik University Research Fund.
References
Choi, H. J., & Park, J. H. (2013). Historical analysis of the policy on the college entrance system in South Korea. International Education Studies, 6(11), 106-121.
Clayton, C. (2013). Understanding current reforms to evaluate teachers: A literature review on teacher evaluation across the career span. Retrieved 16. 5. 2015 from http://scholar.google.co.kr/schol ar?q=Understanding+current+reforms+to+evaluate+teachers%3A+A+literature+review+on+teacher +evaluation+across+the+career+span&btnG=&hl=ko&as_sdt=0%2C5.
Coolahan, J., Santiago, P., Phair, R., & Ninomiya, A. (2004). Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers-country note: Korea. Paris: OECD Education and Training Policy Division. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
GreatKids (n.d.). What makes a great teacher? Retrieved 16. 7. 2015 from http://www.greatschools. org/gk/articles/what-makes-a-great-teacher/.
Isore, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review.
OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/223283631428.
Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of
peer learning for teachers. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jeon, J. S. (2009). Alternative exploring of improvement and unification for the multi policy of
teachers' evaluation system. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(2), 387-410.
Jeon, J. S., Cho, D. S., Shin, S. M., & Kim, S. Y. (2008). Utilization of the results from the teacher
evaluation for professional development. The Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
Research Report.
Kang, Y. W., & Kim, J. H. (2004). Directions of the performance rating for the professional development of teachers. Korean Policy Sciences Review, 8(1), 149-174.
Kim, H., & Joo, Y. (2014). A discriminant analysis of the effect of teacher evaluation system for professional development and performance appraisal system on rating of performance-based pay system. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 31(3), 59-80.
170 an analysis of critical issues in korean teacher evaluation systems
Kim, K. T., Park, K. Y., & Joo, Y. H. (2009). A political analysis of teacher evaluation policy streams in Korea. The Journal of Politics of Education, 16(1), 35-61.
Kim, K., Jung, M., Jeon, J., Shin, S., & Kang, S. (2010). A study on how to re-establish teacher evaluation system. Korean Educational Development Institute Research Report RR 2010-10. Lee, J. H. (2006). The study of limit factors embedded in the decision-making process of merit pay: Based on the path dependency of new institutionalism. Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1), 77-100. Lee, J. S., Yoon, Y. J., Kwak, C. K., & Lee, J. W. (2014). New public administration 2.0. Seoul: Daeyoung Co.
Lee, Y. S. (2006). Development trends of teacher evaluation system in foreign countries. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(1), 98-145.
McCaffrey, D. F., Koretz, D., Lockwood, J. R., & Hamilton, L. S. (2005). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Ministry of Education (2015). Public hearing on the improvement of teacher evaluation system (press release)
Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (2005). Public hearing on the improvement of teacher evaluation system (press release).
Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (2006). Policy initiative on the teacher evaluation for professional development (press release).
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2001). The implementation plan of performance-based pay system for educational public officials (press release).
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2010). Guidelines on the performance-based payment for educational public officials (press release).
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2005). Induction into learning communities. Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Park, C. H. (2010). A study of performance-based pay system development in the history of public administrative perspective: Focused on the system of performance-based pay for teachers. Korea Public Administration History Review, 27(12), 55-79.
Park, J., Choi, J., & Choi, C. (2009). Exploration of the applicability of the new teacher evaluation or the teacher performance rating. Educational Research, 29(1), 103-122.
Strong, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2012). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Moorabbin, VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. ERIC Document No: ED502120.
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 171
Biographical note
Hee Jun Choi is an associate professor in the Department of Education at Hongik University, Seoul, Korea. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests focus on problem-based video instruction, the design of e-learning enriched interactive learning environments, teacher and program evaluation, transfer of learning and educational uses of various technologies.
Ji-Hye Park is an associate professor in the Department of Education at Kookmin University, Seoul, Korea. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include program evaluation, transfer of training, teacher evaluation and development, utilization technology for effective teaching and learning and career development.
l72
reviews
C-E-P-S Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 173
Fishkin, Joseph (2014). Bottlenecks. A New Theory of Equal Opportunity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 267 p., ISBN 9780199812141.
Reviewed by Darko Strajn1
What immediately catches the reader's attention in this book is a proposition in which the author affirms the idea of opportunity pluralism. In Fishkin's words, this idea brings a "shift in focus" from questioning "whose opportunities are equal or unequal" to a more "structural way", (p. 1) that incorporates the creation, distribution and control of opportunities. He goes on to describe the multiplicity of ways in which people think about equality of opportunity, indicating categories and concepts such as class, gender, the family and so forth, on the one hand, and the different structuring of opportunities in various societies, on the other. In the introductory part, the author claims that his book is "about the ways societies should, and do, structure opportunities" (p. 10). He then gives a rather well-chosen example from Bernard Williams regarding the "warrior society", in which the state hypothetically introduces equality of opportunity by also allowing children of "non-warriors" to participate in the competition for the limited number of military jobs; however, this has little impact on the outcome, as warriors' children come to the competition much better prepared. Although the example is unrealistic, "different modern societies resemble the warrior society to a greater or a lesser degree" (p. 13). The concluding part of the Introduction reminds the reader that racial discrimination, health disparities, the gender-role system and other such phenomena create bottlenecks. "But so too can certain testing regimes, credential requirements, forms of economic organization, oppressively conformist social norms, and many other stones that our usual ways of approaching equal opportunity might leave unturned" (p. 18).
1 Educational Research Institut, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Bottlenecks
A NEW THEORY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
174 fishkin, joseph (2014). bottlenecks. a new theory of equal opportunity.
The first chapter of Fishkin's book addresses, above all, the conception of fair contest, and proceeds by discussing the theories of thinkers such as Rawls and Dworkin, to mention just the most outstanding names. This very detailed examination of different arguments, concepts and antagonisms is interwoven with a wide range of problems linked to the family, nature, education, merit, jobs, the starting gate, etc. Many representative and evocative examples are given, as is typical of a kind of thinking based on the paradigm of analytical philosophy. In view of this line of thinking, Fishkin finds "Nozick's vision of radically decentralized pluralism /.../ too unrealistic" (p. 77), and therefore advocates a "different kind of equal opportunity".
The second chapter examines relations between opportunities and human development: "/.../ this chapter explains why we ought to be concerned not just about who has more opportunities and who has less, but also about which opportunities or what kinds of opportunities are open to people" (p. 83). The author presents a variety of theories and misconceptions (such as those based in genetic science, environmental studies, chance, etc.) and, of course, does not omit a discussion of the notorious difference between nature and nurture. In this context, he mentions the "Flynn Effect", which makes linking ever-higher IQ to genetics very problematic. However, he also very persuasively does away with "oversimplifications" in views on the "intergenerational transmission of inequality" (p. 108). In the same chapter, Fishkin also tackles complex problems concerning interactions with the world of employment, questioning the notion of merit, but also exposing some mindboggling problems with the ideas of equality and equalising. The problems become clearly comprehensible as challenges when we see them through the author's interpretation of well-chosen examples from social situations and courtrooms. School as an "equaliser" is one of the important matters of discussion in this chapter, and practices such as testing are thoroughly examined and exposed as problematic.
The third chapter is about "opportunity pluralism". This consists of "four principles", which are here only briefly summarised from pages 131-132: (1) there should be plurality of values and goals in society, (2) valued goods should not be "positional" and as many roles as possible should not be competitive, (3) the "anti-bottleneck principle" supports plurality of paths to different valued goods and roles, and (4) "plurality of sources of authorities" translates to "broader plurality of different decision-makers". In the continuation, these principles are well substantiated and discussed with reference to various theories, going as far back as J. S. Mill. Some realistic examples, based on verifiable evidence, again provide good backing for the author's theses. This chapter is the highpoint of the whole book, as it suggests what the idea of opportunity pluralism is about.
CEPS Journal | Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016 175
One contribution of particular interest is the argumentation against harsh competitiveness, although the author himself believes that many instances of such competitiveness will never disappear.
In the chapter entitled "Applications", the author examines matters of economic and social policy "through the lens of opportunity pluralism". After explaining how many "interconnected" bottlenecks add up to a "major class bottleneck", he focuses on problems of work flexibility and, finally, "discusses how the anti-bottleneck principle should recast our understanding of antidiscrimination law" (p. 198).
The Conclusion takes a stand against the zero-sum outcome, claiming that according to opportunity pluralism there can be a "positive-sum". Due to its original propositions, the book should be included among theoretical resources in any serious attempt to reform the area of the creation of "equal opportunities". Of course, this holds true for a kind of moderately leftist liberal social reform, as the author notably links opportunity and individual freedom. One can only hope that this book will have some impact, as it is one of a number of recent studies that deal with concerns about growing income inequalities and the consequent broader social imbalances.
The author is mainly focused on problems in the United States, and the bulk of examples and other evidence come from that environment, although in some instances he compares American systems and policies to those of Europe. As mentioned above, the book is based on an analytical philosophical paradigm and therefore disregards concepts, logics and critique based on the so-called continental paradigm. Hence, Fishikin entirely overlooks such highly valued contributions as, for instance, Pierre Bourdieu's study of the reproduction of a society (through education) and particular aspects of Michel Foucault's work on the problems of power relations, as well as some more contemporary approaches to sociology, such as Ulrich Beck's or Christian Laval's critical reflections on the neoliberal form of capitalism and its effects in a range of social institutions. In the case of Fishkin's book, however, this is not necessarily a weakness; firstly because the book retains a firm consistency due to the "logic" on which it is grounded, and secondly because it demonstrates the power of an analytical methodology, which makes particular social situations, the legal system, individual institutions, a range of practices in a multitude of policies, and social controversies and conflicts better visible in their detail. Such approaches also generate a degree of "rationality" in public discourse, and therefore may better serve social or political reform in a given legal framework than their "continental" counterparts. However, these approaches cannot develop a fundamental criticism, which remains the advantage of discourses rooted in a more "holistic" approaches, discourses that are mainly characteristic of European humanities and social sciences.
Instructions for Authors for publishing in ceps Journal (www.cepsj.si - instructions)
Submissions
Manuscript should be from 5,000 to 7,000 words long, including abstract and reference list. Manuscript should be not more than 20 pages in length, and should be original and unpublished work not currently under review by another journal or publisher.
Review Process
Manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editors and only those meeting the aims and scope of the journal will be sent for blind review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two referees. All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, but the review process usually takes at least 3 months. The ceps Journal has a fully e-mail based review system. All submissions should be made by e-mail to: editors@cepsj.si.
For more information visit our web page www.cepsj.si.
Abstracting and indexation Scopus | EBSCO - Education Source Publications | Cooperative Online Bibliographic System and Services (COBISS) | Digital Library of Slovenia - dLib | DOAJ -Directory for Open Access Journals | Academic Journals Database | ERIH PLUS | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbib-liothekEZB (Electronic JournalsLibrary) | Base-Search | DRJI - The Directory of Research Journal Indexing | GSU - Georgia State University Library | MLibrary -University of Michigan | NewJour | NYU Libraries | OhioLINK | Open Access Journals Search Engine (OAJSE) | peDOCS: open access to educational science literature | ResearchBib | Scirus | Ulrichs International Periodicals Directory; New Providence, USA
Annual Subscription (4 issues). Individuals 45 €; Institutions 90 €. Order by e-mail: info@cepsj.si; postal address: ceps Journal, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Online edition at www.cepsj.si.
Navodila za avtorje prispevkov v reviji (www.cepsj.si - navodila)
Prispevek
Prispevek lahko obsega od 5.000 do 7.000 besed, vključno s povzetkom in viri. Ne sme biti daljši od 20 strani, mora biti izvirno, še ne objavljeno delo, ki ni v recenzijskem postopku pri drugi reviji ali založniku.
Recenzijski postopek
Prispevki, ki na podlagi presoje urednikov ustrezajo ciljem in namenu revije, gredo v postopek anonimnega recenziranja. Vsak prispevek recenzirata najmanj dva recenzenta. Recenzije so pridobljene, kolikor hitro je mogoče, a postopek lahko traja do 3 mesece. Revija vodi recenzijski postopek preko elektronske pošte. Prispevek pošljite po elektronski pošti na naslov: editors@cepsj.si.
Več informacij lahko preberete na spletni strani www.cepsj.si.
Povzetki in indeksiranje Scopus | EBSCO - Education Source Publications | Cooperative Online Bibliographic System and Services (COBISS) | Digital Library of Slovenia - dLib | DOAJ -Directory for Open Access Journals | Academic Journals Database | ERIH PLUS | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbib-liothekEZB (ElectronicJournalsLibrary) | Base-Search | DRJI - The Directory of Research Journal Indexing | GSU - Georgia State University Library | MLibrary -University of Michigan | NewJour | NYU Libraries | OhioLINK | Open Access Journals Search Engine (OAJSE) | peDOCS: open access to educational science literature | ResearchBib | Scirus | Ulrichs International Periodicals Directory; New Providence, USA
Letna naročnina (4 številke). Posamezniki 45 €; pravne osebe 90 €. Naročila po e-pošti: info@cepsj. si; pošti: Revija ceps, Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Spletna izdaja na www.cepsj.si.
University of Ljubljana Faculty of Education
Editorial
— Mitja Sardoc and Slavko Gaber
CONTENTS
c-E-p-s Journal
Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal
Revija Centra za študij edukacijskih strategij
Vol.6 | No2 | Year 2016
www.cepsj.si
FOCUS
Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
Enakost možnosti in enakost rezultatov
—	Zdenko Kodelja
Equality of Opportunity, Cultural Diversity and the Claims of Fairness
Enake možnosti, kulturna različnost ter zahteve pravičnosti
—	Mitja Sardoc Coleman's ird Report Colemanovo tretje poročilo
—	Marjan Šimenc and Mojca Štraus
Age of Studies and Reports - Selected Elements Concerning Background of the Encounters Defining the Power of Education
Obdobje študij in poročil - izbrani elementi ozadij spoprijemov, ki določajo moč edukacije
—	Veronika Tašner and Slavko Gaber
Social Capital and Educational Achievements: Coleman vs. Bourdieu
Socialni capital in izbraževalni dosežki: Coleman : Bourdieu
—	Silvia Rogošic and Branislava Baranovic
The Sources of Inequity in the Education System of Serbia and How to Combat Them
Viri nepravičnosti v edukacijskem sistemu Srbije in kako se z njimi spopasti
—	Ana Pešikan and Ivan Ivic
VARIA
Comics as a Literary-didactic Method for Reducing Gender Differences in Reading Literacy
Strip kot literarnodidaktična metoda dela in njegova uporaba za zmanjšanje razlik med spoloma v bralni pismenosti na razredni stopnji šolanja
—	Maja Kerneža and Katja Košir
An Analysis of Critical Issues in Korean Teacher Evaluation Systems
Analiza ključnih problemov v korejskem evalvacijskem sistemu učiteljev
—	Hee Jun Choi and Ji-Hye Park
REVIEWS
Fishkin, Joseph (2014). Bottlenecks. A New eory of Equal Opportunity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 267 p., ISBN 9780199812141. — Darko Strajn
issn 1855-9719
II III IIIIII III III III IIIIII II III