Miroslav Beblavy (CEPS), Anna-Elisabeth
Thum (CEPS) and Marcela Veselkova (Slovak
Governance Institute)
Brussels, 15.10.2012
1
Introduction
"Because
of differences in climate, energy, tastes and
age, equality among people is a physical impossibility.
But civilized man can render this inequality harmless,
just as he has done with swamps and bears." (in ‘Three
Years’ by Anton Chekhov)
 Equality of chances in education are object to a
scientific and political debate
 How can they be obtained? Pre-primary education,
late tracking,...
 But these pro-equality measurs are not an isolated
element:
 they are embedded in a social policy model,
 there are different interest groups involved in their
implementation and
 their effects on equality might differ for different pupils
2
Introduction
These considerations lead to three steps in thinking proequality education policies:
1. Analysis of the context: Education and welfare
policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social
policy context
2. Effect: Do the effects of pro-equality education
policies differ across the performance distribution?
3. Implementation: The political economy of proequality educational reform
3
Key Questions
1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality
policies embedded in a social policy context
 Can we identify consistent policy clusters? Clusters




of countries with similar education and social
policies.
Is there a trade-off between intervention in education
and welfare?
Do countries intervene in both education and welfare
– driven by a ‚stratification culture‘?
Are countries prioritising one over the other?
What are the ideological problems in terms of social
policy models when changing education policies?
4
Key Questions
2. Equality: Do the effects of pro-equality
education policies differ across the
performance distribution?
 Do pro-equality features of the education system
have the same effect for all pupils?
 Are there differences across the performance
distribution? Are children at the high end affected
differently than those at the low end?
 Are there country differences?
5
Key Questions
3. Political economy of pro-equality educational
reform
 How can pro-equality education policies be pushed
forward? What are barriers and drivers?
 Why do different countries adopt or do not adopt
pro-equality educational policies?
 What is the political and social balance of forces?
 Under what conditions are these reforms
economically stable?
6
1. Education and welfare policies: proequality policies embedded in a social
policy context
 Conceptualisation of how policies influence stratification
based on (basic ideas behind the clusters):
 Explicit stratification of the public system
(„statification vs equalisation“)
 Boundary between family/market and the state provision of
education
(„family/market vs state provision“)
 Clustering of both dimensions above combined
7
1. Education and welfare policies: proequality policies embedded in a social
policy context
KEY FINDING: Stratification vs equality:2 pure clusters, 2
mixed
 „the role of public policy is to promote equality“ (equalisation)
 „there is a proper place for everyone in society“ (stratification)
8
1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality
policies embedded in a social policy context
KEY FINDING: Family/market vs. state provision clusters: 2
pure clusters and 1 mixed
9
1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality
policies embedded in a social policy context
Some country findings:
10
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education
policies differ across the performance
distribution?



We examine the association between pro-equality
education policy measures with the socio-economic
gradient (a measure of equality of eduational
inequality) and with the PISA score in OECD
countries
Does this association vary across the PISA score
distribution?
Less able students might benefit less from ability
grouping since peer-effects are found to be stronger
for the more able (‚non-linear peer effects‘)
11
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education
policies differ across the performance
distribution?
KEY FINDING: In most countries the difference in the
effect of the pro-equality policy measures across
countries is comparably small. Countries with
relatively strong differences across the distribution
however are: AT, BE, HU, LV, ES, US
 Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Latvia and the USA in terms
of ability grouping
 Belgium and Spain in terms of pre-primary education
12
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies
differ across the performance distribution?
US
20
10
0
q20
OLS
q80
-10
-20
SEG
The distributional association of ability grouping and
inequality in the US: positive but more so for the more able
students
13
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies
differ across the performance distribution?
BEL
20
10
0
q20
OLS
q80
-10
-20
SEG
The distributional association of ability grouping and
inequality in Belgium: positive but more so for the less able
students
14
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies
differ across the performance distribution?
BEL
20
10
0
q20
OLS
q80
-10
-20
SEG
The distributional association of pre-primary education and
inequality in Belgium: positive for the less able students and
negative for the more able students
15
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education
policies differ across the performance
distribution?
ESP
20
10
0
q20
OLS
q80
-10
-20
SEG
The distributional association of pre-primary education and
inequality in Spain: negative for the less able students and
positive for the more able students
16
2. Do the effects of pro-equality education
policies differ across the performance
distribution?
 In a country with an “equalizing” education policy
culture, early childhood education is associated with
more equality for the less able (Spain)
 In a country with a “stratifying” education policy
culture, early childhood education is associated with
more equality for the more able; ability grouping is
associated with lower equality for the less
able(Belgium) or higher equality for the more able
(Hungary)
17
3. The political economy of pro-equality
educational reform
In case of highly stratified educational systems (early
tracking, low mobility between tracks), the future of the
child may be decided as early as the age of 10 (Germany,
Czech Republic, Slovakia).
18
3. The political economy of pro-equality
educational reform
Where do ideas about educational equality come
from?
 Turn of the century - spillover of U.S. progressivist
ideas about organization of schooling that would not
meet "needs of only a few groups"
 1940s – Soviet “unified school” model
 1960s – civil rights movements + Becker’s “human
capital” approach to education
 2000s – PISA shock
19
3. The political economy of pro-equality
educational reform
In 1945, students were typically tracked at the age of
10-11. In 2012, the age of tracking varies from 10 to
16.
20
3. The political economy of pro-equality
educational reform
Balance of Forces
21
3. The political economy of pro-equality
educational reform
Routes of Escape
Implementation may be hampered by:
1. existence of dual systems – transfer of selection to
private or church schools
2. free school choice – white flight
3. residential segregation
22
3. The political economy of pro-equality
educational reform
Some country findings
 Parents with low socio-economic status may have
other concerns than equality
 Framing matters
 Disseminate the research results!
 Later tracking – necessary but not sufficient condition
for equality?
23
Conclusion
"Because
of differences in climate, energy, tastes
and age, equality among people is a physical
impossibility. But civilized man can render this
inequality harmless, just as he has done with
swamps and bears." (in ‘Three Years’ by Anton
Chekhov)
=> What do policy makers thinking about proequality education policies need to know?
24
Conclusion
 International policy makers should take into account
when thinking about pro-equality educational reform
 Context and acceptability
 Results/Effects
 Implementation
In particular, our messages to them are:
1. culture of egalitarianism/stratification are rooted in
long-term factors (see the splitting into clusters
according to historical factors); a reform
concentrating purely on the education system may
not overcome these factors
2. countries facing a trade-off an egalitarian education
system might result in a more stratified welfare
system
25
Conclusion
3. the culture of stratification/equalization does not
match with market/state provision: acceptance of more
inequality is not necessarily associated with less state
intervention
The whole political system of a particular country
should be taken into account
4. Distributional effects of pro-equality measures may
differ: a country with a more „stratifying education
culture“ might face a situation in which the pro-equality
measure will only benefit the more able
5. Stable balance of political and social forces; so the
framing of the pro-equality policy reform seems
important: a pro-growth framing of the reform may
increase chances of succes
6. Dissemination of research results matters (which is why
we are here today...
26
Conclusion
Thank you very much for your
attention.
27