Pro-equality education policies in Europe: Key lessons from the NEUJOBS project

1. Pro-equality education policies in Europe: Key lessons from the NEUJOBS project Miroslav Beblavy (CEPS), Anna-Elisabeth Thum (CEPS) and Marcela Veselkova (Slovak Governance Institute) Brussels, 15.10.2012

2. 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

3. Introduction These considerations lead to three steps in thinking pro-equality education policies: • Analysis of the context: Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context • Effect: Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution? • Implementation: The political economy of pro-equality educational reform

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. 1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context • Conceptualisation of how policies influence stratification based on (basic ideas behind the clusters): • Explicit stratification of the public system („statification vs equalisation“) • Boundary between family/market and the state provision of education („family/market vs state provision“) • Clustering of both dimensions above combined

8. 1. Education and welfare policies: pro-equality policies embedded in a social policy context KEY FINDING: Stratification vs equality:2 pure clusters, 2 mixed • „the role of public policy is to promote equality“ (equalisation) • „there is a proper place for everyone in society“ (stratification)

9. 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

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

11. 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‘)

12. 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

13. 2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution? The distributional association of ability grouping and inequality in the US: positive but more so for the more able students

14. 2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution? The distributional association of ability grouping and inequality in Belgium: positive but more so for the less able students

15. 2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution? The distributional association of pre-primary education and inequality in Belgium: positive for the less able students and negative for the more able students

16. 2. Do the effects of pro-equality education policies differ across the performance distribution? The distributional association of pre-primary education and inequality in Spain: negative for the less able students and positive for the more able students

17. 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)

18. 3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform In case of highly stratifiededucational 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).

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 3. The political economy of pro-equality educational reform Balance of Forces

22. 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

23. 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?

24. Conclusion "Because of differences in climate, energy, tastes and age, equality among people is a physical impossibility. But civilized man can render this inequality harmless, just as he has done with swamps and bears." (in ‘Three Years’ by Anton Chekhov) => What do policy makers thinking about pro-equality education policies need to know?

25. 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

26. 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...

27. Conclusion Thank you very much for your attention.