Page 100 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 100
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
president. Despite this person having normatively the same chances as
everyone else to become a candidate for class president, his chances look
grim. Yet are the education system’s practices such that they maximise his
opportunities in participation terms?
The children generally think the school practices support the sta-
tus quo. Children who are favoured to participate in child forums often
have better opportunities and talents than other children and, in princi-
ple, come from families which are not socio-economically deprived. On
the contrary, vulnerable children are not given the opportunity. From the
perspective of assessing the fairness of child participation in school, what
is worrying is that, even if they show interest and are motivated, this does
not lead to their selection. And children are aware of this.
In our school, if I had been elected, the teacher would have said: ‘Can you
step down, so we can elect someone smarter?’ This is what she said to me.
Sometimes, the teachers degrade those with bad grades and favour those
with 5s (excellent). (Muhamed – Čačkalica, 13 years, NGO 2)
The above quote and many other children’s thoughts expressed in the
focus groups show that teachers play the key role in choosing the class and
children’s forums representatives. Commonly, teachers suggest the candi-
dates, or select ‘the most appropriate child’ among the candidates. Quite
often, (anonymised) voting takes place, yet the teacher confirms whether
a pupil meets all of the mentioned ‘suitability criteria’ (eloquence, reliabil-
ity, independency, good grades etc.) to be the class representative. Other
pupils who do not match these criteria, even though they are motivated to
participate as a class representative, are usually not selected.
We just ... me and my friends we are not part of this process. The teacher
just doesn’t allow those of us who are more on the naughtier side to par-
ticipate ... (laughter) ... So, we, the troublemakers, can’t participate at all.
The children who are obedient and more silent are always chosen. The
teacher is just not democratic .... (Smajo – Alah, 14 years, NGO 2)
Following Rawls’ (1971) theory of justice, we may argue that in prac-
tice vulnerable children are deprived of opportunities enjoyed by oth-
er children from the ‘general’ population. Having the same participa-
tion rights and subsequently their opportunities maximised by providing
them with universal access does not lead to equal participation outcomes.
This situation would still be just (according to Rawls and his difference
principle) if they were to benefit from such an unequal arrangement. And
this might be the case if we consider the vulnerable children’s thoughts
and suggestions on how they should be represented at school. Some of
98
president. Despite this person having normatively the same chances as
everyone else to become a candidate for class president, his chances look
grim. Yet are the education system’s practices such that they maximise his
opportunities in participation terms?
The children generally think the school practices support the sta-
tus quo. Children who are favoured to participate in child forums often
have better opportunities and talents than other children and, in princi-
ple, come from families which are not socio-economically deprived. On
the contrary, vulnerable children are not given the opportunity. From the
perspective of assessing the fairness of child participation in school, what
is worrying is that, even if they show interest and are motivated, this does
not lead to their selection. And children are aware of this.
In our school, if I had been elected, the teacher would have said: ‘Can you
step down, so we can elect someone smarter?’ This is what she said to me.
Sometimes, the teachers degrade those with bad grades and favour those
with 5s (excellent). (Muhamed – Čačkalica, 13 years, NGO 2)
The above quote and many other children’s thoughts expressed in the
focus groups show that teachers play the key role in choosing the class and
children’s forums representatives. Commonly, teachers suggest the candi-
dates, or select ‘the most appropriate child’ among the candidates. Quite
often, (anonymised) voting takes place, yet the teacher confirms whether
a pupil meets all of the mentioned ‘suitability criteria’ (eloquence, reliabil-
ity, independency, good grades etc.) to be the class representative. Other
pupils who do not match these criteria, even though they are motivated to
participate as a class representative, are usually not selected.
We just ... me and my friends we are not part of this process. The teacher
just doesn’t allow those of us who are more on the naughtier side to par-
ticipate ... (laughter) ... So, we, the troublemakers, can’t participate at all.
The children who are obedient and more silent are always chosen. The
teacher is just not democratic .... (Smajo – Alah, 14 years, NGO 2)
Following Rawls’ (1971) theory of justice, we may argue that in prac-
tice vulnerable children are deprived of opportunities enjoyed by oth-
er children from the ‘general’ population. Having the same participa-
tion rights and subsequently their opportunities maximised by providing
them with universal access does not lead to equal participation outcomes.
This situation would still be just (according to Rawls and his difference
principle) if they were to benefit from such an unequal arrangement. And
this might be the case if we consider the vulnerable children’s thoughts
and suggestions on how they should be represented at school. Some of
98
