Page 102 - 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. 102
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
The view based on their own participation experience is that the par-
ticipation arrangement at school is not an inclusive process. This deepens
their impression that ‘participation is not for them’ and that the system is
simply unfair; the result being, according to the focus group findings, the
selective inclusion of children. Such results in turn often lead to vulnera-
ble children adopting a strategy of retreat, mocking the participation pro-
cess, and avoiding it in general.
In judging the fairness of the child participation arrangement in el-
ementary schools according to the focus group findings, we may argue
that the Rawlsian approach to assuring justice in such systems is limited.
The children’s views show that the universal opportunity to participate
in participation activities does not (as an outcome) assure universal inclu-
sion in them. In practice, the participation outcomes are unequal in spite
of the systemic universality of child participation in schools. Further, no
findings from the focus groups suggest that application of the difference
principle to participation in schools would benefit the most vulnerable
children − in the sense that the most vulnerable group of children would
benefit from these unequal and unfair outcomes in child participation,
which could make the argument for Rawlsian arrangement of child par-
ticipation in schools fairer.
Arranging child participation in schools following the postulates of
the recognition approach seems to be more just from the point of view
of the most deprivileged. The recognition approach is softer and under-
stands justice in more complex terms. Justice is not giving all children the
same rights and then passively waiting to see what happens and hoping
that on the mezzo system level an enthusiastic teacher will come along
and manage to encourage vulnerable children to participate. Justice is giv-
ing all children the same participation rights and opportunities and then
recognising that not all of them will be able to seize these new opportu-
nities due to factors outside of their control (socio-economic, cultural, be-
havioural factors) representing their bivalent collectivity.
Discussion and conclusion
The article analyses injustice in the school environment based on Rawls’
redistribution approach while further combining it with Fraser’s recogni-
tion approach. The first approach enabled us to determinate indicators of
just participation in elementary schools (mainly on the normative level of
its regulation). Complementary to the first one, the second approach was
used to help better understand why differences in participation among
different groups of children occur in practice.
100
The view based on their own participation experience is that the par-
ticipation arrangement at school is not an inclusive process. This deepens
their impression that ‘participation is not for them’ and that the system is
simply unfair; the result being, according to the focus group findings, the
selective inclusion of children. Such results in turn often lead to vulnera-
ble children adopting a strategy of retreat, mocking the participation pro-
cess, and avoiding it in general.
In judging the fairness of the child participation arrangement in el-
ementary schools according to the focus group findings, we may argue
that the Rawlsian approach to assuring justice in such systems is limited.
The children’s views show that the universal opportunity to participate
in participation activities does not (as an outcome) assure universal inclu-
sion in them. In practice, the participation outcomes are unequal in spite
of the systemic universality of child participation in schools. Further, no
findings from the focus groups suggest that application of the difference
principle to participation in schools would benefit the most vulnerable
children − in the sense that the most vulnerable group of children would
benefit from these unequal and unfair outcomes in child participation,
which could make the argument for Rawlsian arrangement of child par-
ticipation in schools fairer.
Arranging child participation in schools following the postulates of
the recognition approach seems to be more just from the point of view
of the most deprivileged. The recognition approach is softer and under-
stands justice in more complex terms. Justice is not giving all children the
same rights and then passively waiting to see what happens and hoping
that on the mezzo system level an enthusiastic teacher will come along
and manage to encourage vulnerable children to participate. Justice is giv-
ing all children the same participation rights and opportunities and then
recognising that not all of them will be able to seize these new opportu-
nities due to factors outside of their control (socio-economic, cultural, be-
havioural factors) representing their bivalent collectivity.
Discussion and conclusion
The article analyses injustice in the school environment based on Rawls’
redistribution approach while further combining it with Fraser’s recogni-
tion approach. The first approach enabled us to determinate indicators of
just participation in elementary schools (mainly on the normative level of
its regulation). Complementary to the first one, the second approach was
used to help better understand why differences in participation among
different groups of children occur in practice.
100
