Page 103 - 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. 103
u. boljka et al. ■ who calls the shots? the insiders and outsiders ...
If we try to project Rawls’ ideas on justice (as elaborated in detail in
the introductory part of the article) onto the participation of children in
elementary schools, we must answer two questions:
a) Do all children have equal opportunities in participation processes?
If the answer is yes, the following conditions must be met:
- access to information on participation is equal for all children
(e.g., the topic of participation is part of the school curriculum);
- structures and mechanisms for participation in school are
established;
- structures and mechanisms for participation in school are equal-
ly accessible to all children;
- every child can participate regardless of his/her gender, ethnic or
cultural background; and
- resources for effective participation are equally distributed among
all children; no group of children is deprivileged based on character-
istics they have no control over.
b) Are the interests of the group of children which fails to participate
despite the equal opportunities at least represented in participatory
processes? To answer this question, a subjective assessment of vul-
nerable children can be very useful.
Based on the focus group analysis, we assess the participation in el-
ementary schools in Slovenia as being unjust (regardless of the just nor-
mative regulation of participation). This finding relies on two arguments,
first: participation is not just because the resources which enable children
to participate are not equally distributed. The group of vulnerable chil-
dren is less ‘endowed’ with resources like motivation, effort, good grades,
exemplary behaviour, rhetorical skills and popularity (deemed necessary
for effective participation) in comparison to the ‘general population’ of
pupils. Rawls divides resources (or goods) into two groups: a) those which
individuals have an influence over; and b) those which individuals can-
not influence. As the resources needed for the successful participation of
individuals also include those over which individuals have no influence,
we claim that some children are inevitably and by default excluded from
participation. In practice, it is simply impossible to divide between the re-
sources children can influence and those they cannot because they more
or less depend on the social context. The second argument: vulnerable
children themselves stressed that their interests are not properly repre-
sented in the participation processes. They do not benefit from their par-
ticipation being limited to sheer representation by others.
101
If we try to project Rawls’ ideas on justice (as elaborated in detail in
the introductory part of the article) onto the participation of children in
elementary schools, we must answer two questions:
a) Do all children have equal opportunities in participation processes?
If the answer is yes, the following conditions must be met:
- access to information on participation is equal for all children
(e.g., the topic of participation is part of the school curriculum);
- structures and mechanisms for participation in school are
established;
- structures and mechanisms for participation in school are equal-
ly accessible to all children;
- every child can participate regardless of his/her gender, ethnic or
cultural background; and
- resources for effective participation are equally distributed among
all children; no group of children is deprivileged based on character-
istics they have no control over.
b) Are the interests of the group of children which fails to participate
despite the equal opportunities at least represented in participatory
processes? To answer this question, a subjective assessment of vul-
nerable children can be very useful.
Based on the focus group analysis, we assess the participation in el-
ementary schools in Slovenia as being unjust (regardless of the just nor-
mative regulation of participation). This finding relies on two arguments,
first: participation is not just because the resources which enable children
to participate are not equally distributed. The group of vulnerable chil-
dren is less ‘endowed’ with resources like motivation, effort, good grades,
exemplary behaviour, rhetorical skills and popularity (deemed necessary
for effective participation) in comparison to the ‘general population’ of
pupils. Rawls divides resources (or goods) into two groups: a) those which
individuals have an influence over; and b) those which individuals can-
not influence. As the resources needed for the successful participation of
individuals also include those over which individuals have no influence,
we claim that some children are inevitably and by default excluded from
participation. In practice, it is simply impossible to divide between the re-
sources children can influence and those they cannot because they more
or less depend on the social context. The second argument: vulnerable
children themselves stressed that their interests are not properly repre-
sented in the participation processes. They do not benefit from their par-
ticipation being limited to sheer representation by others.
101
