Page 87 - 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. 87
u. boljka et al. ■ who calls the shots? the insiders and outsiders ...
In spite of ideas close to egalitarian liberalism (Rawls, 1971) being
popular when thinking about designing more just education systems,
there seems to be several limitations while translating and operationalis-
ing these ideas into practical educational policy and their application to
the school environment. Here are some examples:
- The question arises as to the practical applicability of the difference
principle. The principle states that the unequal distribution of pri-
mary social goods is fair insofar as it benefits the most disadvan-
taged. It is difficult to imagine how the most disadvantaged pupils
with the worst educational outcomes would benefit in any way from
a system in which the least disadvantaged would have their learning
outcomes maximised (Harel Ben-Shahar, 2015, p. 5), which would
be Rawls’ (1971) idea of a just education according to the difference
principle.
- Another issue emerges with the inclusion of personal risky choices in
the notion of social justice because it is very difficult to distinguish
the choices an individual is responsible for and the choices subject to
objective circumstances that have influenced the individual’s social
position. According to Andersen (1999), in practice this would result
in the legitimisation of processes leading to a division between cit-
izens who make responsible choices and those who do not. Similar
emphasis is also given by Harel Ben-Shahar (2015, p. 7, p. 9) when
providing the example of capabilities and effort:
- Harel Ben-Shahar (2015, p. 7) disagrees with the static and constant
notion of talents and capabilities which Rawls (1971) believes are
part of the natural primary resources and as such are not subject to
redistribution. She argues that both can be increased through up-
bringing as well as education.
- Differences in effort and aspirations are often seen as a tool for jus-
tifying differences in children’s learning outcomes because both ef-
fort and aspirations are viewed as assets over which individuals have
control. Harel Ben-Shahar (2015, p. 9), on the contrary, claims that
effort can be understood as an asset over which individuals have no
control: a) it can be understood as a natural ability dependent on the
ability to concentrate, on diligence, emotional strength and other
components and not as a personal choice; b) there is a correlation be-
tween deprivileged groups of children, the influence of cultural cap-
ital and the type of community in which they are growing up in and
which lower motivation to study – these are again factors outside the
85
In spite of ideas close to egalitarian liberalism (Rawls, 1971) being
popular when thinking about designing more just education systems,
there seems to be several limitations while translating and operationalis-
ing these ideas into practical educational policy and their application to
the school environment. Here are some examples:
- The question arises as to the practical applicability of the difference
principle. The principle states that the unequal distribution of pri-
mary social goods is fair insofar as it benefits the most disadvan-
taged. It is difficult to imagine how the most disadvantaged pupils
with the worst educational outcomes would benefit in any way from
a system in which the least disadvantaged would have their learning
outcomes maximised (Harel Ben-Shahar, 2015, p. 5), which would
be Rawls’ (1971) idea of a just education according to the difference
principle.
- Another issue emerges with the inclusion of personal risky choices in
the notion of social justice because it is very difficult to distinguish
the choices an individual is responsible for and the choices subject to
objective circumstances that have influenced the individual’s social
position. According to Andersen (1999), in practice this would result
in the legitimisation of processes leading to a division between cit-
izens who make responsible choices and those who do not. Similar
emphasis is also given by Harel Ben-Shahar (2015, p. 7, p. 9) when
providing the example of capabilities and effort:
- Harel Ben-Shahar (2015, p. 7) disagrees with the static and constant
notion of talents and capabilities which Rawls (1971) believes are
part of the natural primary resources and as such are not subject to
redistribution. She argues that both can be increased through up-
bringing as well as education.
- Differences in effort and aspirations are often seen as a tool for jus-
tifying differences in children’s learning outcomes because both ef-
fort and aspirations are viewed as assets over which individuals have
control. Harel Ben-Shahar (2015, p. 9), on the contrary, claims that
effort can be understood as an asset over which individuals have no
control: a) it can be understood as a natural ability dependent on the
ability to concentrate, on diligence, emotional strength and other
components and not as a personal choice; b) there is a correlation be-
tween deprivileged groups of children, the influence of cultural cap-
ital and the type of community in which they are growing up in and
which lower motivation to study – these are again factors outside the
85
