Page 97 - 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. 97
u. boljka et al. ■ who calls the shots? the insiders and outsiders ...
their migrant background and when their rights to participate were limit-
ed more than for other children.
For example, when Slovenian pupils are graded, they get asked three
questions, they know nothing, they still get a 3 [good]. Or let me tell
you… they answer one question correctly and get 5 [excellent]. But for
us, not from Slovenia, we are up there in front of the whole class and get
five questions, we answer four and a half questions correctly and we get 1
[fail]. He [the teacher] says you did not deserve to pass…I think this is not
OK… that all these Slovenians get 5s [excellent] and the rest of us worse
grades…. (Isus-Vuk, 14 years, NGO 2)
It seems to me that some teachers are unfair to people who are not pure
Slovenians .... (Nodi, 13 years, NGO 1)
It gets on my nerves because there is a lot of nationalism at schools ....
(Janez, 15 years, NGO 1)
On the contrary, the participants from focus groups with a general
population of children were usually children from families without any fi-
nancial issues, with good educational attainment and excellent debating
skills − schools typically choose the most eloquent and talkative children
despite being instructed not to do so. Further, the comparison of the two
groups in terms of the participants being articulated, eloquent, being able
to express complex and/or abstract ideas reveals important differences in
favour of the children from the focus groups with a general population.
Similarly, differences between the two groups appear when comparing
their understanding of child participation in schools, their perceptions
of what can be achieved by it, and their view on entitlement to partici-
pate in the decision-making processes in schools. Here we can argue that
children with either a disadvantaged socio-economic and cultural back-
ground and/or behavioural, emotional and learning difficulties are, to use
the language of the recognition approach, a typical bivalent collectivity −
they face injustices in participation that are simultaneously traceable to
the systemic arrangement of participation in school and the culture.
In terms of whether the children’s views support the idea that all
children have the same opportunity to be informed and to take part in the
participation activities based on the education system providing them the
opportunity to do so, the short answer is no. Here the just in child partic-
ipation cannot be only guaranteed by distributing equal opportunities to
all children and expecting that those in the most vulnerable position will
miraculously seize these opportunities (as in Rawls’ (1971) understanding
of fair equality of opportunity), but to recognise and remove the obstacles
95
their migrant background and when their rights to participate were limit-
ed more than for other children.
For example, when Slovenian pupils are graded, they get asked three
questions, they know nothing, they still get a 3 [good]. Or let me tell
you… they answer one question correctly and get 5 [excellent]. But for
us, not from Slovenia, we are up there in front of the whole class and get
five questions, we answer four and a half questions correctly and we get 1
[fail]. He [the teacher] says you did not deserve to pass…I think this is not
OK… that all these Slovenians get 5s [excellent] and the rest of us worse
grades…. (Isus-Vuk, 14 years, NGO 2)
It seems to me that some teachers are unfair to people who are not pure
Slovenians .... (Nodi, 13 years, NGO 1)
It gets on my nerves because there is a lot of nationalism at schools ....
(Janez, 15 years, NGO 1)
On the contrary, the participants from focus groups with a general
population of children were usually children from families without any fi-
nancial issues, with good educational attainment and excellent debating
skills − schools typically choose the most eloquent and talkative children
despite being instructed not to do so. Further, the comparison of the two
groups in terms of the participants being articulated, eloquent, being able
to express complex and/or abstract ideas reveals important differences in
favour of the children from the focus groups with a general population.
Similarly, differences between the two groups appear when comparing
their understanding of child participation in schools, their perceptions
of what can be achieved by it, and their view on entitlement to partici-
pate in the decision-making processes in schools. Here we can argue that
children with either a disadvantaged socio-economic and cultural back-
ground and/or behavioural, emotional and learning difficulties are, to use
the language of the recognition approach, a typical bivalent collectivity −
they face injustices in participation that are simultaneously traceable to
the systemic arrangement of participation in school and the culture.
In terms of whether the children’s views support the idea that all
children have the same opportunity to be informed and to take part in the
participation activities based on the education system providing them the
opportunity to do so, the short answer is no. Here the just in child partic-
ipation cannot be only guaranteed by distributing equal opportunities to
all children and expecting that those in the most vulnerable position will
miraculously seize these opportunities (as in Rawls’ (1971) understanding
of fair equality of opportunity), but to recognise and remove the obstacles
95
