Equality, Quality and Diversity

Journal of Philosophy of Education

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 113-128

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346882788     PISSN: 03098249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.1996.tb00384.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. D. Cooper, Illusions of Equality, 1980; B. Bernstein, Social structure, language and learning, Educational Research, 3, pp. 163-176: A Jensen, Educability and Group Differences, 1973; R. Herrnstein and A. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, 1994. Cooper's form of inegalitarianism can, however, be accommodated in a limited way in the argument presented below.
2. D. Cooper, Illusions of Equality, 1980; B. Bernstein, Social structure, language and learning, Educational Research, 3, pp. 163-176: A Jensen, Educability and Group Differences, 1973; R. Herrnstein and A. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, 1994. Cooper's form of inegalitarianism can, however, be accommodated in a limited way in the argument presented below.
3. D. Cooper, Illusions of Equality, 1980; B. Bernstein, Social structure, language and learning, Educational Research, 3, pp. 163-176: A Jensen, Educability and Group Differences, 1973; R. Herrnstein and A. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, 1994. Cooper's form of inegalitarianism can, however, be accommodated in a limited way in the argument presented below.
4. D. Cooper, Illusions of Equality, 1980; B. Bernstein, Social structure, language and learning, Educational Research, 3, pp. 163-176: A Jensen, Educability and Group Differences, 1973; R. Herrnstein and A. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, 1994. Cooper's form of inegalitarianism can, however, be accommodated in a limited way in the argument presented below.
5. Barry, op. cit., Chapter 6; Gray, op. cit.
6. Barry, op. cit., Chapter 6; Gray, op. cit.
7. Gray, op. cit.
8. Cf. Barry, op. cit., Chapter 7.
9. Ibid., Chapter 6.
10. For a recent argument see J. White, The dishwasher's child: education and the end of egalitarianism, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28.2, 1994, pp. 173-182.
11. Cf. Marie Stowell, Equal opportunities, access and admissions: tensions and issues for educational policy, Journal of Access Studies, 7, 1992, pp. 164-179.
12. Cf. K. Sharp and C. Winch, Equal opportunities and the use of language: a critique of the new orthodoxy, Studies in Higher Education, 19.2, 1994.
13. Cf. Cooper, op. cit. It is unusual for those who call themselves egalitarians to subscribe to equality as procedural justice. A case where they might, though, is when procedural justice requires rectification for wrongs done by x to y. In some cases this could involve a redistribution of resources from x to y. Attention has been drawn to the potentially radical implications of Nozick's version of neo-liberalism by, for example, Alan Brown, Modern Political Philosophy, 1986, Chapter 4.
14. Cf. Cooper, op. cit. It is unusual for those who call themselves egalitarians to subscribe to equality as procedural justice. A case where they might, though, is when procedural justice requires rectification for wrongs done by x to y. In some cases this could involve a redistribution of resources from x to y. Attention has been drawn to the potentially radical implications of Nozick's version of neo-liberalism by, for example, Alan Brown, Modern Political Philosophy, 1986, Chapter 4.
15. This is not strictly true of the UK, since the number of grammar school places available varied according to local authorities giving children in some areas, such as South Wales, a much greater likelihood of going to a grammar school than others. It is arguable that these anomalies constituted a violation of procedural justice and may have contributed to the demise of the selective system of education in England and Wales. There is also evidence that girls were discriminated against in favour of boys.
16. Cf. Cooper, op. cit., Chapter 2.
17. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1971. See also Rawls, Political Liberalism, 1993, pp. 22ff.
18. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1971. See also Rawls, Political Liberalism, 1993, pp. 22ff.
19. This example is worked out in some detail in Cooper, op. cit., and is discussed further below.
20. Ibid., p. 30.
21. For criticism along these lines see, for example, Brown, op. cit., Chapter 3.
22. See Cooper, op. cit., and Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974, for criticism along these lines.
23. See Cooper, op. cit., and Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974, for criticism along these lines.
24. Rawls attempts to meet these difficulties in his Political Liberalism, 1993, pp. 22-28. I do not regard these attempts as satisfactory.
25. See Basil Bernstein, Class, Codes and Control, Volumes 1 and 2, 1973, 1977.
26. For a critique of both these approaches see Winch, op. cit., 1990.
27. By better education in this sense Cooper means better teachers and better resources. These equip the school to give its pupils a greater degree of educational transformation than any other school. Cooper, op. cit., p. 33.
28. Whether or not this is true is an empirical matter. A particular type of intensive academic education at secondary level may lead some pupils to experience difficulties at the tertiary level and in adult life.
29. See, for example, Cooper, op. cit., p. 24, where an example which is very favourable to the entitlement case is used.
30. How many pupils should achieve the highest standards is not just an academic question since there may need to be a compromise struck between high standards and overall added value.
31. Ibid., pp. 151-2.
32. This view requires some qualification since some inegalitarians believe that most children would require a modified or watered-down version of the academic curriculum if they were to profit at all from education. See, for example, Cooper, op. cit., Chapter 5; G. H, Bantock, Culture, Industrialisation and Education, 1968.
33. This view requires some qualification since some inegalitarians believe that most children would require a modified or watered-down version of the academic curriculum if they were to profit at all from education. See, for example, Cooper, op. cit., Chapter 5; G. H, Bantock, Culture, Industrialisation and Education, 1968.
34. Cf. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776; 1970 edn), p. 226.
35. F. List, op. cit., especially Chapters XII and VXII.
36. It does not, of course, follow from the requirement of distinct curricula that there should be distinct types of schools. This point requires further discussion and, in any case, is a difficult one to make a priori. What I do maintain is that anyone who thinks that distinct curricula are desirable has to take very seriously the possibility that the best way of operating those curricula is to provide distinct schools.
37. John Wilson, Equality revisited, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 27.1, 1993, pp. 113-114.
38. For a defence of the notion that equality of opportunity is centrally concerned with sameness of permission, see Sharp and Winch, op. cit.
39. It follows from this position that the highest standards possible will be safeguarded since the most able pupils will be selected to the schools most capable of fulfilling the highest possible standards, no matter what kinds of standards these are.
40. See John Locke, Second Treatise of Government; C. Winch, Should children's books be censored? Westminster Studies in Education, 16, 1993, pp. 41-52.
41. See John Locke, Second Treatise of Government; C. Winch, Should children's books be censored? Westminster Studies in Education, 16, 1993, pp. 41-52.