私有化、择校与教育平等

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Ethics of Human Rights Pub Date : 2011-01-01 DOI:10.2202/1938-2545.1061
Yossi Dahan
{"title":"私有化、择校与教育平等","authors":"Yossi Dahan","doi":"10.2202/1938-2545.1061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article looks at aspects of the relationship between privatization in education and educational justice, examining these relationships from normative and empirical points of view. It explores different meanings of privatization in the realm of education and assesses underlying reasons for certain aspects of privatization in light of two educational justice: the adequacy approach and the fair equality of opportunity approach. The Article argues that given the competitive nature of the sphere of education, considerations of fairness, as well as utility, solidarity, and democracy supply strong reasons for rejecting various arguments that support the existence of private schools. In the last thirty years, vouchers and school choice schemes have constituted the main modes of privatization, importing market mechanisms and the logic of competition into the realm of education. Empirical evidence suggests that vouchers and school choice schemes have not fulfilled the promise of reducing educational inequalities, partly due to the political, social, economic and ideological background in which they were implemented. The introduction of competition in the realm of education has created a reality that encourages schools to prefer “low cost” students—students from middle and upper classes families—over “high cost” disadvantaged students—who come mainly from the lower class, and students with special needs. Not only have marketization and privatization changed the way that society distributes educational services, they promote a social ethos that emphasizes self-interest over the advancement of the public good and erodes democratic public forums in which collective societal decisions should be resolved.","PeriodicalId":38947,"journal":{"name":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1938-2545.1061","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privatization, School Choice and Educational Equality\",\"authors\":\"Yossi Dahan\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1938-2545.1061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article looks at aspects of the relationship between privatization in education and educational justice, examining these relationships from normative and empirical points of view. It explores different meanings of privatization in the realm of education and assesses underlying reasons for certain aspects of privatization in light of two educational justice: the adequacy approach and the fair equality of opportunity approach. The Article argues that given the competitive nature of the sphere of education, considerations of fairness, as well as utility, solidarity, and democracy supply strong reasons for rejecting various arguments that support the existence of private schools. In the last thirty years, vouchers and school choice schemes have constituted the main modes of privatization, importing market mechanisms and the logic of competition into the realm of education. Empirical evidence suggests that vouchers and school choice schemes have not fulfilled the promise of reducing educational inequalities, partly due to the political, social, economic and ideological background in which they were implemented. The introduction of competition in the realm of education has created a reality that encourages schools to prefer “low cost” students—students from middle and upper classes families—over “high cost” disadvantaged students—who come mainly from the lower class, and students with special needs. Not only have marketization and privatization changed the way that society distributes educational services, they promote a social ethos that emphasizes self-interest over the advancement of the public good and erodes democratic public forums in which collective societal decisions should be resolved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Ethics of Human Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1938-2545.1061\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Ethics of Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文着眼于教育私有化与教育公平之间关系的各个方面,从规范和经验的角度审视这些关系。它探讨了私有化在教育领域的不同含义,并根据两种教育正义:充分性方法和机会公平平等方法,评估了私有化某些方面的潜在原因。文章认为,鉴于教育领域的竞争性质,对公平、效用、团结和民主的考虑,为拒绝支持私立学校存在的各种论点提供了强有力的理由。在过去的三十年里,代金券和择校计划构成了私有化的主要模式,将市场机制和竞争逻辑引入教育领域。经验证据表明,代金券和择校计划并没有实现减少教育不平等的承诺,部分原因在于它们实施时的政治、社会、经济和意识形态背景。教育领域竞争的引入造成了一种现实,即鼓励学校更喜欢“低成本”学生——来自中上层阶级家庭的学生——而不是“高成本”弱势学生——主要来自下层阶级和有特殊需要的学生。市场化和私有化不仅改变了社会分配教育服务的方式,还催生了一种强调自身利益高于公共利益的社会风气,侵蚀了应该在其中解决集体社会决策的民主公共论坛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Privatization, School Choice and Educational Equality
This Article looks at aspects of the relationship between privatization in education and educational justice, examining these relationships from normative and empirical points of view. It explores different meanings of privatization in the realm of education and assesses underlying reasons for certain aspects of privatization in light of two educational justice: the adequacy approach and the fair equality of opportunity approach. The Article argues that given the competitive nature of the sphere of education, considerations of fairness, as well as utility, solidarity, and democracy supply strong reasons for rejecting various arguments that support the existence of private schools. In the last thirty years, vouchers and school choice schemes have constituted the main modes of privatization, importing market mechanisms and the logic of competition into the realm of education. Empirical evidence suggests that vouchers and school choice schemes have not fulfilled the promise of reducing educational inequalities, partly due to the political, social, economic and ideological background in which they were implemented. The introduction of competition in the realm of education has created a reality that encourages schools to prefer “low cost” students—students from middle and upper classes families—over “high cost” disadvantaged students—who come mainly from the lower class, and students with special needs. Not only have marketization and privatization changed the way that society distributes educational services, they promote a social ethos that emphasizes self-interest over the advancement of the public good and erodes democratic public forums in which collective societal decisions should be resolved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Ethics of Human Rights
Law and Ethics of Human Rights Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Crowdsourcing Compliance: The Use of WikiRate to Promote Corporate Supply Chain Transparency Frontmatter Crowdwashing Surveillance; Crowdsourcing Domination Illiberal Measures in Backsliding Democracies: Differences and Similarities between Recent Developments in Israel, Hungary, and Poland Frontmatter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1