Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

The report on the findings of extensive empirical research on equality of educational opportunities carried out in the US on a very large sample of public schools by Coleman and his colleagues has had a major impact on education policy and has given rise to a large amount of research and various interpretations. However, as some interpreters have highlighted, even more important than the findings of the survey themselves has been Coleman’s redefinition of equality of opportunity, abandoning the then prevailing conception of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and replacing it with the concept of equality of educational opportunities as equality of educational outcomes. The question is, therefore, whether equality of outcomes really is one of the two types of equality of opportunity. The purpose of the present article is to show that equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are two different types of equality. If they are different, the interpretation that Coleman has redefined the concept of “equality of educational opportunity” turns out to be incorrect. (DIPF/Orig.)

Equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness

The present paper examines some of the tensions, problems and challenges associated with claims for equality of opportunity (the fairness argument). The introductory part identifies three separate forms of justification for public education, including the argument associated with equality of opportunity. Part II examines in detail two questions that reveal part of the anatomy of equality of opportunity: (1) what an opportunity is, and (2) when individuals’ opportunities are equal. This is followed by a presentation of the two basic principles of equality of opportunity: (1) the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) the “levelling the playing field” principle. The next part takes up the multiculturalist hypothesis advanced by minority groups for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity. This is followed by the identification of a set of claims comprising the “fairness argument”. The last section focuses on the “currency problem” associated with cultural diversity as a form of “unfair disadvantage”. Part V examines two of the major shortcomings associated with the multicultural conception of equality of opportunity, while the concluding part discusses some of the questions that must be answered by any conception of equal opportunities. (DIPF/Orig.)

Does gender make a difference? Gender-related fairness of high-stakes testing in A-level examinations in English as foreign language in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia in the context of Educational Governance

The shift from decentralized to centralized A-level examinations (Abitur) was implemented in the German school system as a measure of Educational Governance in the last decade. This reform was mainly introduced with the intention of providing higher comparability of school examinations and student achievement as well as increasing fairness in school examinations. It is not known yet if these ambitious aims and functions of the new centralized examination format have been achieved and if fairer assessment can be guaranteed in terms of providing all students with the same opportunities to pass the examinations by allocating fair tests to different student subpopulations e.g., students of different background or gender. The research presented in this article deals with these questions and focuses on gender differences. It investigates gender-specific fairness of the test items in centralized Abitur examinations as high school exit examinations in Germany. The data are drawn from Abitur examinations in English (as a foreign language). Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis reveals that at least some parts of the examinations indicate gender inequality. (DIPF/Orig.)

Governing the transition to higher levels of education and differences between achievement and school grades by gender

The author will explore the performance of boys and girls in external examinations in Slovenia at the beginning of upper secondary and tertiary education. These are critical points in students’ educational career at which he/she has to choose a school/university. Since both transitions are managed centrally by appropriate authorities, this is also a question of Educational Governance. Transitions between levels of education should, above all, assure fairness in selection procedures. At the point of transition to upper secondary schools we will explore differences between students’ achievements in various school subjects tested at the national assessment of knowledge (NA), and their school grades by gender. Since only school grades are used as admission criteria to upper secondary schools, this comparison of school grades with external and more objective measure of students’ achievement will show possible bias. In Slovenia admission to tertiary education usually consists of (externally assessed) Matura results and school grades in the last two years of upper secondary school. The author will compare the effects of both most commonly used measures of academic achievement on admission in view of gender differences. Study courses where selection procedure was actually applied will be of specific interest since they can show signs of (un)fairness. Results show signs of bias and build case for better Educational Governance. (DIPF/Orig.)