Advertisement

Redefining Equality Through Incentive-Based Policies

  • Christopher LubienskiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Education Policy & Social Inequality book series (EPSI, volume 1)

Abstract

This analysis considers shifting conceptions of equality in education, highlighting the movement from equality of treatment, access, and educational and social opportunity to a focus on the equal right to choose a quality school. The paper explores recent reform policies that harness organizational and individual incentives to improve education outcomes, especially for disadvantaged children. Drawing on the advocacy efforts of a prominent philanthropy active in education reform in the United States, I note that the current focus is on an equal right to choose a quality school, rather than an equal right to a quality school. But advocates for such reforms embrace a rhetoric of equality from the American civil rights movement, even though their policies, and perhaps motivations as well, are not closely linked to equitable educational opportunities. Indeed, the efforts to advocate for an equal right to choose a school represent a subtly yet significantly altered conception of equality in education. The concluding discussion considers implications of this shift for research and policy.

Keywords

Quality Education Education Reform Charter School Quality School School Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., Kane, T., et al. (2009). Informing the debate: Comparing Boston’s charter, pilot and traditional schools. Boston: The Boston Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 13, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnott, R., & Rowse, J. (1987). Peer group effects and educational attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 32(3), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Au, W., & Lubienski, C. (2016). The role of the Gates Foundation and the philanthropic sector in shaping the emerging education market: Lessons from the US on privatization of schools and education governance. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), The global education industry (pp. 27–43). Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2006). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Björklund, A., Clark, M. A., Edin, P.-A., Fredriksson, P., & Krueger, A. B. (2005). The market comes to education in Sweden: An evaluation of Sweden’s surprising school reforms. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Bohlmark, A., & Lindahl, M. (2007). The impact of school choice on pupil achievement, segregation and costs: Swedish evidence. IZA Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  8. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bråmå, Å. (2006). ‘White Flight’? The production and reproduction of immigrant concentration areas in Swedish cities, 1990–2000. Urban Studies, 43(7), 1127–1146. doi: 10.1080/00420980500406736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckingham, J. (2001). Families, freedom, and education: Why school choice makes sense. St. Leonards, NSW: Centre for Independent Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Carnoy, M. (1998). National voucher plans in Chile and Sweden: Did privatization reforms make for better education? Comparative Education Review, 42(3), 309–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carnoy, M., & McEwen, P. (2003). Does privitization improve education? The case of Chile’s national voucher plan. In D. S. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective (pp. 24–44). Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equal schools or equal students? The Public Interest, 4, 70–75.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, R. W., Ashenden, D. J., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. W. (1982). Making The difference: Schools, families, and social division. Sydney; Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Coulson, A. J. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Eckes, S. E. (2010). Charter school legislation and the potential to influence student body diversity. In C. Lubienski & P. Weitzel (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 51–71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  18. Epple, D., & Romano, R. E. (1998). Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer-group effects. The American Economic Review, 88(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
  19. Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  20. Frankenberg, E., & DeBray, E. H. (Eds.). (2011). Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  21. Freire, P. (1985). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 127–134). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Friedman, M. (1994). The case for choice. In K. L. Billingsley (Ed.), Voices on choice: The education reform debate (pp. 91–101). San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, M. (1995). Public schools: Make them private (pp. Retrieved on August 11, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-1023.html). Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
  26. Gauri, V. (1998). School choice in Chile: Two decades of educational reform. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gorur, R. (2013). My school, my market. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2), 214–230.Google Scholar
  28. Greene, J. P., Carroll, T. W., Coulson, A. J., Enlow, R., Hirsch, E. D., Ladner, M., . . . Stern, S. (2008, January 24). Is school choice enough? City Journal, http://www.city-journal.org/2008/forum0124.html
  29. Greenwald, R. (Writer). (2005). Wal-Mart: The high cost of low prices. Brave New Films.Google Scholar
  30. Gulati-Partee, G. (2015, May). How can this market-oriented grantmaker advance community-led solutions for greater equity. Philamplify.Google Scholar
  31. Hanushek, E. A., Markman, J. M., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, D. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hassel, B. C., & Toch, T. (2006). Big box: How the heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune: Have fueled the charter school movement. Connecting the Dots. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  34. Hoxby, C. M. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation (p. 62). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoxby, C. M. (2001). Rising tide. Education Next, 1(4).Google Scholar
  36. Hoxby, C. M. (2004). Achievement in charter school and regular public schools in the United States: Understanding the differences (pp. 1–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  37. Hoxby, C. M., Mararka, S., & Kang, J. (2009). How New York City’s charter schools affect achievement. Stanford, CA: The New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project, Stanford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsieh, C.-T., & Urquiola, M. (2002). When schools compete, how do they compete? An assessment of Chile’s nationwide school voucher program. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.Google Scholar
  39. Irons, P. H. (2002). Jim Crow’s children. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  40. Jha, T., & Buckingham, J. (2015). Free to choose charter schools: How charter and for-profit schools can boost public education. St Leonards, NSW: Centre for Independent Studies.Google Scholar
  41. Kaestle, C. F. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society, 1780–1860. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
  42. Katz, M. B. (1975). Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational change in America (Expanded ed.). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  43. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  44. Labaree, D. F. (1988). The making of an American high school: The credentials market & the Central High School of Philadelphia, 1838–1939. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lauder, H., Hughes, D., Watson, S., Waslander, S., Thrupp, M., Strathdee, R., et al. (1999). Trading in futures: Why markets in education don’t work. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  48. Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  49. Lubienski, C. (2013). Privatizing form or function? Equity, outcomes and influence in American charter schools. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 498–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lubienski, C. (2016). Sector distinctions and the privatization of public education policymaking. Theory and Research in Education 14(3), 192–212.Google Scholar
  51. Lubienski, C., & Brewer, T. J. (2016). An analysis of voucher advocacy: Taking a closer look at the uses and limitations of “gold standard” research. Peabody Journal of Education 91(4), 455–472.Google Scholar
  52. Lubienski, C., Brewer, T. J., & Goel La Londe, P. (2016). Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks. Australian Education Researcher, 43(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2014). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16487.
  55. Mann, H. (1849). Twelfth annual report of the board of education together with the twelfth annual report of the secretary of the board. Boston: Dutton and Wentworth.Google Scholar
  56. Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. New York: Hart Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  57. Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  58. Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project.Google Scholar
  59. Orfield, G., Eaton, S. E., & The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press (Distributed by W.W. Norton & Company).Google Scholar
  60. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2014a). Pisa 2012 results: What makes schools successful (Vol. IV). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2014b). Pisa 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.Google Scholar
  63. Patterson, J. T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A civil rights milestone and its troubled legacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using Pisa 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137–1162.Google Scholar
  65. Peterson, P. E. (1998). School choice: A report card. In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 3–32). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Raymond, M. E., & Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  68. Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195. doi: 10.3102/0013189x14536607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rotberg, I. C. (2014, February). Charter schools and the risk of increased segregation. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 26–30.Google Scholar
  70. Rothstein, J. (2004). Good principals or good peers? Parental valuation of school characteristics, Tiebout equilibrium, and the incentive effects of competition among jurisdictions. Princeton, NJ: Department of Economics, Princeton University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rouse, C. E. (1998). Schools and student achievement: More evidence from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Princeton University and the National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  72. Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  73. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (Tvaas) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Savage, G. C. (2013). Tailored equities in the education market: Flexible policies and practices. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2), 185–201.Google Scholar
  75. Schneider, M., Elacqua, G., & Buckley, J. (2006). School choice in Chile: Is it class or the classroom? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(3), 577–601. doi: 10.1002/pam.20192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Srivastava, P. (2016). Questioning the global scaling-up of low-fee private schooling: The nexus between business, philanthropy and PPPs. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), The global education industry. Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Thomas, S. (2012). Understanding charter schools. Auckland, NZ: Maxim Institute.Google Scholar
  78. Valenzuela, J. P., Bellei, C., & Ríos, D. d. l. (2014). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), 217–241. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.806995
  79. Walton Family Foundation. (2012). 2012 Walton Family Foundation Grants. Bentonville, AR: Walton Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  80. Walton Family Foundation. (2015). 2015–20 K-12 education strategic plan. Bentonville, AR: Walton Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  81. West, E. G. (1970). Education and the state: A study in political economy (2nd ed.). London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  82. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Willms, J. D. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils’ examination results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 224–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations