Abstract
In this paper I make a contribution to three distinct, but deeply interwoven subjects. Firstly, I argue that, at the level of ideal theory, the distribution of educational goods should follow a sufficientarian pattern and that the evaluative space of children’s advantage should be inspired by the capability approach (although with an important twist). Secondly, the paper is delving into the more policy-oriented debates on the desirability of school choice. I argue that, given the non-ideal circumstances in which decision makers have to act, giving parents the opportunity to choose the school for their children is a sine qua non condition for even approaching the ideals of sufficientarian justice. Lastly, I move the discussion on more empirical grounds, advancing a criticism of the Romanian educational legislation. I argue that the sufficiency-constrained school choice system that I envision could solve some of the problems that the Romanian educational system faces today.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I thank an anonymous reviewer for urging me to clarify the reason why I chose the Romanian case and also for suggesting the “imperfect circumstances” as a reason for opting for discussing educational justice in a novel context.
“Allocative” here does not have the same understanding as in Rawls’ distinction between distributive-allocative justice. Rawls considers that distributive justice applies at the level of the basic structure of a society, and that its existence is conditional on the existence of a scheme of cooperation (1971, p. 87). Allocative justice applies “when a given collection of goods is to be divided among definite individuals with known desires and needs”, who are not necessarily connected through preexisting cooperative relations (1971, p. 88). I avoid this distinction, since my approach is part of the family of theories of justice that Buchanan calls “subject-centered, which consider that “rights or moral status….are independent from the ability to contribute” (1990, p. 231). Thus, children, who are not cooperative member of the society yet, would seem to be ignored by a conception of justice as reciprocity, but fall under the lens of subject-centered justice theories. Similarly, children’s claims would not seem to bear value under the distributive-allocative cut, which is the reason I avoid the Rawlsian distinction (Buchanan claims that Rawls’ theory is not a form of justice as reciprocity: 1990, p.230; however, see Young’s criticism of Rawls’ idea of society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage, which seems to justify the contrary claim: 2006, p.93).
Anca Gheaus distinguishes between the distribuenda and the metric of justice. Whereas the metric or currency is the evaluative space for a theory of justice and can be specified in primary goods, capabilities, welfare, etc., the distribuenda are the means through which the metric is achieved. One can include here rights, opportunities, money, etc. (Gheaus 2016, p.2).
I thank Alexandru Volacu for raising this challenging objection.
http://www.edu.ro/index.php/articles/24045 . Henceforth, Report.
The Romanian educational system is split as follows: primary education comprises grade 0 (a preparatory year, formerly included in the kintergarten education) and grades 1-4, lower secondary education grades 5-8 and upper secondary education grades 9-12 (highschool).
This is the task of ARACIP in Romania, which is the institution that assesses the state of primary and secondary education according to some key indicators and makes specific recommendations for each educational unit.
The ministry order can be accessed here, along with the motivation (in Romanian) http://www.edu.ro/index.php/articles/23740.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this problem.
I thank two anonymous reviewers for urging me to clarify this aspect which, unfortunately, was not tackled adequately in the early versions of the paper.
References
Anderson, E. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109 (2): 287–337.
Anderson, E. 2004. Rethinking equality of opportunity: Comment on Adam Swift’s How not to be a hypocrite. Theory and Research in Education 2: 99–110.
Anderson, E. 2007. Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective. Ethics 117 (4): 595–622.
Apostu, O., Balica, M., Fartuşnic, C., Bogdan, F., Horga, I. and Voinea, L. 2012. Copiii care nu merg la şcoală. O analiză a participării la educaţie în învăţământul primar şi gimnazial. Bucharest: Institutul de Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei [Children who do not attend a schools. An analysis of enrollment in primary and lower secondary education].
Apostu, O., Balica, M., Fartuşnic, C., Florian, B., Horga, I., Novak, C. and Voinea, L. 2015. Analiza sistemului de învăţământ preuniversitar din România din perspectiva unor indicatori statistici. Politici educaţionale bazate pe date. Bucharest: Editura Universitară [An analysis of the Romanian primary and secondary education. Educational policies based on data].
Archbald, D. 2004. School choice, magnet schools and the liberation model: An empirical study. Sociology of Education 77 (4): 283–310.
Arneson, R. 1999. Human flourishing versus desire satisfaction. Social Philosophy & Policy 16 (1): 113–142.
Arneson, R. 2004. Cracked foundations of liberal equality. In Dworkin and his critics, ed. Justine Burley, 79–99. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Arneson, R. 2006. Distributive justice and basic capability equality: Good enough is not good enough. In Capabilities equality. Basic issues and problems, ed. Alexander Kaufman, 17–44. New York: Routledge.
Arneson, R. 2013. From primary goods to capabilities to well-being. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16 (2): 179–195.
Benbaji, Y. 2006. Sufficiency or priority? European Journal of Philosophy 14 (3): 327–348.
Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2006a. Equality, priority and positional goods. Ethics 116: 471–497.
Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2006b. Parents’ rights and the value of the family. Ethics 117: 80–108.
Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2009a. Educational equality versus educational adequacy: A critique of Anderson and Satz. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2): 117–128.
Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2009b. Legitimate parental partiality. Philosophy & Public Affairs 37 (1): 43–80.
Brighouse, H., and E. Unterhalter. 2010. Primary goods versus capabilities: Considering the debate in relation to equalities in education. In Capabilities: Handlungsbefahigung und Verwirklichungschance in der Erziehungswissencshaft, ed. Hans-Uwe Otto, and Holger Ziegler. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Brighouse, H., H. Ladd, S. Loeb, and A. Swift. 2016. Educational goods and values: a framework for decision makers. Theory and Research in Education 14: 1–23.
Brighouse, H. 2003a. School choice and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brighouse, H. 2003b. Educational equality and justice. In A companion to the philosophy of education, ed. Randall Curren, 471–486. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Brighouse, H. 2004. What’s wrong with privatising schools? Journal of Philosophy of Education 38 (4): 617–631.
Brighouse, H. 2007. Educational justice and socio-economic segregation in schools. Journal of Philosophy of Education 41 (4): 575–590.
Brighouse, H. 2008. Educational equality and varieties of school choice. In School choice. Policies and outcomes. Empirical and philosophical perspectives, ed. Walter Feinberg, and Cristopher Lubienski, 41–61. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Brighouse, H. 2010. Educational equality and school reform. In Educational equality, ed. Graham Haydon, 15–70. New York: Continuum.
Brighouse, H. 2014. Equality, prioritising the disadvantaged and the new educational landscape. Oxford Review of Education 40 (6): 782–798.
Buchanan, A. 1990. Justice as reciprocity versus subject-centered justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 19 (3): 227–252.
Buchanan, A. 2004. Justice, legitimacy and self-determination. Moral foundations for international law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Callan, E. 2016. Democracy, equal citizenship, and education. Theory and Research in Education 14 (1): 1–14.
Calvert, J. 2014. Educational equality: Luck egalitarian, pluralist and complex. Journal of Philosophy of Education 48 (1): 69–85.
Casal, P. 2007. Why sufficiency is not enough. Ethics 117 (2): 296–326.
Clayton, M., and D. Stevens. 2004. School choice and the burdens of justice. Theory and Research in Education 2 (2): 111–126.
Cohen, G.A. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99 (4): 906–944.
Cohen, G.A. 2011. Equality of what? On welfare, goods and capabilities. In On the currency of egalitarian justice and other essays in political philosophy, ed. Michael Otsuka, 44–61. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Crisp, Roger. 2006. Reasons and the good. New York: Oxford University Press.
Curren, R. 2009. Education as a social right in a diverse society. Journal of Philosophy of Education 43 (1): 45–56.
Cust, K. 1997. A just minimum of health care. Oxford: University Press of America.
Dworkin, R. 2001. Sovereign virtue. The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dwyer, J. 2003. Children’s rights. In A companion to the philosophy of education, ed. Randall Curren, 443–456. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Elacqua, G. 2012. The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development 32: 444–453.
Fletcher, G. 2013. A fresh start for the objective-list theory of well-being. Utilitas 25 (2): 206–220.
Forster, G. 2016. A win-win solution. The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice: The empirical evidence on school choice.
Freiman, C. 2014. Priority and position. Philosophical Studies 167: 341–360.
Friedman, M. 2002 [1962]. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 40th anniversary edition.
Giesinger, J. 2011. Education, fair competition and concern for the worst off. Educational Theory 61 (1): 41–54.
Gheaus, Anca. 2016. Hikers in flip-flops: Luck egalitarianism, democratic equality and the distribuenda of justice. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2016: 1–16.
Gutmann, A. 1980. Children, paternalism and education: A liberal argument. Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 (4): 338–358.
Gutmann, A. 1999. Democratic education. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hawley, G. and E. Frankenberg. 2012. Reviving magnet schools: Strengthening a a successful choice option. Civil Rights Project.
Henig, J. 1994. Rethinking school choice. Limits of the market metaphor. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Huseby, R. 2010. Sufficiency restated and defended. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2): 178–197.
Macedo, S. 2003. Equity and school choice: How can we bridge the gap between ideals and realities? In School choice. The moral debate, ed. Alan Wolfe, 51–70. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Macleod, C. 2010. Primary goods, capabilities and children. In Measuring justice. Primary goods and capabilities, ed. Harry Brighouse, and Ingrid Robeyns, 174–193. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Minnow, M. 2003. Parents, partners and choice: constitutional dimensions of school options. In School choice. The moral debate, ed. Alan Wolfe, 217–231. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Miroiu, A. 1998. Managementul învăţământului. In Învăţământul românesc astăzi. Studiu de diagnoză, ed. Adrian Miroiu. Iaşi: Polirom [“The management of education”, in The Romanian educational system].
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of justice. Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Orr, S. 2005. Sufficiency of resources and political morality. Paper presented at the Priority in Practice seminars, University College London.
Page, E. 2008. Justice between generations: Investigating a sufficientarian approach. Coventry: University of Warwick.
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. 1996. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. 1999. The law of peoples. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reich, R. 2003. Common schooling and educational choice. In A companion to the philosophy of education, ed. Randall Curren, 430–442. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Renzulli, L., and V. Roscigno. 2008. Charter schools and the public good. Schools and society. A sociological approach to education, 363–369. London: SAGE.
Rice, C. 2013. Defending the objective list theory of well-being. Ratio 26 (2): 196–211.
Robeyns, I. 2000. An unworkable idea or a promising alternative? The capability approach re-examined. Center for Economic Studies Discussion Papers.
Robeyns, I. 2003. Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics 9 (2): 61–92.
Robeyns, I. 2015. The capability approach. Forthcoming in Oxford handbook of distributive justice, ed. Serena Olsaretti. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saito, M. 2003. Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education 37 (1): 17–33.
Sandstrom, M., and F. Bergstrom. 2005. School vouchers in practice: Competition will not hurt you. Journal of Public Economics 89: 351–380.
Satz, D. 2007. Equality, adequacy and education for citizenship. Ethics 117: 623–648.
Schouten, G. 2012. Fair educational opportunity and the distribution of natural ability: Toward a prioritarian principle of educational justice. Journal of philosophy of Education 46 (3): 472–491.
Sen, A. 1985. Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy 82 (4): 169–221.
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality re-examined. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shields, L. 2012. The prospects for sufficientarianism. Utilitas 24 (1): 101–117.
Smrekar, C., and N. Honey. 2015. The desegregation aims and demographic contexts of magnet schools: How parents choose and why siting policies matter. Peabody Journal of Education 90: 128–155.
Stern, M., S. Clonan, L. Jafee, and A. Lee. 2015. The normative limits of choice. Charter schools, disability studies and questions of inclusion. Educational Policy 29 (3): 448–477.
Swift, A. 2003. How not to be a hypocrite. School choice for the morally perplexed parent. London: Routledge.
Swift, A. 2004a. The morality of school choice. Theory and Research in Education 2 (1): 7–21.
Swift, A. 2004b. The morality of school choice reconsidered. A response. Theory and Research in Education 2 (3): 323–342.
Temkin, L. 2003. Egalitarianism defended. Ethics 113: 764–782.
Teschl, M., and F. Comim. 2005. Adaptive preferences and capabilities: Some preliminary conceptual explorations. Review of Social Economy LXIII (2): 229–247.
Tooley, J. 1995. Disestablishing the school. De-bunking justifications for state intervention in education. London: Routledge.
Voicu, O. 2012. Alegerea şcolii. O necesară dezbatere de politici educaţionale. Fundaţia pentru o Societate Deschisă din România [“School choice. A necessary educational policy debate”].
Voigt, K. 2007. The harshness objection: Is luck egalitarianism too harsh on the victims of option luck? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4): 389–407.
Vopat, M. 2011. Magnet schools, innate talent and social justice. Theory and Research in Education 9 (1): 59–72.
Weishart, J. 2014. Transcending equality versus adequacy. Stanford Law Review 66: 477–544.
Woodard, C. 2013. Classifying theories of welfare. Philosophical Studies 165 (3): 787–803.
Young, I.M. 2006. Taking the basic structure seriously. Perspectives on Politics 4 (1): 91–97.
Ypi, L. 2010. On the confusion between ideal and non-ideal in recent debates on global justice. Political Studies 58: 536–555.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dumitru, A.C. Adequacy in Education and Normative School Choice. Stud Philos Educ 37, 123–146 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9578-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9578-z