Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship

The question of whether those who think of themselves as egalitarians really do, or should, value equality has received considerable attention in recent years. Alternative principles have been offered as better capturing those distributive intuitions formerly known as ‘egalitarian’. Some endorse sufficiency—comparisons do not matter; what is important is that all have enough. Others favor giving priority to the worse off. The

Nowadays it often appears that liberals have been outflanked on the issue of diversity. Political activists and theorists increasingly insist that greater weight be given to what distinguishes particular groups from others. Those who clamor for a "politics of difference" are as likely to be attacking as seeking to extend liberal values and practices. Iris Marion Young, for example, wants a politics that "attends to rather than represses difference," in which no group "is stereotyped, silenced, or marginalized."' She dismisses the ideal of impartiality and such notions as moral universality, human nature, essentialism, and various other pre-postmodern sins and vices, because all deny the basic significance of group-based differences: "Groups cannot be socially equal unless their specific experience, culture, and social contributions are publicly affirmed and recognized."2 Young rejects "melting pot ideals of assimilation and unity," not surprisingly, arguing that the "desire for political unity will suppress difference, and tend to exclude some voices and perspectives from the public."3 She advocates "bilingual-

How can civic education in a liberal democracy give social diversity its due? Two complementary concerns have informed a lot of liberal thinking on this subject. Liberals like John Stuart Mill worry that "the plea of liberty" by parents not block "the fulfillment by the State of its duties" to children. They also worry that civic education not be conceived or conducted in such a way as to stifle "diversity in opinions and modes of conduct."' Some prominent contemporary theorists add a new and interesting twist to these common--concerns. They criticize liberals like Mill and Kant for contributing to one of the central problems, the stifling of social diversity, that they are trying to resolve.2 The comprehensive liberal aim of educating children not only for citizenship but also for individuality or autonomy, these political liberals argue, does not leave enough room for social diversity. Would a civic educational program consistent with political liberalism accommodate significantly more social diversity than one guided by comprehensive liberalism?3 Political liberals claim that it would, and some recommend political liberalism to us largely on this basis. This article shows that political liberalism need not, and often does not, accommodate more social diversity through its civic educational program than comprehensive liberalism. Section I examines the defining difference between political and comprehensive liberalism and suggests why we might expect to find a significant difference in the accommodation of social diversity by political and comprehensive liberalism through civic education.

Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of Citizenship in a Global World

Next article No AccessEquality of OpportunityCharles FrankelCharles Frankel Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 81, Number 3Apr., 1971 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/291810 Views: 69Total views on this site Citations: 20Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Mitja Sardoč The trouble with merit, Theory and Research in Education 20, no.22 (Jun 2022): 135–144.https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221108844Rodney E. Hero, Morris Levy Unequal values: equality and race in state of the union addresses, 1960–2018, The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 6, no.33 (Oct 2021): 499–528.https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.21Winston C. Thompson A limited defense of talent as a criterion for access to educational opportunities, Educational Philosophy and Theory 53, no.88 (Aug 2020): 833–845.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1804358Mitja Sardoč Patriotism and Its Critics, (Jul 2020): 1–8.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54484-7_29Ngozi Chuma- Umeh Issues of Human Right to Basic Education and Equality of Educational Opportunity in Africa: A Case Study of Nigeria, (Jul 2017): 7–27.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53703-0_2Nicola Riva Equal Chances and Equal Options: Two Conceptions of Equality of Opportunity, Ratio Juris 28, no.22 (May 2015): 293–306.https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12083Derrick Darby, Argun Saatcioglu Race, inequality of opportunity, and school choice, Theory and Research in Education 13, no.11 (Mar 2015): 56–86.https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515572288Oscar Espinoza Solving the Equity/Equality Conceptual Dilemma: A New-Goal Oriented Model to Approach Analyses Associated with Different Stages of the Educational Process, (Nov 2009): 127–143.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3221-8_9Oscar Espinoza Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: a new model for analysis of the educational process, Educational Research 49, no.44 (May 2008): 343–363.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701717198Elaine Ridge, Yusef Waghid Equity and Distance Education, Equity & Excellence in Education 34, no.33 (Dec 2001): 80–86.https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568010340310John Edwards Group Rights v. Individual Rights: The Case of Race-Conscious Policies, Journal of Social Policy 23, no.11 (Jan 2009): 55–70.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400021322Bert C. Buzan MERITOCRACY'S CONVERT: JUSTICE WHITE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Southeastern Political Review 21, no.44 (Nov 2008): 803–821.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1993.tb00391.xRichard J. Ellis Rival Visions of Equality in American Political Culture, The Review of Politics 54, no.22 (Aug 2009): 253–280.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670500017836John Edwards What purpose does equality of opportunity serve?, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 17, no.11 (Jun 2010): 19–35.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1990.9976218Kenneth R. Howe In Defense of Outcomes-based Conceptions of Equal Educational Opportunity, Educational Theory 39, no.44 (Sep 1989): 317–336.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1989.00317.xAnthony F. Shorrocks The Galton Lecture for 1985: Inequality of Economic Opportunity, (Jan 1988): 47–71.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09644-2_4Alan H. Goldman The Justification of Equal Opportunity, Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no.11 (Jan 2009): 88–103.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001266E. A.G. Clark BALANCING THE CLAIMS FOR EQUALITY IN EDUCATION AND THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL IDENTITIES, Philosophical Papers 11, no.11 (Jan 2010): 40–59.https://doi.org/10.1080/05568648209506197 Felix E. Oppenheim Egalitarian Rules of Distribution, Ethics 90, no.22 (Oct 2015): 164–179.https://doi.org/10.1086/292144Robert D. Heslep Preferential Treatment and Compensatory Justice, Educational Theory 26, no.22 (Apr 1976): 147–153.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1976.tb00720.x

The Elementary School Journal Volume 83, Number 2 ? 1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984183/8302-0009$01o.00 Teachers approach their instructional tasks with a variety of perspectives and strategies that emphasize certain aspects of teaching and deemphasize others. For example, some teachers teach language skills using organized games, while other teachers teach the same skills by direct instruction. Teachers adopt different approaches to the same subject matter partly because their teaching situations differ. Their students may have different learning problems or their classrooms may have varied resources and facilities. Even in the

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Concept of Equal OpportunityPeter WestenPeter Westen Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 95, Number 4Jul., 1985 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/292687 Views: 122Total views on this site Citations: 28Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1985 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Heidi T. Katz, Emmanuel O. Acquah The role of schools in providing educational opportunity: An integrative review, Review of Education 9, no.33 (Nov 2021).https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3307Ivo Wallimann-Helmer Chancengleichheit, (Aug 2021): 225–231.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05798-3_28Bahar BERBEROĞLU Yükseköğretimde Fırsat Eşitliği, Nizamiye Medreseleri, Maarif Mektepleri Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 3, no.11 (Jul 2019): 36–51.https://doi.org/10.46762/mamulebd.571573Maiju Paananen, Katja Repo, Petteri Eerola, Maarit Alasuutari Unravelling conceptualizations of (in)equality in early childhood education and care system, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 5, no.11 (Jun 2018): 54–64.https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2018.1485423Ralph Premdas Affirmative Action: Its Nature and Dynamics, (Feb 2019): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0242-8_141-1Ralph Premdas Affirmative Action: Its Nature and Dynamics, (Jul 2019): 1501–1513.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2898-5_141Juri Viehoff Equality of Opportunity in a European Social Market Economy*, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 57, no.11 (Jan 2019): 28–43.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12815Leah N. Gordon If Opportunity Is Not Enough: Coleman and His Critics in the Era of Equality of Results, History of Education Quarterly 57, no.44 (Nov 2017): 601–615.https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2017.35Antonio Abatemarco Doing Rawls Justice: Evidence from the PSID, Economics 10, no.11 (Nov 2016).https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2016-33Kirsten Meyer Why should we demand equality of educational opportunity?, Theory and Research in Education 14, no.33 (Nov 2016): 333–347.https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878516676709Hugh Lazenby What is equality of opportunity in education?, Theory and Research in Education 14, no.11 (Jan 2016): 65–76.https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515619788Johannes Drerup The Politics of the Level Playing Field. Equality of Opportunity and Educational Justice, (Mar 2016): 115–136.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27389-1_8Nicola Riva Equal Chances and Equal Options: Two Conceptions of Equality of Opportunity, Ratio Juris 28, no.22 (May 2015): 293–306.https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12083Larry S. Temkin Equality of Opportunity, (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee267Paul Lambert, Robert M. Blackburn What is social inequality?, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 28, no.7/87/8 (Jul 2008): 250–259.https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330810890664Sylvie Loriaux Global equality of opportunity: a proposal, Journal of International Relations and Development 11, no.11 (Mar 2008): 1–28.https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800145ALEXANDER BROWN Equality of Opportunity for Education: One-off or Lifelong?, Journal of Philosophy of Education 40, no.11 (Feb 2006): 63–84.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2006.00500.xAndrew Mason Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances, The Philosophical Quarterly 54, no.216216 (Jul 2004): 368–388.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00358.xLesley A. Jacobs Pursuing Equal Opportunities, 17 (Jun 2012).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616556Daniel H. Krymkowski Measuring opportunity*, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 25, no.33 (Sep 2001): 275–284.https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990254Maureen Woodd Human resource specialists ‐ guardians of ethical conduct?, Journal of European Industrial Training 21, no.33 (Apr 1997): 110–116.https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599710161810Patrick Maclagan Ethical Thinking in Organizations Implications for Management Education, Management Learning 26, no.22 (Aug 2016): 159–177.https://doi.org/10.1177/135050769502600202Paul T. Menzel Some Ethical Costs of Rationing, Law, Medicine and Health Care 20, no.1-21-2 (Jan 2021): 57–66.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1992.tb01173.xRobert W. Moore, Irene E. Jacobsohn Sex Discrimination and Culture, Equal Opportunities International 8, no.44 (Apr 1989): 20–26.https://doi.org/10.1108/eb010513Tom Mullen Affirmative Action, (Jan 1988): 244–266.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19353-0_12Alan H. Goldman The Justification of Equal Opportunity, Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no.11 (Jan 2009): 88–103.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001266James W. Nickel Equal Opportunity in a Pluralistic Society, Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no.11 (Jan 2009): 104–119.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001278 Literatur, ().https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250978.207

The Elementary School Journal Volume 85, Number 3 ? 1985 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984/85/8503-0003$01 .00 State policies intended to improve education generally try either to set educational standards or to shape the educational process. Although states also seek to improve education through the allocation of funds, in recent years they have placed more emphasis on regulation-setting standards in the form of tests to be passed or educational procedures to be followed. Some policies are targeted on students; others, on teachers. The policies, of course, also affect schools, school systems, and, in certain cases, schools of education. In this paper, however, we focus on how policies affect the teacher-learner relationship as it occurs in classrooms.

Many recent arguments for rights or exemptions for religious or other cultural groups that may not themselves be liberal are based on liberal premises—whether the central liberal value be individual autonomy or tolerance for diversity of ways of life. Any consistent defense of group rights or exemptions that is based on liberal premises has to ensure that at least one individual right—the right to exit one’s group of origin—trumps any group right. What this entails will be explored later, but for several reasons, the claim itself seems prima facie incontrovert-

to general feelings such as liking/disliking of mathematics, nor is it meant to exclude perceptions of the difficulty, usefulness, and appropriateness of mathematics as a school subject. There are several ways affective variables are related to mathematics learning. It is likely that a student who feels very positive about mathematics will achieve at a higher level than a student who has a negative attitude toward mathematics. It is also likely that a high achiever will enjoy mathematics more than a student who

In the old days, material egalitarians tended to favor equality of outcome advantage, on some suitable conception of advantage (happiness, resources, etc.). Under the influence of Dworkin’s seminal articles on equality, contemporary material egalitarians have tended to favor equality of brute luck advantage—on the grounds that this permits people to be held appropriately accountable for the benefits and burdens of their choices. I shall argue, however, that a plausible conception of egalitarian justice requires neither that brute luck advantage always be equalized nor that people always bear the full cost of their voluntary choices. Instead, justice requires that initial opportunities for advantage be equalized—roughly along the lines suggested by Arneson and Cohen. Brute luck egalitarianism and initial opportunity egalitarianism are fairly similar in motivation, and as a result they have not been adequately distinguished. Once the two views are more clearly con-

Soulevant le paradoxe de l'obligation de l'education civique des enfants et de l'apprentissage des valeurs fondamentales du liberalisme telle que l'autonomie de l'individu, l'A. montre que la permissibilite de l'education civique pose probleme, tant du point de vue de l'autorite de l'ecole en matiere d'enseignement et de l'autorite des parents en matiere d'education, que du point de vue de la legitimite de l'etat liberal au regard du consentement hypothetique des citoyens. Examinant les arguments en faveur de l'education civique developpes par W. Galston et A. Gutmann, ainsi que l'argument instrumental en faveur de l'education falicitant l'autonomie, l'A. montre que le debat souleve la question de la place de la famille religieuse de l'enfant et la question des programmes scolaires dans le cadre limite de la doctrine liberale

This essay is a call for world-systems analysis of education. Increasingly, the field of comparative education is moving toward more sophisticated examinations of education in relationship to economic, political, and social forces. Studies of the ecology of educational institutions and processes, however, often fail to take into account an international context of transactions. To date, most macro studies of education have taken the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis.' An examination of the international forces impinging upon education systems is no less essential than an examination of the international economic order would be to an

I would like to thank Frances Vavrus, Janise Hurtig, Aurolyn Luykx, Dana Burde, Carolyn Kissane, Fida Adely, Annette Hansen, the participants at the Association of Development Researchers in Denmark’s (FAU) 2003 conference on education and development, and the coeditors and anonymous reviewers of Comparative Education Review for their invaluable feedback on this article. 1 For example, ActionAid’s Reflect project represents an internationally renowned example of the implementation of Freirean-based literacy; see David Archer and S. Cottingham, Action Research Report on Reflect: The Experience of Three Pilot Projects in Uganda, Bangladesh and El Salvador (London: Overseas Development Association, 1996); Julia Betts, “Literacies and Livelihood Strategies: Experience from Usulutan, El Salvador,” International Journal of Educational Development 23, no. 3 (2003): 291–98; Caroline Dyer and A. Choksi, “The Reflect Approach to Literacy: Some Issues of Method,” Compare 28, no. 1 (1997): 75–87; Anna Robinson-Pant, Why Eat Green Cucumbers at the Time of Dying? Exploring the Link between Women’s Literacy and Development: A Nepal Perspective (Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education, 2001). 2 In Latin America, the term “popular” denotes the poor and working classes; popular education is rooted in a Marxist class critique. On popular education in Latin America, see Robert Arnove, Education and Revolution in Nicaragua (New York: Praeger, 1986), and “Education as Contested Terrain in Nicaragua,” Comparative Education Review 39, no. 1 (1995): 28–54; Celso de Rui Beisiegel, Estado e educacao popular (Sao Paulo: Pioneira, 1974); Carlos Rodrigues Brandao, A questao politica da educacao popular (Sao Paulo: Brasiliense, 1980); Anthony Dewees and Stephen Klees, “Social Movements and the Transformation of National Policy: Street and Working Children in Brazil,” Comparative Education Review 39, no. 1 (1995): 76–100; Osmar Favero, ed., Cultura popular, educacao popular: Memoria dos anos 60 (Rio de Janeiro: Edicoes Graal, 1983); Marcy Fink, “Women and Popular Education in Latin America,” in Women and Education in Latin America, ed. Nelly P. Stromquist (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992), 171–93; Marcy Fink and Robert F. Arnove, “Issues and Tensions in Popular Education in Latin America,” International Journal of Educational Development 11, no. 3 (1991): 221–30; Jose Willington Germano, Lendo e aprendendo: A campanha “de pe no chao” (Sao Paulo: Cortez Editora, 1982); John Hammond, Fighting to Learn: Popular Education and Guerrilla War in El Salvador (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998); Sheryl Hirshon, And Also Teach Them to Read (Westport, CT: L. Hill, 1983); Oscar Jara, Contributions to the History of Popular Education in Peru (Lima: Tarea, 1990); Liam Kane, Popular Education and Social Change in Latin America (London: Latin American Bureau, 2001); Thomas J. La Belle, Nonformal Education and Social Change in Latin America (Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, University of California, Los Angeles, 1976); Thomas LaBelle, Nonformal Education and the Poor in Latin America and the Caribbean: Stability, Reform, or Revolution? (New York: Praeger, 1986); Robert Mackie, Literacy and Revolution: The Pedagogy of Paulo Freire (New York: Continuum, 1981); Valerie Miller, Between Struggle and Hope: The Nicaraguan Literacy Crusade (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1985); Vanilda Pereira Paiva, Educacao popular e educacao de adultos (Sao Paulo: Edicoes Loyola, 1973); Victoria Purcell-Gates and Robin Waterman, Now We Read, We See, We Speak: Portrait of Literacy Development in an Adult Freirean-Based Class (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000); Carlos Alberto Torres, The Politics of Nonformal Education in Latin America

The purpose of this study was to investigate how Japanese educational institutions realize social justice and enhance Japanese students’ capacity for individual self-development in the education system, particularly in upper secondary education. This study involved historical investigation based on analyzing documents, field studies, and in-depth interviews. However, due to the particular social and cultural context of Japan, the preliminary analysis conducted in this study indicated that, despite equal opportunity in education often being emphasized and discussed, social justice is rarely involved in educational policy and research. We conducted in-depth interviews with Japanese scholars to confirm and clarify this issue. Therefore, in this paper, concepts related to social justice (including factors such as educational equity, equality, and fairness) in education are explored first in the Japanese social and cultural context. Second, this paper concentrates on the relationship between social justice (including factors such as educational equity, equality, and fairness) and the capacity for self-development, and comprehensively analyzes Japan’s overall education system. Third, in the educational policies, Japanese ideas of realizing social justice and strategies for enhancing students’ capacity for individual self-development are clarified. Finally, relevant recommendations are provided in the conclusion.