From Selectivity to Universalism: The Political Economy of Pro-Equality Educational Reform

Abstract

This study examines why countries adopt or do not adopt pro-equality educational reforms from the political economy and historical perspective. Our study steps into a century-long debate on advantages and disadvantages of less selective schooling and analyzes the conditions, which enable the spillover of international and domestic educational discourse into policy discourse, adoption of policies increasing equality of educational opportunities and successful implementation of these policies. We document a stable balance of political and social forces. Parents with high socioeconomic status and teachers in elite academic schools oppose less selective schooling and frame later tracking as a threat to the quality of schooling. In contrast, primary school teachers tend to be in favor of more comprehensive schooling, which raises their status; however, their attitudes are often ambiguous. Not surprisingly, the mobilization of parents with low socioeconomic status is low and interests of their children tend to be promoted by scholars, non-governmental organizations or international organizations. Left-leaning parties tend to be in favor of later tracking. In contrast, right-leaning parties tend to favor earlier tracking. However, under certain circumstances – such as electoral demand or needs of the local industry – they are willing to shift their attitudes in favor of comprehensive schooling. We document that reforms occur in both extraordinary times, such as economic crisis or regime change, and ordinary times, where the successful adoption of the pro-equality educational policy depends on bi-partisan consensus or a re-framing of the later tracking as a pro-growth measure.