Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
Abstract
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.
Downloads
References
Bell, D. (1977). On Meritocracy and Equality. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bobbio, N. (1995). Eguaglianza e libertà. Torino: Einaudi.
Cavanagh, M. (2003). Against Equality of Opportunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Coleman J. S., et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books. 1
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High School Achievement: Public, Catholic and Private Schools Compared. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J. (1975). Equal Educational Opportunity: A Definition, Oxford Review of Education, 1(1), 25–29.
Coleman, J. (1966). Equal Schools or Equal Students?, The Public Interest, 2(4), 70–75.
Comte-Sponville, A. (2004). Égalité des chances. In: Guide républican. Paris: Delagrave.
Dilhac, M.-A. (2007). Discriminations systématiques et égalité des opportunités, Revue de Philosophie Économique, 1.
Dworkin, R. (1973). The Original Position, University of Chicago Law Review, 40(3), 500–533.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Why Bakke has no case, New York Review of Books, November 10, 1977.
Gamoran, A., & Long D. A. (2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-year retrospective, WCER Working Paper No. 2006–9, University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education
Research, Madison 2006. Retrieved 15. 12. 2015 from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/index.php.
Karabel J., & Halsey, A. H. (1977). Educational Research: A Review and an Interpretation. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 1–85). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kodelja, Z. (2006). O pravičnosti v izobraževanju. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
O’Neill, O. (1976). Opportunities, Equalities and Education, Theory and Decision 7, 275–295.
O’Neill, O. (1977). How Do We Know When Opportunities Are Equal?, In M. Vetterling-Braggin, F.A. Elliston, & J. English (Eds.), Feminism and Philosophy (pp. 177–189). Totowa: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Pojman, L. (1997). On Equal Human Worth: A Critique of Contemporary Egalitarianism. In L. P. Pojman & R. Westmoreland (Eds.), Equality (pp. 282–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (2011). Pravičnost kot poštenost: reformulacija. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Renaut, A. (2007). Égalité et discriminations. Un essai de philosophie politique appliquée. Paris: Seuil.
Sartori, G. (1996). Democrazia. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.
Stevens, E. & G. H. Wood (1992). Justice, Ideology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Westen, P. (1997). The Concept of Equal Opportunity. In L. P. Pojman & R. Westmoreland (Eds.), Equality (pp. 158–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westen, P. (1990). Speaking of Equality: An Analysis of the Rhetorical Force of Equality in Moral and Legal Discourse. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.
