23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
How to Reduce Educational Inequality? Dilemmas in the Spanish Context
Carlos Alonso-Carmona, Susana Vázquez-Cupeiro
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Presenting Author: Alonso-Carmona, Carlos;
Vázquez-Cupeiro, Susana
Educational inequality has traditionally been one of the main objects of study in research on schooling, whether from sociological, pedagogical, psychological or social intervention approaches. Since the 1960s, there have been intense debates within these disciplines about the most convenient theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding and explaining this inequality, its causes and consequences (Martínez García, 2004; Tarabini and Curran, 2015). In subsequent years, concern about educational inequality has progressively entered the field of public policy, a point on which both sides of the political spectrum will coincide. From progressive perspectives, educational inequalities would hinder effective equality of opportunities regardless of social origin. From conservative views, this inequality means an inefficient use of public resources and a "loss of talents" with negative consequences for economic development, an idea based on the Human Capital perspective (Perrenoud, 2006: 81-83).
Today, the fight against educational inequality is integrated as a fundamental part of school policies at the international level. In the European context, the European Commission's Education and Training Monitor annual report (2021) points out that, although significant progress has been made, characteristics such as social class, ethnic and national origin and gender still retain an important influence on individuals' educational trajectories. This inequality is manifested in terms of access (different possibilities of accessing the different routes and levels within the education system), process (differences in the day-to-day relationship with the institution and in the quality of learning) and outcomes (differences as reflected in the classic performance indicators: qualifications, diplomas), with all three dimensions being interrelated.
However, there are major disagreements on both diagnoses and potential solutions to these inequalities. Indeed, the very meaning of educational equity (what is to be understood by an ‘equal education’) is contested. For some perspectives, equity means 'fair' inequality, i.e. not mediated by social determinants, and resulting solely from individual effort and ability. Other views question whether pure capabilities, which exist independently of social factors, can be rewarded, and emphasise universal access to school knowledge and skills (Bolívar, 2013). Similarly, proposals to alleviate educational inequalities have been very diverse, and have focused on different aspects of the system: didactics, curriculum, interactions in classroom, the distribution of students among the different schools, the structuring of the different levels or stages, the division between itineraries, etc. In addition, there are initiatives that have tried to go beyond the school, acting on other areas related to educational inequality (leisure and free time, family, labour market…).
A review of the various measures and proposals against educational inequality reveals important contradictions. Analyses of these guidelines sometimes lead to very different conclusions about their effect on educational inequality. On occasions, measures that were intended to make education more inclusive have ended up having the opposite effects to those intended or have produced new forms of inequality, pushing vulnerable students to the margins of the school system (Fernández Llera and Muñiz Pérez, 2012; Escudero Muñoz and Martínez Domínguez, 2010).
The aim of this paper is to analyse the different dilemmas and contradictions surrounding the policy against educational inequality in the Spanish context. Based on a qualitative analysis of the discourses of key stakeholders in the field of education, we identify the main conflicting positions, their arguments and the unresolved debates. This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms at work in educational inequality and to help to overcome existing dilemmas in the fight against it.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research work is part of the H2020 PIONEERED project "Pioneering policies and practices tackling educational inequality in Europe" (GA-No 101004392), developed by research teams from thirteen different universities and research centres. The methodology presented here has been agreed by the different project teams to be applied in different national contexts, with a view to the comparability of the results. Still, conclusions of this work have been drawn from the analyses carried out in Spain.
This research focuses on qualitative data obtained from six in-depth interviews, two focus groups and two workshops. Stakeholders included representatives of teaching staff, policy-makers, academics and members of third sector organisations and think tanks whose activity is related to education (especially the fight against educational inequality). We tried to include in the sample stakeholders with experience in different stages of the educational system, with different vulnerable groups/types of inequality and related with both formal and non-formal education.
The interviews and focus groups asked about stakeholders' understanding of educational inequality (mechanisms that cause it, vulnerable groups), practices and measures to combat it in the Spanish context, successes and failures of such measures, possible guidelines not yet developed, future perspectives (increase, reduction, changes in the main mechanisms), challenges not yet overcome, dilemmas and contradictions. The two workshops focused almost exclusively on the dilemmas surrounding the fight against educational inequality (one focused on inequality within formal education, the other on non-formal education.). The main points of dissent previously identified in the analysis of the interviews and focus groups were presented.
In compliance with the ethical protocols that should guide social science research, the fieldwork respected participants' capacity for self-determination and their right to decide. The research team formally required their consent. In addition, their privacy and confidentiality were assured. The request for consent was preceded by the provision of adequate, adapted, accessible, understandable and documented information, in a way that was pertinent, clear and intelligible. The nature, objectives and funding of the research were disclosed. The researchers emphasised that the provision of consent was voluntary and revocable.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe identified several main sources of conflict in the discourses surrounding the fight against educational inequalities:
- Flexibility vs. homogeneity: it is argued that the rigidity of the Spanish school system penalises students (usually vulnerable) with little interest in the more academic knowledge. On the other hand, it is noted that a greater diversification of the compulsory stages would lead to a hierarchy within the student body, reproducing inequalities of social origin. Similar debates are found around the role of pedagogies: there is a defence of personalised learning in order to adapt it to the interests of pupils more distanced from academic culture, but it is pointed out that this may reinforce the interests socialised by children and adolescents on the basis of their gender, social or ethnic origin.
- Outside vs. inside the school: Several stakeholders point out that the school only reproduces external inequalities, so it is unrealistic to expect that purely educational reforms can end inequality. This problem should be addressed through social, economic and labour market reforms. However, other positions accuse these approaches of being paralysing and deterministic, and argue that schools have room for manoeuvre. Moreover, some school-based measures could work empowering vulnerable groups and addressing broader inequalities
- The dilemma of innovation: traditional teaching and the lack of educational innovation is pointed out as one of the main problems of education in Spain, and it is seen as related to the maintenance of inequality. However, several stakeholders point out that innovation is not necessarily inclusive, it may benefit privileged peers or generate new forms of segregation. An important part of this debate focuses on the use of ICT: while some see it as a means to bridge the digital divide, others argue that it will reinforce inequalities associated with digital skills and access to electronic devices.
ReferencesBolívar, J. A (2013). Justicia social y equidad escolar. Una revisión actual. Revista Internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social, 1(1), 2-45.
Escudero Muñoz, J. M., & Martínez Domínguez, B. (2011). Educación inclusiva y cambio escolar. Revista iberoamericana de educación, 55, 86-105.
Fernández Llera, R., & Muñiz Pérez, M. (2012). Colegios concertados y selección de escuela en España: un círculo vicioso. Presupuesto y gasto público, 67, 97-118.
Martínez García, J. S. (2004). Distintas aproximaciones a la elección racional. Revista internacional de sociología, 62(37), 139-173.
Perrenoud, P. (2006). El oficio del alumno y el sentido del trabajo escolar. Madrid: Editorial Popular.
Tarabini, A., & Curran, M. (2015). El efecto de la clase social en las decisiones educativas: un análisis de las oportunidades, creencias y deseos educativos de los jóvenes. Revista de investigación en Educación, 13(1), 7-26.
Varela Fernández, J. (1990). Clases sociales, pedagogías y reforma educativa. Revista de educación, 292, 219-236.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
School Autonomy to Counter Non-Traditional Factors of Inequality: A Reflection on the Italian Context
Valerio Ferrero
University of Turin, Italy
Presenting Author: Ferrero, Valerio
This conceptual contribution focuses on the Italian school system, delving into the role of school autonomy in counteracting non-traditional factors of inequality and acting in the name of equity: therefore, our aim is to map these dynamics and then focus on school autonomy policy as protective tool. The theoretical framework examines the equity construct, defines what is meant by non-traditional factors of inequality and delves into school autonomy policy in the Italian context, grasping its link with equity, to provide the key to understanding the findings of a traditional literature review
Equity in education is an internationally supported urgency, concerning educational practices and models of leadership and governance (Lash & Sanchez, 2022; Withaker, 2022). Only an equity-based education can make it possible to achieve an ever-higher degree of social justice (Bhatti et al., 2007; Bell, 2007; Hackman, 2005): it is a never fully realized ideal which requires a constant effort to include every person in democratic participatory processes and to exercise self-determination despite the interdependence that binds human beings; access to knowledge and acquisition of capabilities to critically analyze what is happening are essential elements for being actors in history, identifying and opposing forms of injustice and oppression.
By positioning ourselves among those strands of equity that value equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971; Roemer, 2000), capabilities (Nussbaum, 2013; Sen, 2009) and social inclusion (Kanor, 2021; Taket et al, 2013), the risk of a compensatory pedagogy is averted by affirming the need to ensure excellence in education for all in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and the acquisition of the capabilities to exercise citizenship as active participation in political, cultural, social, economic life on the local and global levels. It is a way of institutionalizing pluralism as a daily experience, not reading diversity as a factor of disadvantage and not setting standards and norms to which to adhere.
However, equity is threatened by dynamics that create inequalities between students. To the classical causes (socio-economic and socio-cultural status of families) that generate social reproduction, non-traditional factors of inequality are now added (Ferrer-Esteban, 2011; Granata & Ferrero, 2022). They are caused by the school itself due to its organizational choices and functioning: everyday educational practice, organization of individual institutions and national education policies generate dynamics of inequality.
In the Italian context, despite a legislative framework consistent with the principles outlined above, school equity remains a chimera (OECD, 2022; INVALSI, 2022) due to multiple dynamics that differ from one school to another and for which specific lenses of investigation and actions are needed (Crescenza & Riva, 2021; Gavosto, 2022).
Given the heterogeneity of the forms of inequality (Benadusi & Giancola, 2020; Gentili & Pignataro, 2020) and the need to find specific solutions, in 2000 the organizational framework of the Italian school system was reformed according to the principle of school autonomy: schools make autonomous choices in the organizational, managerial, financial and didactic spheres in coherence with the general aims of the education system to respond specifically to the educational needs of their students (Bianchi, 2020; Morzenti Pellegrini, 2011). The idea is to improve the national education system's equity degree by acting at the local level to counteract individual contexts' inequality dynamics and to make school organization non-generative of inequity, synergistically with the territory (Benadusi et al., 2020; Mulè et al., 2019), with a key role played by school leaders (Gümüs & Beycioglu, 2020; Mincu, 2022).
This conceptual contribution investigates (1) what non-traditional factors of inequality weigh on the Italian school system and what they depend on and (2) whether and how school autonomy can be configured as a protective tool for these dynamics.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe conceptual analysis consists of two parts: the first is dedicated to understanding the non-traditional factors of inequality present in the Italian context, the second focuses on the use of school autonomy and its effects in terms of equity to counter non-traditional dynamics of inequality.
To map the non-traditional factors of inequality acting in the Italian context, an analysis tool based on the ecological model of Brofenbrenner (2009) will be proposed. These dynamics of inequality take place at different levels but still have effects on the students’ school experience: at a micro-level we have almost unconscious actions that take shape in classroom life creating inequality; at a meso-level there are institute policies and organisational praxises that, although not in contradiction with the regulations, create inequality and should be reformulated; at a macro-level we see national education policies thatproduce distorting effects in terms of equity. The proposed tool (pyramid of inequity) will be useful to order the outcomes of a traditional literature review (Jesson et al., 2011; Rozas & Klein, 2010) whose focus is the dynamics of inequality created by the school itself.
The second part of the study will consist of a traditional literature review of the uses of school autonomy to counteract the non-traditional factors of inequality highlighted in the first part of the analysis.
In both cases, the literature review was conducted through a search of scientific databases (ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar). The literature review concerning the non-traditional factors of inequality was carried out through the following search query: “school” OR “education” OR “school system” AND “Italy” AND “equity” OR “social justice” AND “inequalities” OR “inequity” AND “educational policies” OR “education policy”. As far as school autonomy is concerned, the search query was as follows: “school” OR “education” OR “school system” AND “Italy” AND “school autonomy” OR “autonomous school” AND “school governance” OR “school leadership” AND “equity” OR “social justice” AND “inequalities” OR “inequity”.
The results of literature search were initially skimmed through a reading of the title and abstract; the remaining studies were then subjected to a more in-depth analysis through a reading of the entire text.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis contribution allows us to understand (1) which non-traditional factors of inequality characterize the Italian school system, whether their origin depends on classroom life, on the individual institutions’ organization or on national education policies and (2) if and how school autonomy is a useful policy to counteract them and act towards equity (Ferrero, forthcoming).
In the first case, thanks to the tool based on Brofenbrenner’s (2009) ecological model we can sort the traditional literature review findings according to the origin of non-traditional factors of inequality. At the micro-level we find teachers’ unconscious practices that hide stereotypes and prejudices (assessment practices, choices regarding inclusion, homework). At the meso-level we have dynamics attributable to the organization of individual institutions and governance choices that have direct effects on the school experience of students in terms of quality (demand for financial contribution, internal school segregation, use of professional resources). At the macro-level, we have national education policies that impact on the organization of institutions and everyday school life (teacher education, recruitment), being responsible for micro and meso dynamics.
As far as school autonomy is concerned, although Italian schools continue to have a rather centralized set-up because of its cautious and prudential use, it can be a protective tool in coping with these non-traditional dynamics and acting for equity, as long as it is used creatively according to contextual requirements: good practices concern various aspects, such as strategies to make the implicit curriculum explicit, self-evaluation for improvement, reasoned use of extra staff to strengthen school organization, participation in calls for tenders to obtain funds to expand the educational offer without resorting to parents’ wallets, design of teacher education initiatives.
School leaders play a key role in making the school a community that identifies with precise educational ideals through distributed leadership with transformative effects for equity.
ReferencesBell, L.A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell & P. Griffin (eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 1-14). New York: Routledge.
Benadusi, L., & Giancola, O. (2020). Equità e merito nella scuola. Teoria, indagini empiriche, politiche. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Bhatti, G., Gaine, C., Gobbo, F., & Leeman, Y. (2007). Social Justice and Intercultural Education. Sterling: Trentham Books.
Brofenbrenner U. (2009). The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Crescenza, G., & Riva, M.G. (2021). Riflessioni pedagogiche di una scuola al bivio. Pedagogia più Didattica, 7(2), 32-45.
Ferrer-Esteban, G. (2011). Beyond the Traditional Territorial Divide in the Italian Education System. Aspects of System Management Factors on Performance in Lower Secondary Education. FGA Working Paper, 42(12).
Ferrero, V. (forthcoming). La scuola è aperta a tutti? Una riflessione pedagogica su equità in educazione, disuguaglianze e autonomia scolastica. Civitas Educationis.
Gentili, A., & Pignataro, G. (eds.) (2020), Disuguaglianze e istruzione in Italia. Dalla scuola primaria all’università. Roma: Carocci.
Granata, A., & Ferrero, V. (2022). Nelle tasche della scuola. Coinvolgimento finanziario-organizzativo delle famiglie come fattore non tradizionale di disuguaglianza scolastica. Scuola Democratica, 10(2), 363-384.
Hackman, H.W. (2005). Five Essential Components for Social Justice Education. EEE, 38(2), 103-109.
INVALSI (2022). Rapporto INVALSI 2022. Roma: INVALSI.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London: Sage.
Kanor, K. (2021). L’inclusion sociale. Une utopie réalisable. Paris: L’Harmanattan.
Lash, C.L., & Sanchez, J.E. (2022). Leading for Equity with Critical Consciousness: How School Leaders Can Cultivate Awareness, Efficacy, and Critical Action. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 95(1), 1-6.
Nussbaum, M. (2013). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
OECD (2022). Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators. Parigi: OECD.
Rawls, J. (1971). Una teoria della giustizia. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Roemer, J.K. (2000). Equality of Opportunity. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles & S.N. Durlauf (eds.), Meritocracy and Economic Inequality (pp. 17-32). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books.
Taket, A., Crisp, B.R., Graham, M., Hanna, L., Goldingay, S., & Wilson, L. (2013). Practising Social Inclusion. New York: Routledge.
Werkmeister Rozas, L., & Klein W.C. (2010). The Value and Purpose of the Traditional Qualitative Literature Review. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 7(5), 387-399.
Withaker, M.C. (2022). Public School Equity: Educational Leadership for Justice. New York: Norton.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
The informed Discourse(s) in the Configuration of Practices Against Educational Inequality: Lessons Learned and Common Premises
Alejandro Montes, Carlos Alonso-Carmona
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Presenting Author: Montes, Alejandro;
Alonso-Carmona, Carlos
Education represents both a right and a need, and occupies a central role in determining individual levels of quality of life (Carnoy, 2005). At the same time, social and educational inequality stands as one of the central aspects that defines the constitution of current European educational systems. Although in recent decades there has been considerable progress in the configuration of policies and programs to fight against socio-educational inequalities, the evidence reveals there is still ample room for improvement. Consequently, inequalities continue to be at the centre of educational action, appealing both to the architecture of the opportunity system (structural factors) and to the frameworks of action, meaning and interpretation of social actors (agency factors) (Ball, et al., 2002). This also highlights that social inequalities have a social, relational and contextual nature (Reay, 2018).
On the one hand, the economic, cultural and social capital of young people and their families plays a central role in determining the chances of both success and failure (Seghers, Boone and Van Avermaet, 2019). In addition, they have a prominent role in shaping educational and employment expectations and aspirations, defining an unequal school experience or mediating decision-making within the framework of educational transitions, among other aspects (Tarabini, Jacovkis and Montes, 2021).
On the other hand, the segmentation of educational systems into different itineraries or tracks is one of the main factors that explain the processes of reproduction of social inequalities through the construction of unequal educational trajectories (Seghers, Boone and Van Avermaet, 2019). More specifically, the division between academic and vocational education helps us to understand specific configurations of class, ethnic or gender inequalities (Nylund, Rosvall and Ledman, 2017), since these itineraries correlate with central aspects as the social and/or educational-pedagogical composition (Tarabini, Jacovkis and Montes, 2021).
So, how can educational policy intervene in this scenario? The purposes of educational policy are varied, including here tasks related to the financing, organization and management of the educational system, but, without a doubt, one of them is to promote equal educational opportunities (Martínez, 2007). In addition, the evidence shows that actions to improve equity are a feasible reality; highly complex, but still possible. Programs to expand access opportunities, such as measures to increase educational participation for vulnerable groups, are good examples.
Currently, in a context of guaranteed educational access, the challenges are different. Reducing school segregation, guaranteeing equal opportunities for transition (academic or professional), reducing early school dropout rates among vulnerable youth, guarantee the offer of enriched extracurricular activities for groups without resources or ensuring opportunities to develop a successful educational trajectory are some of the new ‘master lines’ that articulate the educational agenda. However, the 'how' to comply with these guidelines does not always seem to be clear.
From this approach, the present contribution seeks to carry out an exhaustive conceptualization of educational inequalities based on the context, that is, to analyse the efforts aimed at understanding the dominant theoretical perspectives that determine the nature of the initiatives implemented. In addition, highlights the need for more research to empirically assess the nature of the promising innovative and/or pioneering practices in progress. With this aim, this presentation takes the Spanish setting as an illustrative case to identify both the understandings of educational inequalities and the strategic responses and practices to tackle them. This analytical framework allows for a more accurate conceptualization of the main theoretical and practical dimensions that should articulate the educational political agenda.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis contribution is part of the H2020 PIONEERED project "Pioneering policies and practices tackling educational inequality in Europe", developed by research teams from thirteen universities and research centres from nine different countries. The methodology selected has been agreed by the different project teams to be applied and replicated in different national contexts to guarantee the comparability of the results. However, in the contribution presented here we have focused on delving into the particularities of the in-depth analyses carried out in the Spanish national context.
This research focuses on qualitative data obtained from six in-depth interviews, two focus groups and two workshops. The sample included Stakeholders, Policymakers and Practitioners of a different nature. Specifically, the participants were selected for their important role in the educational field and diverse profiles were included such as representatives of teachers, trade unions, schools and families, academics, advisers and counsellors of different administrations, members of third sector organisations and think tanks professionals whose activity is related to education (especially the fight against educational inequality). We tried to include in the sample stakeholders with experience in different stages of the educational system, with different vulnerable groups/types of inequality and related with both formal and non-formal education.
The interviews and focus groups were carried out to inquire about stakeholders' understanding of educational inequality (mechanisms of production, main vulnerable groups, principal effects, etc.) and practices and measures to tackle inequalities in the Spanish context. It was also used to delve into successes and failures of such measures, possible future interventions not yet developed, challenges not yet overcome, main dilemmas and contradictions and, finally, the expectation about the socio-educational scenario in a mid-range future (increase or reduction of inequalities, changes in the main mechanisms, etc.). The two workshops focused on the dilemmas surrounding the fight against educational inequality (one focused on inequality within formal education and the second on non-formal education). The main points of dissent previously identified in the analysis of the interviews and focus groups were presented.
In compliance with the ethical protocols, the research team formally required their consent. In addition, their privacy and confidentiality were assured. In this sense, the nature, objectives and funding of the research were disclosed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDrawing on stakeholders’, policymakers and practitioners’ knowledge and experiences, we can conclude that there are no single and simple solutions to tackle the educational inequalities, but an articulation of multiple perspectives and approaches is needed. However, we can point out several 'common elements' that every applied perspective must contemplate when it comes to fighting inequalities effectively. Based on our empirical analysis, we came to the conclusion that successful pioneering practices must be articulated around the following three premises:
The first premise must be to operate under the principles of social justice and maximisation of opportunities for the most vulnerable. Those general inequalities reduction practices without a specific focus on vulnerable groups tend to be ineffective and inefficient. Likewise, generating an increase in equity implies, by definition, developing non-egalitarian practices that are premised on a reality-correcting function.
The second premise must be to work as a preventive rather than a reactive approach. Although the evidence collected reveals a large number of compensatory practices with interesting effects, it is true that their impact is limited and, in the long term, these interventions tend to be surpassed. Likewise, those initiatives or programs that focus on prevention are capable of establishing much more stable scenarios of action and prone to transformation.
Finally, the third and last premise must be to account for both formal and non-formal settings to overcome the duality in versus out of school. The practices that have produced the greatest increase in equity are those that have abandoned the institutionalised focus of acting merely in the school dimension. Breaking with the limits of 'formal education' and thinking of a continuous formative action is a key element to develop bridges between the different spheres of life and allow social agents to act as guarantors of a lifelong learning and equity approach.
ReferencesBall, S., Davies, J., David, M., Reay, D. (2002). ‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: Social class and the ‘cognitive structures’ of choice of Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 23(1): 51-72. Doi: 10.1080/01425690120102854
Carnoy, M. (2005). La búsqueda de la igualdad a través de las políticas educativas: alcances y límites. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 3(2), 1-14.
Martínez García, J. S. (2007). Clase social, género y desigualdad de oportunidades educativas. Revista de educación. 342: 287-306. ISSN 0034-8082.
Nylund, M., Rosvall, P., Ledman, K. (2017). The vocational-academic divide in neoliberal upper-secondary curricula: the Swedish case. Journal of Education Policy. 32(6): 788-808. Doi: 10.1080/02680939.2017.1318455
Reay, D. (2018). Working class educational failure: theoretical perspectives, discursive concerns, and methodological approaches. In A. Tarabini, N. Ingram (eds.), Educational Choices, Transitions and Aspirations in Europe Systemic, Institutional and Subjective Challenges (pp. 15-31). London: Routledge.
Seghers, M. Boone, S., Van Avermaet, P. (2019). Social class and educational decision-making in a choice-driven education system: a mixed-methods study. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 40(5): 696-714. Doi: 10.1080/01425692.2019.1581051
Tarabini, A., Jacovkis, J., & Montes, A. (2021). Classed Choices: Young people’s rationalities for choosing post-16 educational tracks. Lab’s Q, 33, 113-138.
|
