23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Exploring Factors Behind Regional Educational Inequality
Aigerim Kopeyeva
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Kopeyeva, Aigerim
Educational inequality is a nuanced and multi-dimensional phenomenon (Ball, 2021), requiring a comprehensive exploration, including that at a regional/subnational level. This subnational analysis is crucial not only due to its political implications but also for the potential transformative impact on addressing social injustices. Existing literature delves into educational inequality at different geographic tiers, encompassing administrative regions (Thomas, 2001; Edgerton et al, 2008), broader geographic regions (Qian and Smyth, 2008; Gumus and Chudgar, 2016), and district levels (Bramley and Fletcher, 1995; Hogrebe et al, 2008; Ataç, 2019). Additionally, studies explore rural/urban divides within countries (Qian and Smyth, 2008; Smanova, 2021). This research specifically focuses on regional educational inequality in Kazakhstan, using international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) as a basis.
Kazakhstan exhibits substantial achievement gaps among students in different regions. Recent ILSAs reveal that students in Western and Southern regions lag behind their counterparts in science, reading, and math by 2-3 years (IAC, 2020; OECD, 2023). Such regional disparities are not unique to Kazakhstan, as OECD experts acknowledge similar trends in other European countries, emphasizing the significance of subnational results in educational assessments (OECD, 2019, p. 63). In Kazakhstan, these differences are compounded by complex historical legacies, varying quality of life, cultural traditions, and even primary language differences, with Russian-speaking regions consistently outperforming their counterparts.
Kazakhstan is a large transcontinental country with a territory greater than that of the whole Western Europe, and its European part including two regional capitals. Bordering two world superpowers, as well as culturally close Central Asian neighbours, it is, historically, a land of contradictions - geographic, political and cultural, which seemed to coexist peacefully until recently (Rees et al, 2021).
While it is rarely mentioned in the European post-colonial academic discourse, Kazakhstan’s unique geopolitical and cultural landscape makes it an ideal case study for understanding the impact of Soviet/Russian colonial influence on contemporary life, including educational disparities (Rees et al, 2021). For example, recent violent unrests which shook the country’s leadership, originated in regions with prevailing share of Kazakh-speaking population and higher levels of socio-economic inequality (Kudaibergenova and Laruelle, 2022). Cultural differences between Southern and Northern regions further shape local attitudes towards education (Diener, 2015; Koch and White, 2016). Despite drastic socio-economic variations across regions, conventional explanations fall short, with both overpopulated, economically poor Southern regions and underpopulated, oil-rich West Kazakhstan demonstrating similarly low academic achievement.
Tsai et al's (2017) assertion that educational policy should strive for both academic excellence and equity resonates with Coleman's (1975) call for addressing the unequal impact of external environments on educational opportunities. This study posits two central research questions: the extent to which regional educational inequality is addressed in national policy and the factors associated with student achievement on national and regional levels, particularly whether these factors vary between regions.
Rooted in the critical educational research paradigm, this study combines Habermas's (1972) knowledge-constitutive interests, encompassing technical knowledge derived from a positivist approach, hermeneutic knowledge acquired through interpretive methodologies, and critical knowledge aimed at emancipating disadvantaged groups (Gibson, 1986). The theoretical framework draws significantly from Habermas's notion of lifeworld and Bourdieu's concepts of cultural and social capital and 'habitus' (Edgerton and Roberts, 2014). These frameworks provide a foundation for exploring causal factors in this educational inequality research, despite Giroux's (1983) caution about the overdetermination of human agency in Bourdieu's works. Caro et al’s (2014) research relying on ILSA data and employing Bourdieu’s three forms of capital, Bernstein’s language code theory and Coleman’s (1988) definition of social capital is one of the primary examples used in this research.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research adopts a mixed methods approach to enhance the reliability and validity of data, employing methodological triangulation (Cohen et al, 2018) to address both the 'what' and 'why' questions surrounding regional educational inequality in Kazakhstan. Utilizing PISA 2018 results, four regions were strategically identified, comprising one top-performing, one average, and two low-performing regions. Within each region, a total of four schools were randomly sampled based on predetermined criteria, encompassing rural/urban and Kazakh/Russian language distinctions.
The data collection process within each school involved a multi-faceted approach, incorporating interviews with school directors, parent focus groups, and supervised online teacher surveys. Additionally, at the regional level, interviews were conducted with education heads. The research extended further to encompass top-level data collection, incorporating an expert focus group and interviews with two high-ranking policy makers. To sum up, the research generated 37 transcripts from interviews conducted across schools and regions, survey results for 4 regions with over 200 teachers in total, 16 parent focus groups, one expert focus group and two policy maker interviews.
This comprehensive dataset offers a unique opportunity to analyze the multifaceted factors influencing student achievement in Kazakhstan from diverse perspectives, spanning all levels of educational policy. The mixed methods approach not only enhances the robustness of the findings but also enables a nuanced exploration of the complex interplay of factors contributing to regional educational inequalities. The triangulation of methods and the depth of data collection underscore the depth and richness of the study, providing valuable insights for policy development and interventions aimed at addressing educational disparities in Kazakhstan.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsCurrently in the analysis stage, I offer preliminary insights into potential research findings based on the initial data collection and coding efforts. Aligned with the theoretical framework guiding this study, the questionnaire for interviews and online teacher surveys focused on three major prompted themes extensively discussed in educational inequality research: the influence of family (SES, family ethos, etc.), the influence of school (including Teaching quality, School resources, etc.), and the impact of student motivation on academic achievement. Open-ended questions also sought respondents' general opinions on the primary factors influencing student outcomes.
Initial results from Nvivo coding indicate a consistent pattern across all regions and respondent categories. Teaching quality and Family ethos, emphasizing the quality of relationships and emotional well-being at home, emerged as pivotal factors influencing student achievement. However, noteworthy variations include both region-specific and national policy-level impact factors in each region. I.e, various specific factors like economic welfare or cultural predispositions (attitudes to education, corruption) may moderate the effects Teaching quality or Family influence.
Hypothesizing based on these findings, it appears that Teaching quality may emerge as the paramount factor influencing student achievement universally. However, contextual nuances such as socio-economic status, cultural differences, and the quality of regional educational management, coupled with suboptimal oversight of the national education system, contribute to regional disparities and further reinforce the observed achievement gap. This preliminary hypothesis underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the interplay between universal and context-specific factors, shedding light on the intricate dynamics contributing to regional educational inequalities in Kazakhstan. As the analysis progresses, a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of these dynamics will emerge, informing policy recommendations and interventions for addressing these disparities.
ReferencesBall, S. (2021). The Great Education Debate (1976–2021).
Thomas, S. (2001). Dimensions of Secondary School Effectiveness: Comparative Analyses Across Regions.
Edgerton, J., & Roberts, L. (2014). Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality.
Qian, X., & Smyth, R. (2008). Measuring regional inequality of education in China: Widening coast–inland gap or widening rural–urban gap?
Gumus, S., & Chudgar, A. (2016). Factors affecting school participation in Turkey: an analysis of regional differences. Compare:
Bramley, G., & Fletcher, C. (1995). Locality Types and School Types: Towards Baselines for Improvement and Effectiveness in Secondary Schools.
Hogrebe, M. C. et al (2008). Examining Regional Science Attainment and School—Teac her Resources Using GIS. Education and Urban Society, 40(5), 570–589.
Ataç, E. (2019). Modeling Educational Inequalities: Class, Academic Achievement, and Regional Differences in Turkey.
Smanova, N. (2021). Can We Overcome the Achievement Gap between Urban and Rural Students in Kazakhstan through School Resources: Evidence from PISA
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris
Rees, K. et al (2021). Territorial Belonging and Homeland Disjuncture: Uneven Territorialisations in Kazakhstan.
Kudaibergenova, D. & Laruelle, M. (2022). Making sense of the January 2022 protests in Kazakhstan: failing legitimacy, culture of protests, and elite readjustments.
Diener, A. (2015). Assessing potential Russian irredentism and separatism in Kazakhstan’s northern oblasts.
Koch, N., & White, K. (2016). Cowboys, Gangsters, and Rural Bumpkins: Constructing the “Other” in Kazakhstan’s “Texas”.
Kopeyeva, A. (2020). Understanding Factors behind Regional Inequality in Education in Kazakhstan, Central Asian Affairs, 7(1), 38-79.
Tsai, S., Smith, M., & Hauser, R. (2017). Families, Schools, and Student Achievement Inequality. Sociology of Education, 90(1), 64-88.
Coleman, J. (1975). Equal Educational Opportunity: A Definition. Oxford Review of Education, 1(1), 25-29.
Coleman, J. et al (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press.
Gibson, R. (1986). Critical Theory and Education. Hodder and Stoughton.
Edgerton, J., & Roberts, L. (2014). Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality. Theory And Research In Education, 12(2), 193-220.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis.
Caro, D. et al (2013). Cultural, social, and economic capital constructs in international assessments: an evaluation using exploratory structural equation modeling.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Equity Funding Policies in German Municipalities: Approaches to Reduce Educational Inequalities
Sarah Eiden1, Denise Demski1, Gabriele Bellenberg1, Norbert Sendzik2, Marcel Helbig2
1Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany; 2Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsverläufe, Germany
Presenting Author: Eiden, Sarah;
Demski, Denise
(Inter)national empirical findings repeatedly prove that both socioeconomic status and contextual factors at the level of the learning group, the school, and the social space are decisive for educational opportunities (e.g., OECD, 2019). Equity funding policies might be an effective way to reduce educational inequalities and to create equal life opportunities. Following this approach, schools in challenging circumstances can receive additional staff, funding, or further support. In this regard, resource allocation might be based, for example, on available data (e.g., social indices), application processes, or discretionary of policy makers. According to Verelst, Bakelants, Vandevoort, & Nicaise (2020), more than half of EU countries currently provide some type of equity funding to schools that serve target groups such as low-SES students or children with a migration background. Results from both national and international testing show a strong relationship between students’ socio-economic background and performance. In Germany, this interrelation is particularly strong (e.g., OECD, 2019). Therefore, equity funding policies are meant to compensate for the educational disadvantages of underprivileged students and should lead to an increase in their performance. Moreover, schools in deprived areas often show higher teacher turnover and greater difficulties in attracting qualified teachers and school leaders than school working in more favourable conditions (e.g., Simon & Johnson, 2015; Clotfelder, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007). Equity funding policies might also counteract these challenges, as a recent meta-analysis highlights the influence of educational policies external to the school on teacher turnover (Nguyen, Pham, Crouch, & Springer, 2020).
However, evidence concerning the effects of equity funding policies is scarce and mixed. Moreover, the implementation of equity funding policies depends on the availability of (additional) resources and the willingness of policy makers to reduce educational inequalities. In the multi-level system, municipalities play a dual role regarding the allocation of funds, as they have their own resources but are also responsible for the concrete distribution of federal or state funds. In line with educational governance theory (e.g., Altrichter, Brüsemeister, & Wissinger, 2007), decision-making on the municipality level is shaped by organizational and political conditions and decision-making on the district or federal level (e.g., Honig, Coburn, & Stein, 2009).
In recent years, evidence-based decision-making has become a topic of growing interest. Following this approach, grounding decisions and actions in evidence and available data should be the case on every level of the school system. This is seen as a prerequisite for an efficient and effective performance and an increase in students’ achievement (e.g., Honig & Coburn, 2008). International findings suggest that the amount of resources and the ways they are (supposed to be) allocated and used influence the effects of equity funding schemes (e.g., Franck & Nicaise, 2022). Based on theoretical assumptions and international findings, different designs of equity funding schemes can be distinguished. In this regard, the following dimensions can be differentiated:
- allocation of human resources vs. allocation of budget/monetary means
- earmarking vs. free disposal/usage
- data-driven allocation (e.g., based on social indices) vs. allocation based on negotiations or expertise
It can be assumed that policy makers have a considerable leeway in allocating resources. Therefore, their attitudes towards justice in educational opportunities are of great importance as they may influence resource allocation. However, there are hardly any findings in Germany regarding the extent, the concrete design, and the effects of equity funding policies. To our knowledge, a systematic overview of the concrete implementation of resource allocation at the municipal level is still lacking and little is known regarding the attitudes of German policy makers.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn a current project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research we address the desiderata described above. The following research questions are guiding our study:
1. What configurations of equity funding policies can be identified in Germany?
2. How and according to what intentions are equity funding policies implemented in practice?
To answer the above research questions, the study makes use of a multimethod approach.
First, we analysed equity funding policies in the field of primary and secondary education in the German federal states and in municipalities by means of a systematic document review. We used content analysis (Mayring, 2007) to evaluate educational reports, websites, policy documents, (draft) resolutions, and other documents. The code system was developed both deductively and inductively and the software MAXQDA 22 (https://www.maxqda.com/) was used. Coding by independent coders and a high degree of communicative validation ensured the quality of the analyses. The document analysis identified municipalities or federal states that have already set up equity funding policies, and the extent and form of resources (e.g., additional staff, funds, further support) as well as modes of resource allocation (e.g., allocation based on data, application, or discretionary of policy makers; earmarked vs. free disposal). To identify further regions with equity funding policies, an additional online survey of the heads of municipal school administrators was conducted. Furthermore, four German municipalities that differ in terms of equity funding were chosen based on the findings of the document review to reconstruct their approaches of equity funding policies. In each of these municipalities, up to twelve interviews with actors – directly or indirectly – involved in the decision-making process of resource allocation in K 12 education were conducted in order to carve out sensemaking processes in the context of equity funding. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by means of documentary interpretation (Nohl, 2010). In this way, in-depth research of the logics and practices of actors involved in funding policies can be conducted.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur results show a significant variation concerning the design of equity funding schemes in German municipalities. Monetary and non-monetary resources are available from a variety of sources (federal, state, local, civil society actors) with different objectives. Whereas some municipalities do not use equity funding schemes at all, others allocate a considerable amount of resources to schools in challenging circumstances. The analyses indicate large differences in the distribution of resources in the education system at both the state and the district/local level: variations can be seen in terms of the type of funds (staff positions or budgets for free or earmarked use) and in terms of the distribution principles applied (application-based, experience-based, data-based). When it comes to resource allocation, German policy makers predominantly draw on their own expertise. They also claim to use data on a small scale. Allocating resources based on proposals by schools or school leaders respectively, results of school inspections, or student achievement in standardized tests seem to be rather uncommon practices. Results of the case studies showed differentiated practices and sensemaking processes in the various municipalities; the face-to-face interviews led to a better understanding of the complexity of funding policies. Different knowledge bases were used in the decision-making process and many actors at different levels of control were involved. It can be concluded that municipalities use individual distribution strategies that differ in many components (e.g., combination of distribution principles, advisors and decisions makers, communication strategies, funding providers, impact orientation and controlling). These are closely linked to the different initial situations and framework conditions of the municipalities. Overall, our findings provide important results in a previously neglected field of research and can contribute to the further development of equity funding policies in the municipalities and federal states.
ReferencesAltrichter, H., Brüsemeister, T., Wissinger, J. (2007). Educational Governance, Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungssystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlg für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90498-6
Clotfelder, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L. & Wheeler, J. (2007). High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345–1379.
Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–86). Harvard Education Press.
Franck, E., & Nicaise, I. (2022). The effectiveness of equity funding policies in schools in Europe and North America: A systematic literature review. Issues in Educational Research, 32 (2), 494–512.
Honig, M. E., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Towards a policy and research agenda, Educational Policy, 1 (4), 578–608.
Mayring, P. (2007). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Foundations and techniques] (9th ed.). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative interview and documentary interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (pp. 195–217). Opladen: Budrich. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-317517 [October 25, 2022].
Nguyen, T. D., Pham, L. D., Crouch, M., & Springer, M. G. (2020). The correlates of teacher turnover: An updated and expanded meta-analysis of the literature. Educational Research Review, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100355.
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
Simon, N. & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high poverty schools. What we
know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117 (3), 1–36.
Verelst, S., Bakelants, H., Vandevoort, L., & Nicaise, I. (2020). The governance of equity funding schemes for disadvantaged schools: Lessons from national case studies (NESET report). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2766/989607.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
A Serious Policy Game for Equal Educational Opportunities
Floris Burgers1, Eddie Denessen1, Floris Burgers2
1Radboud University; 2University of Amsterdam
Presenting Author: Burgers, Floris;
Denessen, Eddie
While policies, laws and programs of various kinds have been implemented to address inequality of opportunity in education, achievement gaps caused by background rather than ability are persistent across the world. Looking at unequal educational opportunities as a ‘wicked problem’, we propose that collective action networks consisting of various educational actors, such as policy makers, political leaders, school leaders, teachers, parents and other educational professionals, are needed to refine approaches to tackling unequal educational opportunities.
For such networks to be successful, though, these actors need to be brought together, get to know each other’s role in the context of the problem, and think of unequal educational opportunities as a wicked problem. We propose that a serious policy game can help the educational field to achieve this and to work towards successful collective action networks. In this article, we present the contours of one such game, designed for the Dutch context, and we explain how a similar game can be developed for usage in other contexts.
In doing so, the paper covers two research questions, whereby the second question follows upon our answer to the first: 1) What is needed to refine approaches to tackling the problem of unequal educational opportunities? 2) What does a serious policy game to work towards collective action networks to address unequal educational opportunities look like?
In relation to the first question, the paper builds on the concept of ‘wicked problem’, coined by Ritter and Webber (1973) and further developed by Korsten (2019). Wicked problems are characterized by cognitive, normative and social complexity, and we argue that the problem of inequality of educational opportunities is complex in all these three respects, which makes it a typical wicked problem. This leads us to conclude that this problem needs to be addressed through collective action networks (Duke & Geurts, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2016; Crowley & Head, 2017; Korsten, 2019).
Drawing on game theories, in particular Duke and Geurts’ (2004) 5Cs for serious policy gaming, we propose that a serious policy game is a useful strategy to work towards such networks. In relation to the second question – what such a game would look like – we employ Olejniczak, Wolański and Widawski’s (2020) well established game typology to arrive at a design framework for a policy game on unequal education opportunities. Both the design framework and an example game are presented in this paper.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe design methodology we employed to design the policy game consisted of three elements: goal specification, game type specification and the specification of design principles. To arrive at a series of game goals we explored the literature on wicked problems and action networks. This helped to determine what skills needed to be developed through the policy game. In order to determine the type of game needed to realise these goals, we followed Olejniczak, Wolański and Widawski’s (2018) well-established game typology, differentiating between the type of problem that is addressed in the game (simple or complex) and the type of learning that is to be realized through gaming (learning for game designers or learning for participants). To be able to specify design principles – which we would then adhere to during game design – we first developed a conceptual overview of the educational system of the Netherlands and, based on both literature reviews and expert conversations, we specified the main dynamics therein that feed into inequality of opportunity. Reflecting on this conceptual overview, we then specified how various components of the educational system and the problem of inequality of opportunity had to be treated in the game design. This approach is consistent with Duke and Geurts’ (2004) procedure for policy game design.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAfter establishing unequal educational opportunities as a ‘wicked problem’ and making the point that such problems require collective action networks, we conclude that serious games can be useful to work towards such networks. We developed a framework for designing such a game and an example game for the Dutch context. The game we designed aimed to improve participants’ understanding of the various mechanisms and variables that are involved in the problem of inequality of educational opportunities (cognitive complexity), participants’ understanding of how different actors view the problem of inequality of educational opportunities (normative complexity) and participants’ understanding of the roles that different stakeholders play in relation to the problem of inequality of educational opportunities, including the role they play themselves (social complexity). The game type, consistent with these goals, is an ‘exploring systems’ game. The designed game can be played with between 15 and 35 participants and is particularly suitable for educational actors at the municipality level: teachers, school leaders, educational boards, policy makers, political leaders and parents.
ReferencesCrowley, K., & Head, B. W. (2017). The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber. Policy Sciences, 50, 539–547.
Crul, L. (2014). Solving wicked problems through action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 11(2), 215–224.
Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. L. A. (2004). Policy Games for Strategic Management: Pathways To The Unknown. Rozenberg Publishers.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2016). Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 8–10.
Korsten, A. (2019). Omgaan met ‘wicked problems’. Beleidsonderzoek Online.
Olejniczak, K., Newcomer, K. E., & Meijer, S. A. (2020). Advancing Evaluation Practice With Serious Games. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(3), 339–366.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
|
