I have drawn attention to one sentence, spoken very strongly with the intention of giving a headline, and it looks like it got (as here, but did not last long, because in both media the wrong and transcribed in once they had time to write the news in a position to change the title and even the quote disappeared from the body of information). What exactly was the minister said:
"I can assure you that if anything is negotiable equity of the education system and education as a public good. This is not in any way challenged."Very nice statement of principles on which a Minister of Education returns to show off his vast ignorance of the educational system that is responsible. And that this is light years ahead of its two predecessors.
The myth of the equity of our education system comes from ancient, the English report PISA 2000 at least (incidentally, a very creditable report for its time, was "driven" by the Ministry of Education then, with Pilar del Castillo front). It found, among other things, that the English education system was very fair. The report explained:
"To measure the dispersion can be used other statistical indicators, such as diversion Typical or interquartile range. The measure of dispersion is important for estimating the equity of an educational system since it can represent the system's ability to offset or at least not extend the original inequalities in the school population "(p. 31).
As we see, the term "equity" in the report uses a statistical term, roughly equivalent to the standard deviation of the final scores of the students. Although throughout the report, the term extends its meaning, especially when it gets in relation to the socioeconomic gradient, never leaves the statistical significance. The problem was the shift from equity statistical ideological, when both terms do not mean the same thing. Nor has to do entirely with the concept of economic equity. Let's see.
The term economic equity has two aspects (although the latter is often forgotten): first short distance between the haves and those who have less (equivalent to equity statistics), and secondly that there are people not have to live. That is, a country where everyone is starving is not fair, as much as statistically the standard deviation of income or standard of living tends to zero.
Unfortunately, all the PISA reading from the point of view of equity are set out in our reduced standard deviation (stays around 90, when the OECD average is 100), but forget the second part: Spain was in Reading in 2000 to 16% of students below Level 2 (what to PISA is the threshold of "poverty" school), and in 2006 more than 25%. This fall is not so evident at other levels (Science and Mathematics), and it is clear that the 2006 data is accurate (in 2009 the data will be more reliable), but at any level Spain has too many students below Level 2 in PISA.
But also, the transfer of economic equity to educational equity has two problems: as rightly pointed July Carabaña in a recent article ("School failure and early drop, or why suspend both" in Cuadernos de Información Económica, n º 213 , November / December 2009), the difference between economy and education is that while in the first what you have (money, food, land ...) do not have another, ie, goods are limited, education does not happen, because who else knows you do not need to take away his part ( at least in theory) the least known. That fact can get another corollary in terms of equity: if a person has the ability to study a career and the educational system, one way or another, you prevents happen, for example, high school, the system is unfair (and stupid). Seen this way, the more equitable education system would be one that got every one of his students came to where his ability, merit, or his desire will permit. Of course, such a system would be anything but equal in statistical terms.
Returning to the English equity in PISA, it really allows a standard deviation lower than that of other countries is not that low achievers have, but simply have not only students with high yields. If we had some students more at high performance levels, the standard deviation of our country would be similar to the OECD average. Can anyone say what we want an equity base of which is that we have no doctors or engineers or researchers will need in tomorrow's society?
Moreover, if in Spain we have the same number of brilliant minds than any other country in Europe (if only for a random distribution), and our educational system will not let them develop to where they can get, at least, their skills are significantly below age 15 than those of other students who were educated in other countries in Europe, then maybe we're falling in one of inequities described above.
As if this were not enough, the effects of this educational system on students is deeply unfair. In my opinion, this school system promotes inequality based igulitarismo promote, among other things. But this will be the subject of other entries.
The term economic equity has two aspects (although the latter is often forgotten): first short distance between the haves and those who have less (equivalent to equity statistics), and secondly that there are people not have to live. That is, a country where everyone is starving is not fair, as much as statistically the standard deviation of income or standard of living tends to zero.
Unfortunately, all the PISA reading from the point of view of equity are set out in our reduced standard deviation (stays around 90, when the OECD average is 100), but forget the second part: Spain was in Reading in 2000 to 16% of students below Level 2 (what to PISA is the threshold of "poverty" school), and in 2006 more than 25%. This fall is not so evident at other levels (Science and Mathematics), and it is clear that the 2006 data is accurate (in 2009 the data will be more reliable), but at any level Spain has too many students below Level 2 in PISA.
But also, the transfer of economic equity to educational equity has two problems: as rightly pointed July Carabaña in a recent article ("School failure and early drop, or why suspend both" in Cuadernos de Información Económica, n º 213 , November / December 2009), the difference between economy and education is that while in the first what you have (money, food, land ...) do not have another, ie, goods are limited, education does not happen, because who else knows you do not need to take away his part ( at least in theory) the least known. That fact can get another corollary in terms of equity: if a person has the ability to study a career and the educational system, one way or another, you prevents happen, for example, high school, the system is unfair (and stupid). Seen this way, the more equitable education system would be one that got every one of his students came to where his ability, merit, or his desire will permit. Of course, such a system would be anything but equal in statistical terms.
Returning to the English equity in PISA, it really allows a standard deviation lower than that of other countries is not that low achievers have, but simply have not only students with high yields. If we had some students more at high performance levels, the standard deviation of our country would be similar to the OECD average. Can anyone say what we want an equity base of which is that we have no doctors or engineers or researchers will need in tomorrow's society?
Moreover, if in Spain we have the same number of brilliant minds than any other country in Europe (if only for a random distribution), and our educational system will not let them develop to where they can get, at least, their skills are significantly below age 15 than those of other students who were educated in other countries in Europe, then maybe we're falling in one of inequities described above.
As if this were not enough, the effects of this educational system on students is deeply unfair. In my opinion, this school system promotes inequality based igulitarismo promote, among other things. But this will be the subject of other entries.
0 comments:
Post a Comment