Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion

Presentation for Belgian EU Presidency Conference on ‘Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage’ Gent, 28.9.10

Andy Green

Director of ESRC-LLAKES Centre Institute of Education University of London

Education and State Formation

National Education systems developed in 19 th C. Europe as a vehicle of state formation: • • • • • Spreading dominant national languages Promoting national/state identity Inculcating the dominant ideologies Forming citizens Explaining the ways of the state to the people and the duties of the people to the state However, schools socialised children into future adult roles in class/gender specific ways.

Social Reproduction

• The NES broadened access to schooling , first through universalising elementary education and then through extending access to the subsequent phases.

• But schooling has also reproduced existing class structures, transferring education advantages and disadvantages between generations.

• Typically, during the 20 th C., as each phase of education became democratised, so the elites retained their advantages through domination of the next phase of education (now post-graduate study).

• Schools have legitimated this reproduction of inequality through their ostensibly meritocratic modes of operation.

Cross-Country Differences

However, National education systems vary substantially in how they distribute educational achievements.

More egalitarian education systems tend to contribute to more equal distributions of adult incomes and also promote more social cohesion.

Structure of Presentation

The first part of the presentation examines the extent and causes of cross-country variations in education equality. The second part examines the impact of educational inequality on various aspects of social cohesion The third part assesses the different forms (regimes) of social cohesion found in different regions and country groups, their current vulnerabilities, and the implications of this for education.

Variations across Systems in Inequality of Educational Outcomes.

• PISA provides international data using different measures of educational inequality.

• This analysis groups countries by types of education systems (based on common and distinguishing education system characteristics): ‘Anglo’- English-speaking countries; ‘Germanic ‘– German-speaking countries and countries proximate to them which have selective secondary systems (including Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg); Southern Europe Nordics Countries; East Asia (Japan and South Korea only) • For simplicity I take the averages for all countries in a groups

Average Variation in Science by Country Group in PISA 2006

130 110 90 70 50 124.55

US, UK 113.55

Anglo 106.85

99.8

Germanic E. Asia 94.8

94.575

Nordic S. Europe

Percentage of Within Country Variance in Science Scores Explained by PISA ESCS Index by Average for Country Group

10 5 20 15 17.98

15.9

13.87

0 Germanic US, UK S. Europe Anglo 13.4

Nordic 9.6

E. Asia 7.75

Score Point Difference Associated with One Unit on ESCS - Social Gradient

50 40 10 0 30 20 US, UK 48.5

Anglo 46.2

Germanic 44.83

E. Asia 35.5

Nordic 34.6

S.Europe

31.75

Between School and Within School Variation

150 100 50 0 US, UK Anglo Germanic E. Asia Betweeen Schools Within Schools Nordic S. Europe

Typical Range of Average Socio-Economic Status of Schools by Average for Country Group

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 US, UK Anglo Germanic E. Asia Nordic S. Europe

Explanations of Cross-Country Variation 1. Factors External to the School System • Income distribution • Welfare systems

Incom e Ine quality

20 15 10 5 0 45 40 35 30 25 Nordic Core Europe Southern Europe

Re gion

Anglo Saxon

Explanation of Variation

2. School System Effects • Anglo – school choice and diversity • Germanic – selective admissions • Nordic – all-through comprehensive systems

Part Two: Learning Effects on Social Cohesion

1. Individual – level effects 1. Aggregate societal effects

Social Capital Theory

Social Capital theorists, like Robert Putnam, find that in a range of contemporary countries, more educated people are more likely to : • • • • • Join associations Engage politically Trust other people and Institutions Tolerate other social groups Give to charity.

Societal Effects

These relationships are not mirrored at the level of whole societies (because other contextual factors enter into equation). • More educated societies are not more trusting on average • More educated societies not necessarily more tolerant.

However, how education and skills are DISTRIBUTED has a major impact on social cohesion.

Correlations between Adult Skills Distribution and Trust

We measure skills inequality using IALS cross country data on adult numerical skills, using the ‘test score ratio method’ Trust in other people is based on World Values Survey Data

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 DEN SW NL D NW FIN IRL AU UK B SZ PO CAN US POR 1.1

1.2

1.3

Education Inequality

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00

20.00

25.00

B SW DEN AU FIN POR D CAN PO SZ IRL NW UK NL 30.00

Test score ratio

35.00

USA 40.00

45.00

Inequality and Trust

• Countries with more equal skills distributions tend to have higher levels of trust. • This probably works partly through the effects of skills distribution on income distribution, but the correlation exists independently of income distribution. If the relationship is causal , causality probably works both ways.

Possible Explanations.

• Greater inequality of skills and incomes produces stress through creating high-stakes competition which reduces the capacity to trust in others • Inequalities in levels of education and skill increases CULTURAL DISTANCE between individuals and groups and makes trusting more difficult.

Part Three: Regimes of Social Cohesion

Historical and contemporary evidence suggests that countries ‘hold together’ in different ways. The different traditions of thought in political philosophy and sociology on social cohesion and social solidarity suggest different models of social cohesion in different parts of the world.

Liberal Regime

• Emphasis on an active civil society, particularly at the local level. A vibrant civil society is believed to incubate trust spontaneously through repeated social interactions between individuals and groups.

• The role of the central state is played down, including its institutional roles for providing welfare and social protection and for promoting equality through re-distribution.

• The core values which help to bind society in the liberal regime are tolerance, meritocracy and opportunity. • A wider set of shared values and a common identity are thought to be incompatible with individual freedom and cultural diversity.

Republican Regime

• The republican discourse emphasises the state rather than civil society. • T he state promotes social cohesion through its institutions for welfare, social protection and re-distribution. • It also plays a role in disseminating (through public education) a common (national) identity and a broad set of shared values which emphasise belonging to, and active participation in, a political community at the national rather than local level. • The state also plays a supervisory role in relation to key institutions in civil society which are seen to intermediate conflicts, such as professional and employer institutions.

Social Democratic Regime

• The social democratic discourse follows the republican discourse in most of its essentials, except that here the stress on equality is more profound. • Like republican theory social democratic theory emphasises both the role of the state and that of autonomous but state- sanctioned national civil society organisations • Social partnership is a key concept in both contemporary traditions pointing to importance of conflict intermediation through representative civil society organisations.

Recent Research

Our recent research in LLAKES uses a wide range of measures to test whether these different regimes can be identified in contemporary societies. • • The data: Data on social attitudes from international surveys (such as WVS and ISSP) International administrative data

Social trust Social democratic (+) Social Market (-) East Asian (+) Social market (-) Value diversity East Asian (-) Liberal (+) Active civic participation Liberal (+) Measures based on survey data Percentage saying most people can be trusted Composite indicator representing the dispersion of opinions Number of different voluntary organizations worked for Passive participation in nationwide organizations East Asian (-) Social market (+) Social democratic (+) Freedom vs equality East Asian (-) Liberal (+); Merit vs equality Ethnocultural versus civic identities Ethnic tolerance Social hierarchy Gender equality Social democratic (+) Liberal (+) Number of different organizations belonging to Freedom or equality more important; percentage preferring freedom Social market (-); Social democratic (-) Liberal (+); Pay according to performance Social market (+); Social democratic (-) Romantic conservative (+); East Asian (+); Strength of cultural relative to political conceptions of national identity Liberal (-) Liberal (+); Romantic conservative (-); East Asian (-)   Xenophobia index; average (inverse indicator) Percentage not mentioning minding foreigners as neighbours East Asian (+); Percentage saying one should always love and respect one’s parents Social market (+) East Asian (-) Social market (-) Percentage disagreeing that in times of scarcity men have more right to a job than women

Component Tradition/regime

Inequality Wage regulation Social Democratic (-) Liberal (+) Social Democratic (+) Social Market (+) Liberal (-) Employment protection State involvement Welfare state Ethno-racial diversity Crime / disorder Liberal (-) Social market (+) Liberal (-); Social democratic (+); Social market (+); Liberal (-); Social democratic (+) Liberal (+) East-Asian (-) Liberal (+) East Asian (-) Social Market (-)

Indicator(s)

Indicators based on administrative data Gini coefficient on household income   Union coverage Centralization of wage bargaining Employment protection legislation 1998 Public employment as percentage of total employment 2000 Public social expenditure as percentage of GDP 2000 Proportion of the population born abroad 2000   Homicide rate Violent crime 2000

Liberal

Mean: -.70

Minimum: -7.25

Maximum: 16.44

Social Democratic

Mean: 2.07

Minimum: -3.43

Maximum: 13.80

Social Market

Mean: -.59

Minimum: -10.97

Maximum: 5.50

East Asian

Mean: .09

Minimum: -9.34

Maximum: 11.85

Included components Included components Included components Included components Inequality + Diversity + Welfare state State involvement Wage regulation coverage) Wage regulation (Centralized bargain) -(Union – Empl protection Crime + (homicide) Inequality Diversity Welfare state + State involvement+ Wage regulation + (Union coverage) Wage regulation (Centralized bargain) + Crime – (homicide) Diversity + Welfare state + Empl protection + Wage regulation + (Union coverage) Wage regulation (Centralized bargain) + Diversity Welfare state Empl protection + Crime – (homicide) Active part + Passive part Value diversity + Merit + Freedom + Ethnic tolerance (neighbours measure) + Gender equality + Active part + Passive part + Value diversity Merit Freedom + Gender equality Active part Passive part Value diversity Merit + Freedom Ethnic tolerance (neighbours measure) Gender equality Active part Passive part Value diversity Merit + Social hierarchy + Ethnic tolerance (neighbours measure) –

Results

The statistical analysis uses : • • • • Correlations and scatter plots Cluster analysis Factor Analysis Composite indicators and indexes.

Different regimes of social cohesion can be readily identified. On all the tests countries and their social cohesion characteristics cluster very much as the theory would suggest.

Rank order of countries on the four indexes Liberal Social Democratic

CAN GB IRE GER NL AU DEN SP ITA POR FRA FIN SWE B Country Score 16.81

9.24

4.43

-.14

-.74

-1.93

-2.05

-2.13

-2.27

-2.49

-2.86

-3.96

-4.48

-5.49

-6.08

Country SWE DEN NL FIN B AU GER IRE SP GB FRA CAN ITA POR Score 15.90

10.76

8.15

7.42

3.11

.81

.28

.19

-.42

-.80

-1.10

-2.62

-2.92

-3.26

-5.39

Social Market

Country AU POR GER FRA ITA B SWE FIN NL SP DEN IRE GB CAN Score 5.59

3.12

3.05

2.27

1.82

.83

.45

-.37

-.59

-1.74

-2.84

-3.14

-5.54

-6.76

-11.33

East Asian

Country KOR JAP CZE POL ITA SP POR SLV GER AU IRE FRA FIN GB NL B DEN CAN SWE Score 11.66

9.10

3.37

2.65

2.34

2.02

1.97

1.21

-.12

-.52

-.89

-1.35

-2.00

-2.03

-2.49

-3.40

-3.69

-4.23

-7.24

-8.13

Current Vulnerabilities in Each Regime

Each regime of social cohesion is currently vulnerable at the points most essential to its model. • The Liberal Regime relies on opportunity and the belief in meritocratic rewards to hold the together. This is challenged by rising inequality and declining social mobility (in UK and the US) particularly.

• The Republican Regime has traditionally relied on widely shared common values. This is increasingly challenged by cultural diversity.

• The Social Democratic Regime relies heavily on its universalist welfare state. This is challenged by globalisation and immigration.

55 50 45 25 20 40 35 30 1981

Trends in Social Trust

1990 2000 2005 Liberal Social Market Southern European East Asian

65 50 45 60 55 25 20 40 35 30 1981

Trends in Political Trust

1990 2000 2005 Social Democratic Southern European Social Market Liberal

Conclusion

Precipitous declines in levels of social and political trust in many countries are one of the most graphic indications of the widespread weakening of social cohesion. Education can have a major role to play in counteracting this. However, it is not how much education a country has that makes the difference,

but how it is shared around.

References

Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) http://www.llakes.org/ Andy Green and Germ Janmaat (forthcoming, 2011):

Regimes of Social Cohesion: Societies and the Crisis of Globalisation