Presentation on theme: "Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012 Andy Green Director of ESRC-LLAKES Centre Institute of Education."— Presentation transcript:
Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012 Andy Green Director of ESRC-LLAKES Centre Institute of Education University of London
Structure of Presentation 1. Social benefits of education at different levels -Benefits to individuals -Education and social capital -Education and social cohesion 2. Pathways for social effects of learning -Distributional Effects -Socialisation 3. The problem of educational inequality 4. Regimes of Social Cohesion, the Crisis and Education What holds different societies together? Recent trends and vulnerabilities in each regime
Individual Level Effects Studies for various countries demonstrate that more educated people have higher levels of : Interpersonal trust and institutional trust Civic and political engagement Democratic values Tolerance and lower levels of violent crime. (Nie et al., 1996; Stubager, 2008; Hagendoorn, 1999; Emler and Frazer, 1999; Putnam, 2000). (Nie et al., 1996; Stubager, 2008; Hagendoorn, 1999; Emler and Frazer, 1999; Putnam, 2000; McMahon, 1999).
Some Findings from Analyses of UK Longitudinal Data (Feinstein et al., 2003). Compared with those educated to level 2: Graduates 70-80% more likely to report excellent health Graduate males 55% less likely to suffer depression Graduates males 3.5 times more likely to be a member of a voluntary association (F=2.5x) Graduates between 30% and 40% more likely to hold positive attitudes to race and gender equality Graduates are 50% more likely to vote
Education and Social Capital Education is also found to contribute to the social capital of individuals and groups. SC defined as ‘features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable to participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam, 2006) Putnam (2000) finds that more educed people are more likely to join associations and be civically active. Repeated interactions in Groups increased levels of trust and tolerance. -Individuals thus benefit from enhanced networks -Neighbourhoods benefits from more co-operation and cohesion etc
Education and Social Cohesion Social capital amongst individuals, families and local communities is not the same thing as social cohesion at the country level. Intra-group bonding does not always translate into inter-group harmony. A country can have high levels of social capital in particular communities but not be at all socially cohesive (eg Northern Ireland would be a good example : see Schuller, Field et al, 2000). It follows that: Individual social benefits through increased learning do not necessarily translate into societal effects or coincide with increased social cohesion.
The Paradox of Levels There are a number of reasons for this. The individual level effects are ‘relative’ or ‘positional’ ie one person’s social gain through improved learning outcomes will be another’s loss through relatively diminished skills. Other factors at the national level overwhelm the statistical relation between education and social outcomes. Indirect effects and contextual differences: effects at the societal level are indirect - ie they work through other factors which may differ from society to society.
Contextual Effects on Tolerance Research for a number of countries shows that more educated people tend to be more tolerant (eg Putnam, 2000). It is argued that education can develop both cognitive resources and values which protect against racial prejudice (Hagendorn, 1999). However, there is no clear-cut relationship across countries between levels of education and tolerance (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006). This is probably because other factors overwhelm education effects at the national level. The prevailing political climate, for instance, has strong effects on tolerance. Also, Eurobaromter data suggest that levels of tolerance in EU countries vary according to the actual and perceived proportion of immigrants (Halman, 1994). In a study of EVS data Jasinska-Kania (1999) shows that the impact of education on racial tolerance is greater in countries with higher levels of immigrants (perhaps because there are more circumstantially-driven racist attitudes that can be countered by education).
Contextual Effects on Civic Participation Various studies (eg Emler and Fraser, 1999) have shown a strong relationship at the individual level between civic knowledge and civic activity. However, this relationship does not necessarily hold at a national level. The IEA Civic Education study of 14-year olds in 28 countries (Torney-Purta et al, 2001) found that levels of civic knowledge were relatively high in Finland, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic and Czech Republic. The context of the political changes occurring in the transition countries no doubt contributed. Nordic countries scored low in support for different forms of political participation and the Czech Republic low in support for non-conventional forms of civic engagement. The Slovak Republic scored in high civic knowledge, but low in support for rights for women and ethnic minorities (like Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania).
Contextual Effects on Education and Crime In countries such as England and Germany father absence was associated with higher delinquency, whereas in Nordic countries this was not the case. This is possibly due to different welfare arrangements between countries whereby single parent families receive more support in Nordic states (Junger- Tas, 2000). Similarly, whereas there was a relation between large peer groups and delinquency in some countries, this was not the case in southern Europe where, arguably, these are more common.
Robert Nie on Political Engagement and Network Centrality Robert Nie et al. (2006), using OLS regressions over time on US data, find that it is the relative, rather than absolute, level of education that is important in determining levels of political engagement. More educated people have more opportunity to achieve ‘network centrality’ Giving access to politicians, thus giving individuals an incentive to participate. However, network centrality is a ‘zero-sum’ property - the gains for one individual will automatically entail losses for others. Thus while average education levels may be getting higher in North America this does not necessarily lead to higher level of political engagement.
Learning effects on social capital (joining, volunteering and engagement) LearningJoining volunteering civic engagement Cognitive resources (knowledge, skills etc) Adapted from R. Nie Status Network centrality
Which Effects are Absolute rather than Positional? If individual social effects from learning are ‘absolute’ they are likely to aggregate into societal effects. If the are ‘relative’ or ‘positional’ they may not do so. Campbell (2006) has argued that it is only when people are in direct competition with one another that social effects are positional. He indeed only finds a positional effect on ‘competitive political activity’. However, recent research shows positional effects for voter turnout (Burden, 2009; Tenn,2007), political sophistication (Highton, 2009) and democratic citizenship (Persson and Oscarsson, 2010).
LLAKES Research on Macro-Social Benefits In our early research (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006) we found no correlations across countries between levels of adult skills and levels of: Trust Tolerance Strong correlations between skills equality and various measures of social cohesion. Since this contradicts the relationships at the individual level, we surmised from that learning effects are typically: indirect (working through something else and thus highly dependent on context) Positional distributional
Educational Equality and Social Cohesion Our research suggests that it is not so much the average level of education in a country which matters most for social cohesion, but rather how the skills acquired are spread around.
Correlations between Adult Skills Distribution and Trust We measured 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.
Inequality and Trust Countries with more equal skills distributions 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. 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.
Over Time Analysis Using time series data on education inequality, income inequality and social cohesion measures over time (1960- 1990) for industrialised countries. Measure of educational inequality: Education Gini based computed from data on highest level of education Measure of unrest comprising riots, strikes and demonstrations. Measure of civil liberties based on freedom house scale.
Relationships Education inequality highly correlated with unrest but the relationship is non-linear. As education inequality rises ‘unrest‘ first drops slightly and then rises sharply. Educational inequality is generally negatively related to civil liberties but the relationship is again non-linear. As education inequalities rise, civil liberties first decline, then rise and then drop sharply.
The Contextual influence of the Labour Market Marie Duru-Bellat analyses the relationships between educational inequality (amongst school students), returns to education and social cohesion at the school level. Social cohesion is a composite measure based on questions to students in the PISA surveys (relating to trust in the school and its teachers; feeling at home in school, and whether school is useful for them). Education equality is based on variance and social gradients in PISA. The return to education measure is based on employment rates and incomes of graduates compared to those with less than US education. She finds no relation between educational equality and the student social cohesion measure. However, there is a negative correlation between returns to education and social cohesion.
Citizenship Education and /Civic Competences An important component of social cohesion is Civic Competence: the knowledge, skills and values that people need to participate effectively in a liberal democratic society. We examined the links between education system characteristics and the levels and distributions of civic competences across countries using the cross-national Cived data. Amount of citizenship education unrelated to the acquisition of civic competences. However, learning through social participation and dialogue, both inside and outside school, shows a strong positive relationship with Citizenship knowledge and skills, and active citizenship dispositions, across a wide range of countries. (Hoskins, Janmaat, and Villalba forthcoming).
Education Systems and Civic Competences When compared with comprehensive systems, selective education systems have: higher levels of social segregation across classrooms; greater disparities in civic knowledge and skills; larger peer effects on civic knowledge and skills - meaning that the latter are strongly affected by the social backgrounds and achievement levels of other students in the class. (Janmaat forthcoming).
Classroom Diversity and Values Students who spend longer in mixed-ability classes are more likely to share basic values in areas such as tolerance and patriotism, regardless of their social own ethnic group (Janmaat & Mons 2011). Ethnic diversity in the classroom seems to promote tolerance in some countries, but not in all. In Germany and Sweden, native majority students tend to be more tolerant when in ethnically diverse classrooms. In England, no such relationship was found. Furthermore, in English classrooms white students were less tolerant the better their minority ethnic peers performed in terms of civic knowledge and skills. This may again be related status and competition anxiety.
Relationship between System Organisation and Collective Values Qualitative research (Morris) has shown that in countries in East Asia, with highly centralised education systems, the curriculum (and particularly moral and civic education) has powerful effects on student values. In recent research (Janmaat, Han and Morris) we have tested the relationships between system centralisation and socialisation across a range of countries using data on system characteristics from existing datasets (INCA) and data we collected ourselves from panels of experts. We find that more centralised education systems tend to be associated with a stronger propensity towards ‘collective values’.
Composite Indicators Measures derived from questions to panel of experts regarding characteristics of national education systems. Composite indicator for Centralisation: Civics and Moral Ed compulsory with specified hours State control of Curriculum State approval of textbooks Collective Values Composite Substantive rather than procedural values Low emphasis on Moral autonomy/critical thinking Focus on collective rather than individual Focus on ethnic rather than civic identity
Macro Social Benefits Less Likely in Unequal Education Systems Outcomes of learning are much more unequal in some countries than others. Nordic and East Asian countries ted to have relatively equal outcomes ‘Liberal’ and ‘Social market countries tend to have rather unequal outcomes. LLL more successful in promoting social cohesion in the first group
Total Variance in Scores By Country Group: PISA 2000, 2009
Between School Variance by Country Group, 2009, 2009
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. The 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
ComponentTradition/regimeIndicator(s) Indicators based on administrative data Inequality Social Democratic (-) Liberal (+) Gini coefficient on household income Wage regulation Social Democratic (+) Social Market (+) Liberal (-) Union coverage Centralization of wage bargaining Employment protection Liberal (-) Social market (+) Employment protection legislation 1998 State involvement Liberal (-); Social democratic (+); Social market (+); Public employment as percentage of total employment 2000 Welfare state Liberal (-); Social democratic (+) Public social expenditure as percentage of GDP 2000 Ethno-racial diversity Liberal (+) East-Asian (-) Proportion of the population born abroad 2000 Crime / disorder Liberal (+) East Asian (-) Social Market (-) Homicide rate Violent crime 2000
Measures based on survey data Social trust Social democratic (+) Social Market (-) East Asian (+) Percentage saying most people can be trusted Value diversity Social market (-) East Asian (-) Liberal (+) Composite indicator representing the dispersion of opinions Active civic participation Liberal (+) East Asian (-) Number of different voluntary organizations worked for Passive participation in nationwide organizations Social market (+) Social democratic (+) East Asian (-) Number of different organizations belonging to Freedom vs equality Liberal (+); Social market (-); Social democratic (-) Freedom or equality more important; percentage preferring freedom Merit vs equality Liberal (+); Social market (+); Social democratic (-) Pay according to performance Ethnocultural versus civic identities Romantic conservative (+); East Asian (+); Liberal (-) Strength of cultural relative to political conceptions of national identity Ethnic tolerance Liberal (+); Romantic conservative (-); East Asian (-) Xenophobia index; average (inverse indicator) Percentage not mentioning minding foreigners as neighbours Social hierarchy East Asian (+); Social market (+) Percentage saying one should always love and respect one’s parents Gender equalityEast Asian (-) Social market (-) Social democratic (+) Liberal (+) Percentage disagreeing that in times of scarcity men have more right to a job than women
LiberalSocial DemocraticSocial MarketEast Asian Mean: -.70Mean: 2.07Mean: -.59Mean:.09 Minimum: -7.25Minimum: -3.43Minimum: -10.97Minimum: -9.34 Maximum: 16.44Maximum: 13.80Maximum: 5.50Maximum: 11.85 Included components Inequality +Inequality - Diversity +Diversity -Diversity +Diversity - Welfare state -Welfare state + Welfare state - State involvement -State involvement+Empl protection + Wage regulation -(Union coverage) Wage regulation + (Union coverage) Crime – (homicide) Wage regulation – (Centralized bargain) Wage regulation + (Centralized bargain) Empl protection -Crime – (homicide) Crime + (homicide) Gender equality +Gender equality - Active part + Active part - Passive part -Passive part +Passive part - Value diversity +Value diversity - Merit +Merit -Merit + Freedom + Freedom -Social hierarchy + Ethnic tolerance + (neighbours measure) Ethnic tolerance - (neighbours measure) 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.
LiberalSocial DemocraticSocial MarketEast Asian CountryScoreCountryScoreCountryScoreCountryScore 16.81SWE15.90AU5.59KOR11.66 CAN9.24DEN10.76POR3.12JAP9.10 GB4.43NL8.15GER3.05CZE3.37 IRE-.14FIN7.42FRA2.27POL2.65 GER-.74B3.11ITA1.82ITA2.34 NL-1.93AU.81B.83SP2.02 AU-2.05GER.28SWE.45POR1.97 DEN-2.13IRE.19FIN-.37SLV1.21 SP-2.27SP-.42NL-.59GER-.12 ITA-2.49GB-.80SP-1.74AU-.52 POR-2.86FRA-1.10DEN-2.84IRE-.89 FRA-3.96CAN-2.62IRE-3.14FRA-1.35 FIN-4.48ITA-2.92GB-5.54FIN-2.00 SWE-5.49 -3.26CAN-6.76GB-2.03 B-6.08POR-5.39 -11.33NL-2.49 B-3.40 DEN-3.69 CAN-4.23 SWE-7.24 -8.13 Rank order of countries on the four indexes
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.
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 Green, Preston and Janmaat (2006) ‘Education, Equality and Social Cohesion’, Palgrave. Green and Janmaat (2011) ‘Regimes of Social Cohesion: Societies and the Crisis of Globalisation’, Palgrave. Llakes.org