Can School Education Balance Equity and Quality?

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.08.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Achieving equity and quality is the goal of education policies in various countries. Governments at all levels in China always focus on the development of equity and quality in terms of education. Based on the data of China Education Panel Survey (CEPS), the study uses a hierarchical linear model to explore the relationship between the equity and quality of school education in junior middle school. The results indicate that: from the perspective of quality, after removing the influence of students’ background factors and school composition factors, the promotion effect of each school on the development of students’ cognitive ability is significantly different; from the perspective of fairness, the promotion effect of each school on the development of students of different genders and cognitive ability bases is different; from the perspective of relationship between the quality dimension and the fairness dimension, some schools not only has high performance in promoting the development of cognitive ability of students but also excels at reducing the cognitive gap between students of different gender or cognitive ability.This demonstrates that school education could balance equity and quality.

Key words: educational equity, educational quality, hierarchical linear model

Xiaoyu Wei, Na Su. Can School Education Balance Equity and Quality?[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(8): 116-126.

Figures/Tables 9

References 0

	边玉芳, 林志红增值评价: 一种绿色升学率理念下的学校评价模式北京师范大学学报(社会科学版) 2007 06 11 18 边玉芳, 林志红. (2007). 增值评价: 一种绿色升学率理念下的学校评价模式. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),(06),11—18. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0209.2007.06.002
	程红艳教育公平与教育质量关系之辩南京社会科学 2014 11 116 123 程红艳. (2014). 教育公平与教育质量关系之辩. 南京社会科学,(11),116—123. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8263.2014.11.017
	侯玉娜, 沈爱祥学校资源对上海基础教育质量与公平的影响——基于国际学生评估项目(PISA2009)数据的实证研究教育学术月刊 2014 09 38 45 侯玉娜, 沈爱祥. (2014). 学校资源对上海基础教育质量与公平的影响—基于国际学生评估项目(PISA2009)数据的实证研究. 教育学术月刊,(09),38—45.
	贾群生公平而有质量的教育:一种教育社会学的诠释贵州师范大学学报(社会科学版) 2019 02 58 69 贾群生. (2019). 公平而有质量的教育:一种教育社会学的诠释. 贵州师范大学学报(社会科学版),(02),58—69.
	陆璟上海基础教育公平的实证研究教育研究 2013 34 02 77 84 陆璟. (2013). 上海基础教育公平的实证研究. 教育研究,34(02),77—84.
	陆璟上海基础教育公平评价的新发展——基于PISA 2012数据的分析教育发展研究 2014 33 04 1 8 陆璟. (2014). 上海基础教育公平评价的新发展—基于PISA 2012数据的分析. 教育发展研究,33(04),1—8.
	马晓强, 彭文蓉, 托马斯学校效能的增值评价——对河北省保定市普通高中学校的实证研究教育研究 2006 10 77 84 马晓强, 彭文蓉, 托马斯. (2006). 学校效能的增值评价—对河北省保定市普通高中学校的实证研究. 教育研究,(10),77—84. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7667.2006.10.016
	祁翔, 陈丽媛民营化对教育质量与公平的影响——以上海民办普通初中为例北京大学教育评论 2019 17 01 105 122+190 祁翔, 陈丽媛. (2019). 民营化对教育质量与公平的影响—以上海民办普通初中为例. 北京大学教育评论,17(01),105—122+190.
	陶西平, 顾海良, 张力, 杨东平, 谢小庆, 赵中建, 庞维国《每一个学生都成功法》七人谈华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) 2016 34 02 1 15 陶西平, 顾海良, 张力, 杨东平, 谢小庆, 赵中建, 庞维国. (2016). 《每一个学生都成功法》七人谈. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),34(02),1—15.
	托马斯, 彭文蓉运用“增值”评量指标评估学校表现教育研究 2005 09 20 27 托马斯, 彭文蓉. (2005). 运用“增值”评量指标评估学校表现. 教育研究,(09),20—27.
	张煜学校效能评价——一种对学校进行综合评价与质量监控的理论与方法中小学管理 1997 Z1 62 63 张煜. (1997). 学校效能评价—一种对学校进行综合评价与质量监控的理论与方法. 中小学管理,(Z1),62—63.
	宗晓华, 杨素红, 秦玉友追求公平而有质量的教育:新时期城乡义务教育质量差距的影响因素与均衡策略清华大学教育研究 2018 39 06 47 57 宗晓华, 杨素红, 秦玉友. (2018). 追求公平而有质量的教育:新时期城乡义务教育质量差距的影响因素与均衡策略. 清华大学教育研究,39(06),47—57.
	Bosker, R., & Witziers, B. (1995). School effects: Problems, solutions, and a meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
	Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
	European Commission. (2020). Strategic framework for education and training. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/index_en.htm
	Jesson, D. & Gray, J Slants on slopes: using multi-level models to investigate differential school effectiveness and its impact on pupils’ examination results School Effectiveness and School Improvement 1991 2 230 271 Jesson, D. & Gray, J. (1991). Slants on slopes: using multi-level models to investigate differential school effectiveness and its impact on pupils’ examination results. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2, 230—271. doi: 10.1080/0924345910020305
	Kelly, Α Measuring “equity” and “equitability” in school effectiveness research British Educational Research Journal 2012 38 6 977 1002 Kelly, Α. (2012). Measuring “equity” and “equitability” in school effectiveness research. British Educational Research Journal, 38(6), 977—1002. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2011.605874
	Kelly, Α Measuring equity in educational effectiveness research: The properties and possibilities of quantitative indicators International Journal of Research & Method in Education 2015 38 2 115 136 Kelly, Α. (2015). Measuring equity in educational effectiveness research: The properties and possibilities of quantitative indicators. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(2), 115—136.
	Konu, A. I., Lintonen, T. P., & Autio, V. J Evaluation of well-being in schools: A multilevel analysis of general subjective well-being School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2002 13 187 200 Konu, A. I., Lintonen, T. P., & Autio, V. J. (2002). Evaluation of well-being in schools: A multilevel analysis of general subjective well-being. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 187—200. doi: 10.1076/sesi.13.2.187.3432
	Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P Can schools achieve both quality and equity? Investigating the two dimensions of educational effectiveness Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) 2011 16 4 237 254 Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. (2011). Can schools achieve both quality and equity? Investigating the two dimensions of educational effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 16(4), 237—254. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2011.610269
	Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P., & Charalambous, E Searching for differential teacher and school effectiveness in terms of student socioeconomic status and gender: Implications for promoting equity School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2019 30 3 286 308 Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P., & Charalambous, E. (2019). Searching for differential teacher and school effectiveness in terms of student socioeconomic status and gender: Implications for promoting equity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(3), 286—308. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1511603
	Nuttall, D., Goldstein, H., Prosser, R., & Rasbash, J Differential school effectiveness International Journal of Educational Research 1989 13 769 776 Nuttall, D., Goldstein, H., Prosser, R., & Rasbash, J. (1989). Differential school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 769—776. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90027-X
	Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Jerrim, J. P., Guo, J., & Dicke, T Inequity and excellence in academic performance: Evidence from 27 countries American Educational Research Journal 2018 55 4 836 858 Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Jerrim, J. P., Guo, J., & Dicke, T. (2018). Inequity and excellence in academic performance: Evidence from 27 countries. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 836—858. doi: 10.3102/0002831218760213
	Sammons, P., Nuttall, D. & Cuttance, P Differential school effectiveness: results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority’s Junior School Project Data British Educational Research Journal 1993 19 381 405 Sammons, P., Nuttall, D. & Cuttance, P. (1993). Differential school effectiveness: results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority’s Junior School Project Data. British Educational Research Journal, 19, 381—405. doi: 10.1080/0141192930190407
	Strand, S Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity, gender, poverty and prior attainment School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2010 21 3 289 314 Strand, S. (2010). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity, gender, poverty and prior attainment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 289—314. doi: 10.1080/09243451003732651
	Strand, S Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness revisited Review of Education 2016 4 2 107 144 Strand, S. (2016). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness revisited. Review of Education, 4(2), 107—144. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3054
	Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P., & Smees, R Differential secondary school effectiveness: Comparing the performance of different pupil groups British Educational Research Journal 1997 23 4 489 512 Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P., & Smees, R. (1997). Differential secondary school effectiveness: Comparing the performance of different pupil groups. British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 489—512. doi: 10.1080/0141192970230407
	Van de gaer, E., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., De Munter, A., & Onghena, P School effects on the development of motivation toward learning tasks and the development of academic selfconcept in secondary school School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2009 20 235 253 Van de gaer, E., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., De Munter, A., & Onghena, P. (2009). School effects on the development of motivation toward learning tasks and the development of academic selfconcept in secondary school. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 235—253. doi: 10.1080/09243450902883920
	Van Damme, J., & Bellens, K. (2017). Countries strive towards more quality and equity in education: Do they show success or failure? Evidence from TIMSS 2003 and 2011, for Grade 4. In Cognitive Abilities and Educational Outcomes(pp. 127−148). Springer, Cham.

	零模型		模型1
固定效应	估计值	标准误	估计值	标准误
截距（ ${\gamma _{00}}$ ）	?0.03	0.05	?0.04	0.03
学生层面
7年级认知能力（cog7）			0.44**	0.01
社会经济地位（SES）			0.05**	0.01
性别（gender，0=男孩，1=女孩）			0.07**	0.02
学校层面
平均7年级认知能力（schcog）			0.17**	0.04
平均社会经济地位（schses）			0.07*	0.04
随机效应
学生层面 $ Var({r}_{ij})$	0.73	0.01	0.57	0.01
学校层面 $ Var({u}_{0j})$	0.31	0.04	0.08	0.01
总方差 $ Var({Y}_{ij})$	1.04		0.65
被解释的方差			0.39
相对于线性回归的解释结果（Prob>=chibar2）	0.0000		0.0000

	随机系数模型1		随机系数模型2
固定效应	估计值	标准误	估计值	标准误
截距（ ${\gamma _{00}}$ ）	?0.03	0.03	?0.04	0.03
学生层面
7年级认知能力（cog7）	0.45**	0.02	0.44**	0.01
社会经济地位（SES）	0.04**	0.01	0.05**	0.01
性别（gender，0=男孩，1=女孩）	0.07**	0.02	0.07**	0.02
学校层面
平均7年级认知能力（schcog）	0.13**	0.03	0.17**	0.04
平均社会经济地位（schses）	0.05	0.03	0.08*	0.04
随机效应
学生层面截距	0.74	0.01	0.75	0.01
学校层面截距	0.27	0.02	0.31	0.02
7年级认知能力	0.16	0.01
性别			0.09	0.03
相对于线性回归的解释结果（Prob>=chibar2）	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000

	相关系数估计值	标准误
7年级认知能力与截距 $ \rho ({u}_{1j},{u}_{0j})$	?0.70	0.08
性别与截距 $ \rho ({u}_{2j},{u}_{0j})$	?0.56	0.17

[1]	Chen Xie, Hongbiao Yin. The Provincial Comparison on Quality and Equity of Teaching-Research Work from Teachers’ Perspective [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(5): 55-67.
[2]	Yongmei Hu, Jing Yuan. Which is More Important for Students’ Academic Performance: Response to the Debate about the Role of Schooling and Parenting from the Coleman Report [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(1): 1-25.
[3]	Huang Zhongjing, Sun Xiaoxue, Wang Qian. From Philosophical Research to Empirical Research: Paradigm Shift in Education Equity Research [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(9): 119-136.
[4]	XIANG Xianming. Equity Transition of Educational Purpose [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2017, 35(2): 24-32+116.
[5]	HUANG Xue-Jun. Choice and Equity:Educational Reform in Era of Interest Differentiation [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2011, 29(2): 33-38.