Suchergebnisse

The issue of poverty has been faced for a long time. In Indonesia today, East Java is the most significant contributor to the poor people. With various policies that the government has implemented, the issue of poverty remains unsolved. This study, therefore, discusses the causality relationship between education, inequality, and unemployment toward poverty in East Java. Using secondary data from the Central Statistics Agency of Indonesia (BPS), we estimated dynamic panel data of cities and regencies in East Java from 2012 to 2017. Employing the Granger causality approach, it was found that education has a one-way relationship with inequality and a two-way relationship with unemployment. In addition, poverty has a one-way relationship with all the variables used. In the long term, education has a negative correlation with poverty. According to our findings, both the government and the private sector need to expand more job opportunities and improve education for the poor as both sectors significantly reduce poverty in the long term.

This study aims to analyze the effect of government spending in the education sector, gender gap, poverty and life expectancy on education inequality. This type of research is associative research. The object of research is the Regency/City in the Province of West Sumatra. The data analysis technique is hypothesis testing, panel data regression analysis with t test. The results of this study found that: 1) Government spending in the education sector has a significant negative effect on educational inequality. 2) The gender gap has a significant positive effect on educational inequality. 3) The level of poverty has a significant positive effect on educational inequality. 4) Life expectancy has a significant positive effect on educational inequality.

Remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID-19) disrupted nearly every student's life and will cause immense learning losses. Low-income students and students of color are the most likely to be in online classes, yet the least likely to have necessary resources to succeed in a remote school environment. Studies show that the COVID-19 pandemic has and will continue to worsen the racial and socio-economic achievement gap in education. As a result, two groups of parents in California filed class action lawsuits alleging that the State of California and the Los Angeles Unified School District respectively failed to provide a basic education to students of color in impoverished neighborhoods since the school closures in spring 2020. Following the United States Supreme Court's seminal ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, education litigation has slowly progressed under State constitutions towards recognizing an affirmative duty for States to provide a free and equal education. The Supreme Court's decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez in 1963 solidified that the federal Constitution does not guarantee an equal public education for all citizens. As such, since the federal Constitution does not guarantee the right to public education, but all state constitutions do, the citizens of California and other states must use their state constitution to enforce the constitutional guarantee of a free and equal education. During the Pandemic, California's remote learning plan has disproportionately affected low-income students of color, while privileging students in wealthier districts. This Note contends that both class action complaints sufficiently allege an equal protection violation, spurring the need for judicial intervention, and providing a model for future litigants in other states. The courts, therefore, should advise the legislature to adopt a plan that accounts for the lost learning time and ensures the most disadvantaged students receive a meaningful education during and post COVID-19.

The issue of income equality has become of great concern on a global scale. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, economists and other socioeconomic analysts have observed the state of the income and wealth gap between the top ten percent rich and the lower forty percent poor of populations, and its far-reaching impact on the lives of ordinary people. Income inequality has become a global challenge and the effects are felt in both developed and developing countries. The socioeconomic disparity between the rich and poor is pronounced in developing countries, and recent trends of growing inequality are being observed in developed countries. This research examines the effect of education on income inequality and GDP per capita, using a panel dataset of 18 selected sub-Saharan countries for the period from 1994 to 2015. The panel models are estimated, using the fixed effects, random effects and generalised methods of moments estimation techniques. The results show that the relationship of education and its impact on income inequality is dependent on the level of education being assessed. High resource input in tertiary education increases income inequality, while high resource input in lower educational levels reduces income inequality. Overall, increases in government expenditure on education lead to increase in inequality and a fall in GDP per capita. These results show possible inefficiencies in the allocation of educational resources in sub-Saharan countries during the period of investigation. Government spending on education does not reduce inequality or boost income unless it is done efficiently. To reduce income inequality and increase average income, educational resources must be efficiently allocated with priority given to the educational levels of the highest proportions of the population.

This book is an edited collection introducing the Education Policy and Social Inequality series, and presents chapters from authors on the editorial board. It investigates relations between educational policy and social inequality, not simply in terms of policy solutions for inequalities but also how education policy frames, creates and at times exacerbates social inequalities. It adopts a critical stance, encompassing innovative and interdisciplinary theoretical and conceptual studies - drawing on e.g. sociology, cultural studies, social and cultural geography, and history - as well as original empirical work that examines a range of educational contexts, including early years education, vocational and further education, informal education, K-12 schooling and higher education. The book argues that critique and policy studies can have a transformative function, positing new dimensions for understanding the role of education policy in connection with recurrent social problems and seeking the amelioration of social inequality in ways that challenge the possibility of equity in the liberal democratic state, as well as in other forms of governance and government. ?Stephen Parker is a Research Fellow in Education Policy and Social Justice at The University of Glasgow. His research interests include equity in access to higher education, policy analysis and social justice in education, and utilizes a range of social theory and philosophical approaches.Trevor Gale is Professor of Education Policy and Social Justice, and Head of the School of Education at The University of Glasgow. He is a critical sociologist of education, drawing on Bourdieu's thinking tools to research issues of social justice in schooling and higher education. He is the founding editor of Critical Studies in Education and is widely published in journals such as Journal of Education Policy, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Cambridge Journal of Education and Studies in Higher Education. His most recent book (with Lynch, Rowlands and Skourdoumbis), published by Routledge, is Practice Theory and Education: Diffractive readings in professional practice.Kalervo N. Gulson is an Associate Professor at in the School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Australia. His primary areas of scholarship are educational policy, race and ethnicity studies, as well as social and cultural geography. Recent published work includes: Education policy, space and the city: Markets and the (in)visibility of race (Routledge, 2011); Policy, geophilosophy, education (co-authored with P. Taylor Webb, Sense, 2015); and, Education policy and racial biopolitics in the multicultural city (co-authored with P. Taylor Webb, Policy Press, forthcoming).

In this essay, I propose first to describe and out line the links between the educational system and the genera tion of income inequality. The educational system has been criticized as one of the major institutions by which inequality has been perpetuated, especially in less developed countries. In response to this criticism, there have been a number of alternative proposals for modification of our present structure. I shall examine a few of the more important of these proposals and trace through their implications. The desirability of these proposals depends on certain factual assumptions and philo sophical presuppositions which may encounter substantial dis agreement. Thus, it is not surprising to find disagreement on the nature of desirable reforms for our educational system. This analysis does not lead to any clear-cut policy recommenda tions; if anything, it suggests that, so far at least, no convinc ing case has been made for any significant changes in the or ganization of our educational system.

This article investigates the status of educational equality in China in the context of the reform of major Chinese economic, political, and social institutions at the turn of the twenty-first century. In the first part of this article, the authors address the importance of the theoretical issue of equality in education and explore the relationship between theories of human capital, modernization, and political culture. The second part of the article uses statistical data to describe current educational conditions and the extent of the variance in educational attainment for different groups. They conduct the analysis from two perspectives: (1) comparing the effects of gender, ethnicity (minorities), and disability status on educational attainment; and (2) by comparing the effects of gender, minority status, and disabilty status on educational attainment in four types of regions, as defined by ecnomic and social development. In the final part of the paper, the authors try to find the particular government policies that are responsible for exiting discrepancies in educational achievement. The article concludes with a number of policy recommendations. (J Contemp China/DÜI-Sch)