Social justice in education : how the function of selection in educational institutions predicts support for (non)egalitarian assessment practices

Educational institutions are considered a keystone for the establishment of a meritocratic society. They supposedly serve two functions: an educational function that promotes learning for all, and a selection function that sorts individuals into different programs, and ultimately social positions, based on individual merit. We study how the function of selection relates to support for assessment practices known to harm vs. benefit lower status students, through the perceived justice principles underlying these practices. We study two assessment practices: normative assessment-focused on ranking and social comparison, known to hinder the success of lower status students-and formative assessment-focused on learning and improvement, known to benefit lower status students. Normative assessment is usually perceived as relying on an equity principle, with rewards being allocated based on merit and should thus appear as positively associated with the function of selection. Formative assessment is usually perceived as relying on corrective justice that aims to ensure equality of outcomes by considering students' needs, which makes it less suitable for the function of selection. A questionnaire measuring these constructs was administered to university students. Results showed that believing that education is intended to select the best students positively predicts support for normative assessment, through increased perception of its reliance on equity, and negatively predicts support for formative assessment, through reduced perception of its ability to establish corrective justice. This study suggests that the belief in the function of selection as inherent to educational institutions can contribute to the reproduction of social inequalities by preventing change from assessment practices known to disadvantage lowerstatus student, namely normative assessment, to more favorable practices, namely formative assessment, and by promoting matching beliefs in justice principles

Belief in School Meritocracy and the Legitimization of Social and Income Inequality

Educational institutions are imbued with an institutional meritocratic discourse: only merit counts for academic success. In this article, we study whether this institutional belief has an impact beyond its primary function of encouraging students to study. We propose that belief in school meritocracy has broader societal impact by legitimizing the social class hierarchy it produces and encouraging the maintenance of inequalities. The results of four studies (one correlational study, Ntotal = 198; one experiment, Ntotal = 198; and two international data surveys, Ntotal = 88,421 in 40+countries) indicate that belief in school meritocracy reduces the perceived unfairness of social class inequality in society, support for affirmative action policies at university and support for policies aimed at reducing income inequality. Together, these studies show that the belief that schools are meritocratic carries consequences beyond the school context as it is associated with attitudes that maintain social class and economic inequality

Teaching as Social Influence: Empowering Teachers to Become Agents of Social Change

International audienceTeachers carry out a number of roles in the educational system. Their primary role is to help all students develop knowledge and skills, but, most of the time, they take on the role of gatekeepers: They evaluate students and exercise selection on the basis of performance. We analyze the roles of teachers through the lens of the literature on social influence, and put forward the proposal that teaching is a form of social influence. We review existing research on the mechanisms that explain the differential effects teachers may have on students' learning, students' prospects and, therefore, educational justice. We conclude that if teachers endorse the role of mentors-instead of that of gatekeepers-focusing on the development of their students' knowledge, they can promote deep study, long-term learning, and equality of treatment. Such an approach could help design teacher training and school reform so as to maximize the learning potential of all students and empower teachers to become active agents of profound individual and social change

The function of selection of assessment leads evaluators to artificially create the social class achievement gap.

To understand the persistent social class achievement gap, researchers have investigated how educational settings affect lower vs. higher socio-economic status (SES) students’ performance. We move beyond the question of actual performance to study its assessment by evaluators. We hypothesized that even in the absence of performance differences, assessment’s function of selection (i.e., compare, rank and track students) leads evaluators to create a SES achievement gap. In two experiments (N = 196; N = 259), participants had to assess a test supposedly produced by a high- or a low-SES student, and used assessment for selection (i.e. normative grading) or learning (i.e. formative comments). Results showed that evaluators using assessment for selection found more mistakes if the test was attributed to a low- rather than a high-SES student, a difference reduced in the assessment for learning condition. The third and fourth experiments (N = 374; N = 306) directly manipulated the function of assessment to investigate whether the production of the social class achievement gap was facilitated by the function of selection to a greater extent than the educational function. Results of Experiment 3 supported this hypothesis. The effect did not reach significance for Experiment 4, but an internal meta-analysis confirmed that assessment used for selection led evaluators to create a SES achievement gap more than assessment used for learning, thereby contributing to the reproduction of social inequalities

School Selection and the Social Class Divide: How Tracking Contributes to the Reproduction of Inequalities

International audienceSelection practices in education, such as tracking, may represent a structural obstacle that contributes to the social class achievement gap. We hypothesized that school’s function of selection leads evaluators to reproduce social inequalities in tracking decisions, even when performance is equal. In two studies, participants (students playing the role of teachers, N = 99, or preservice and in-service teachers, N = 70) decided which school track was suitable for a pupil whose socioeconomic status (SES) was manipulated. Although pupils’ achievement was identical, participants considered a lower track more suitable for lower SES than higher SES pupils, and the higher track more suitable for higher SES than lower SES pupils. A third study (N = 160) revealed that when the selection function of school was salient, rather than its educational function, the gap in tracking between social classes was larger. The selection function of tracking appears to encourage evaluators to artificially create social class inequalities

Après la Note : Effets Psychosociaux de L'Evaluation Normative

L’évaluation n’est pas un exercice neutre qui consiste à quantifier les mérites de la production d’un élève : selon le type d’évaluation utilisée (p.ex., normative ou formative) et selon la fonction qu’on lui attribue (sélectionner ou former), les élèves se sentent plus ou moins menacés, et développent des représentations différentes de leur autonomie et de leurs compétences sociales. Ceci a un impact sur leur apprentissage et sur l’égalité de chances. Le présent chapitre passe en revue un programme de recherche qui étudie la menace impliquée dans l’évaluation normative et ses conséquences en termes d’autonomie, compétences sociales et inégalité de traitement des élèves

Belief in school meritocracy and the legitimization of social and income inequality

Published online: 17 August 2022Educational institutions are imbued with an institutional meritocratic discourse: only merit counts for academic success. In this article, we study whether this institutional belief has an impact beyond its primary function of encouraging students to study. We propose that belief in school meritocracy has broader societal impact by legitimizing the social class hierarchy it produces and encouraging the maintenance of inequalities. The results of four studies (one correlational study, Ntotal = 198; one experiment, Ntotal = 198; and two international data surveys, Ntotal = 88,421 in 40+countries) indicate that belief in school meritocracy reduces the perceived unfairness of social class inequality in society, support for affirmative action policies at university and support for policies aimed at reducing income inequality. Together, these studies show that the belief that schools are meritocratic carries consequences beyond the school context as it is associated with attitudes that maintain social class and economic inequality

Seminal plasma as a source of prostate cancer peptide biomarker candidates for detection of indolent and advanced disease

Background:Extensive prostate specific antigen screening for prostate cancer generates a high number of unnecessary biopsies and over-treatment due to insufficient differentiation between indolent and aggressive tumours. We hypothesized that seminal plasma is a robust source of novel prostate cancer (PCa) biomarkers with the potential to improve primary diagnosis of and to distinguish advanced from indolent disease. <br>Methodology/Principal Findings: In an open-label case/control study 125 patients (70 PCa, 21 benign prostate hyperplasia, 25 chronic prostatitis, 9 healthy controls) were enrolled in 3 centres. Biomarker panels a) for PCa diagnosis (comparison of PCa patients versus benign controls) and b) for advanced disease (comparison of patients with post surgery Gleason score <7 versus Gleason score >>7) were sought. Independent cohorts were used for proteomic biomarker discovery and testing the performance of the identified biomarker profiles. Seminal plasma was profiled using capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry. Pre-analytical stability and analytical precision of the proteome analysis were determined. Support vector machine learning was used for classification. Stepwise application of two biomarker signatures with 21 and 5 biomarkers provided 83% sensitivity and 67% specificity for PCa detection in a test set of samples. A panel of 11 biomarkers for advanced disease discriminated between patients with Gleason score 7 and organ-confined (<pT3a) or advanced (≥pT3a) disease with 80% sensitivity and 82% specificity in a preliminary validation setting. Seminal profiles showed excellent pre-analytical stability. Eight biomarkers were identified as fragments of N-acetyllactosaminide beta-1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase​,prostatic acid phosphatase, stabilin-2, GTPase IMAP family member 6, semenogelin-1 and -2. Restricted sample size was the major limitation of the study.</br> <br>Conclusions/Significance: Seminal plasma represents a robust source of potential peptide makers for primary PCa diagnosis. Our findings warrant further prospective validation to confirm the diagnostic potential of identified seminal biomarker candidates.</br&gt