Institutional Differentiation and Inequality in Iran Education System (A Case Study of Second- Cycle High Schools in Urmia (

• Main Authors: Soheila Ahmadi, mohammad hassani, Mirnajaf Mousavi
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: University of Isfahan 2018-06-01
• Series: جامعه شناسی کاربردی
• Subjects: Institutional Differentiation; TOPSIS Technique; Variation Coefficient Method; Inequality
• Online Access: http://jas.ui.ac.ir/article_22746_6777b83730d5b61e2f9d53ec0a520430.pdf
• ISSN: 2008-5745; 2322-343X

<strong>Introduction</strong>: <br />Two main functions of the educational system in any modern society are to equip individuals with knowledge that allows them to take part in social, economic, and political life and confer access to valuable credentials regardless of their social and economic background. In other words, provide opportunities for social mobility. Therefore, the performance of educational systems should be judged according to the quality of knowledge they produce (quality) and the degree to which they provide equality of educational opportunities (equality).  Institutional differentiation –assigning students to differenttracks or schools - is a potential joint determinant of quality and equality in education. The review of related literature indicated that there has been a lack of research in Iran on linking institutional differentiation with equality of educational opportunities as well as applying a holistic approach for studying different types of schools. Therefore, this research was designed to fill these gaps. Thus, present research aimed to study the impact of institutional differentiation on equality of Iran education system through ranking and investigating level of inequality among different types of high schools. The theories adapted for this study are derived from the System’s Theory Input – Output model and Social Cognitive Theory. The systemic perspective argues that we should apply a global vision to underline the functioning of a phenomenon because we really can't fully understand it by breaking it up into elementary parts and then reforming it. In the Social Cognitive Theory, we consider 3 variables including behavioral factors, environmental factors, and personal factors. These three variables are interrelated with each other and cause learning to occur. This model clearly implies that an individual should have positive personal characteristics, exhibit appropriate behavior and stay in a supportive environment in order to learn effectively. <br /><strong> </strong> <br /><strong>Material & Methods</strong>:   <br />The statistical population included all students who were studying in second-cycle high schools in Urmia in 1394-1395 academic year and all teachers and principals who were working in these schools in the same academic year.1003 students and 307 teachers were selected randomly by using proportionate stratified sampling but census method was used to collect data from principals. Data was collected through questionnaires that have been used in international studies to investigate inequalities between countries as well as within the counties. The validity of questionnaires was approved through experts' views and their reliability was confirmed by Cronbach-Alpha coefficient. TOPSIS technique was employed to analyze data. This study investigated the following categories of indicators: <br />a)      Family indicators (parents' occupation - parents' educational background, parents' monthly income, size and type of parental involvement, and home educational resources); <br />b)      Student characteristics (academic self-efficacy, academic self-esteem, academic motivation and the size and shape of supplementary tutoring); <br />c)      School infrastructure (quality of the schools’ physical infrastructure, quality and quantity of school educational resources); <br />d)      Human resources (teacher training, teacher experience, teacher self-efficacy, teacher satisfaction, etc.); <br />e)      School policies (school self-evaluation, school autonomy, academic press, principals’ leadership, etc.); <br />f)       School climate (disciplinary climate; achievement press; teacher-student relations, etc.); <br /><strong>g)      </strong>Outcomes (students’ educational aspiration, students’ job aspiration, grade point average of national final exams, results of university entrance exam<strong>)</strong> <br /><strong> </strong> <br /><strong>Discussion of Results & Conclusions</strong>: <br />The results of the coefficient of variation method regarding inequalities between different kinds of schools showed that there were high levels of inequalities in the family indicators, school educational resources, school climate and educational outcomes. And the results obtained by TOPSIS technique showed that the group of high school for Gifted Students and public schools ranked first and last respectively in family indicators and educational outcomes. Therefore, it can be concluded that inequalities in parental socio-economic status are likely to translate into inequalities in educational outcomes of students and this can strengthen the relation between institutional differentiation and educational inequalities.