This article examines the effects of incorporating information and communication technologies in schools in terms of distributive justice. To do so, four issues that are central to educational justice are discussed: scarcity of resources, the positional nature of education, peer effects, and biases in educational decision-making. The discussion exposes a complicated picture of possible benefits and challenges associated with incorporating data-rich technologies in education. While technology may potentially promote educational justice – by widening access to quality teaching, decreasing biases, and facilitating mixed ability classes – it also creates concerns, related to ensuring equal distribution of technology, preventing biases in educational data mining, and fostering the kind of social relations between students necessary for democratic equality. The article concludes that whether or not information and communication technologies will have a positive impact on educational justice depends, largely, on the way it is developed, designed, and implemented in schools.
AndersonE (2010) The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BaeplerPMurdochCJ (2010) Academic analytics and data mining in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning4(2010): 17.
3.
BakerR (2010) Data mining for education. In: PatersonPBakerEMcGrawB (eds) International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd edn, pp. 112–118. Oxford: Newnes Books.
4.
BakerRSiemensG (2014) Educational data mining and learning analytics. In: SawyerK (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn, pp. 253–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BarocasSSelbstAD (2016) Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review104: 671–732.
6.
BiaforaFAnsaloneG (2008) Perceptions and attitudes of school principals towards school tracking: Structural considerations of personal beliefs. Education128: 588–602.
7.
BrighouseH (2011) Educational equality and school reform. In: GrahamH (ed.) Educational Equality, pp. 15–70. London and New York: Continuum Publishing.
8.
BrighouseHSwiftA (2006) Equality, priority and positional goods. Ethics116: 471–497.
9.
CaldersTŽliobaitėI (2013) Why unbiased computational processes can lead to discriminative decision procedures. In: CustersBCaldersTSchermerBet al. (eds) Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society: Data Mining and Profiling in Large Databases, pp. 43–60. Berlin: Springer.
10.
CastroFVellidoANebotAet al. (2007) Applying data mining techniques to e-learning problems. In: JainLCTedmanRATedmanDK (eds) Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 183–221. Berlin: Springer.
11.
ChubbJEMoeTM (1990) Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings.
12.
Cipriano-WalterM (2015) Falling off the track: How ability tracking leads to intra-school segregation. Thurgood Marshall Law Review41: 25.
13.
ClotfelterCT. (2006) After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
14.
CollinsR (1979) The Credential Society: A Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New York: Academic Press.
15.
DoughertySMGoodmanJSHillDVet al. (2015) Middle school math acceleration and equitable access to eighth-grade algebra evidence from the wake county public school system. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis37(1): 80S–101S.
16.
DownesTAZabelJE (2002) The impact of school characteristics on house prices: Chicago 1987–1991. Journal of Urban Economics52: 1–25.
ErwinJOWorrellFC (2012) Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment30(1): 74–87.
19.
Federal Trade Commission (2016) Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.
FrankenbergE (2009) The segregation of American teachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives17: 1–45.
22.
GarciaDR (2010) Charter schools challenging traditional notions of segregation. In: LubienskiCWeitzelPC (eds) The Charter School Experiment: Expectations; Evidence and Implications, pp. 33–50. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
GardaRA (2005) The new IDEA: Shifting educational paradigms to achieve racial equality in special education. Alabama Law Review56: 1071–1134.
24.
GoffJWShafferCM (2014) Big data’s impact on college admission practices and recruitment strategies. In: LaneJE (ed.) Building a Smarter University: Big Data, Innovation, and Analytics. pp. 93–120. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
25.
GoodinRE (1990) Relative needs. In: WareAGoodinRE (eds) Needs and Welfare, p. 12. London: SAGE.
26.
GreeneAD (2014) Tracking work: Race-ethnic variation in vocational course placement and consequences for academic and career outcomes. International Journal of Educational Studies1: 9–18.
27.
HallidayD (2016) Private education: Positional goods, and the arms race problem. Politics Philosophy and Economics15: 150–169.
28.
Har CarmelYHarel Ben ShaharT (in press) Reshaping ability grouping through big data. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law.
29.
Harel Ben ShaharT (2016) Equality in education: Why we must go all the way. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice19: 83–100.
30.
Harel Ben ShaharT (2017) Positional goods and the size of inequality. Journal of Political Philosophy. Epub ahead of print 7May. DOI: 10.1111/jopp.12118.
31.
HirschF (1977) The Social Limits to Growth. New York: Routledge.
32.
JamesO (2013) Opt-out education: School choice as racial subordination. Iowa Law Review99: 1083–1135.
33.
JanssenJJ (2000) Public school finance, school choice and equal educational opportunity in Texas: The enduring importance of background conditions. Review Literature10: 1.
34.
KnotekS (2003) Bias in problem solving and the social process of student study teams: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Special Education37: 2–14.
35.
KrpanDStankovS (2012) Educational data mining for grouping students in e-learning system. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, Cavtat, 25–28 June, pp. 207–212. New York: IEEE.
36.
LermanJ (2013) Big data and its exclusions. Stanford Law Review Online66: 55–63.
MinowM (2011) Confronting the seduction of choice: Law, education and American pluralism. Yale Law Journal120: 814.
39.
OakesJ (1985) Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
OakesJ (1995) Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record96: 681–690.
41.
PeskeHGHaycockK (2006) Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust, Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED494820
42.
PrakashBRHanumanthappaMKavithaV (2014) Big data in educational data mining and learning analytics. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer2(12): 7515–7520.
ReyesJA (2015) The skinny on big data in education: Learning analytics simplified. Techtrends59(2): 75–80.
45.
RossTKenaG (2012) Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study. Washington, DC: US Department of Education and National Center for Education Statistics.
46.
SkibaRJMichaelRSNardoACet al. (2002) The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review34: 317–342.
47.
SolorzanoDGOrnelasA (2002) A critical race analysis of advanced placement classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education1(4): 215–229.
