THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL ON THE REPRODUCTION OF EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES

Abstract

The paper addresses the problem of educational inequality and the new ways in which it is reproduced within the modern school education system. The sustainable character of educational inequality in Bulgaria is analyzed in the light of its institutional nature, which, despite the European membership of the country, shows a clear tendency towards intensification and reflects the growing social differences between the advantaged and vulnerable groups in Bulgarian society. The intention of the author is aimed at comprehending some current limitations and opportunities for the action of teachers and school institutions, which are conditioned by the peculiarities of the contemporary economic, socio-cultural, and educational situation.
Key words: educational inequality, school institution, social selectiveness, socio-economic status.

Full text

Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020 285
Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, pp 285-291 2020
Copyright © 2020 Trakia University
Available online at:
http://www.uni-sz.bg
ISSN 1313-3551 (online) doi:10.15547/tjs.2020.s.01.048
THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL ON THE REPRODUCTION
OF EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES
E. Lavrentsova*
Faculty of Pedagogy, Trakia University, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
ABSTRACT
The paper addresses the problem of educational inequality and the new ways in which it is reproduced
within the modern school education system. The sustainable character of educational inequality in
Bulgaria is analyzed in the light of its institutional nature, which, despite the European membership of the
country, shows a clear tendency towards intensification and reflects the growing social differences
between the advantaged and vulnerable groups in Bulgarian society.
The intention of the author is aimed at comprehending some current limitations and opportunities for the
action of teachers and school institutions, which are conditioned by the peculiarities of the contemporary
economic, socio-cultural, and educational situation.
Key words: educational inequality, school institution, social selectiveness, socio-economic status
Key words: social stratification, society, inequality, class, power, status.
INTRODUCTION
Education is the key social institution that
regulates the transmission of knowledge,
cultural values and "identities" in society and
determines the life trajectories of individuals.
It is one of the central mechanisms for
preserving social memory and social
inheritance. In modern sociological research,
however, education is seen not as a "social",
and in this kind of thought expensive area of
unproductive labor, but as a form of the most
effective investment in "human capital" and
therefore a sphere of highly competitive
relations (1).
The level of education and the acquired
qualification determine the degree of
productivity of both the individual and the total
human resources involved in the field of labor
relations, and hence predetermine the
subsequent opportunities for realization on the
labor market from an individual perspective
and effective economic development from the
point of view of the functioning of the whole
_____________________________
*Correspondence to: Elena Lavrentsova, Faculty
of Pedagogy, Trakia University, Stara Zagora,
Bulgaria, elenavit@abv.bg, phone: (042) 613 753,
mobil: 0889 42 84 90
society. Education influences economic
processes in three directions: improves the
general level of knowledge and skills among
the population (human capital); provides the
necessary capacity to develop technologies and
implement innovations; provides transfer of
new knowledge and ideas. It is the human and
physical capital that the economy of each
society has that constitutes its capacity for
growth and competitiveness in the long run (2).
Viewed in a broader perspective of the future
development of labor activity, education is
beginning to attract even more attention of
various social actors. The rapid technological
changes, the impending transition to a new
phase in the development of the capitalist
system - "cognitive capitalism" - lead to
significant transformations in the appearance
and nature of labor activities, the essence of
labor in general. The establishment of a new
era is publicly articulated - the "Fourth
Industrial Revolution", the "Digital Age", or
the "Second Age of Machines". This type of
social organization obviously presupposes the
realization of educational perspectives by
expanding the processes of socialization of
knowledge. The promotion of education in this
context is seen as the main tool for increasing
common well-being and eradicating poverty.

LAVRENCOVA E.
286 Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020
It is through inclusion in education and real
learning that children from disadvantaged
groups of the population with low socio-
economic status are given the opportunity to
experience upward social mobility. Raising
education in the conditions of the modern
high-tech society is essentially the only
legitimate way which allows the achievement
of a higher status in the system of division of
labor and distribution of power.
But education in its specific institutional nature
is not only the main channel for social
mobility, which works as a socio-structural lift,
it also serves as a form of reproduction of
certain normative models and value patterns
along with cultural, economic and political
elite that supports them. Being deeply relevant
to the general stratification system of society,
education thus generates different
configurations of inequality by regulating
access to intellectual resources. The question
here is how this stratification function inherent
in education can meet new economic and
public expectations related to the need for
broader socialization of knowledge and the
growing movement for equal opportunities for
vertical mobility. In other words, how in the
most consistent way can the deep-rooted
aspiration for equality, for the egalitarian
format of education within the new socio-
cultural situation be combined with the
constant orientation of the educational system
to the differentiation of the professional careers
and social status?
Schools and teachers in the context of
standardization and autonomy
In the last few decades, sociological science
has managed to accumulate a significant
number of conceptual models revealing the
mechanisms and factors for the reproduction of
inequality through education. In general, they
can be grouped into two main areas, reflected
respectively in the socialization model and the
allocation model. According to the first
approach (3, 4), vertical mobility in the field of
education establishes an indirect influence of
the socio-economic status on the intellectual
development of the child. The value
orientations and attitudes, formed mainly under
the influence of the family environment, play a
decisive role here. The social stratum is
reproduced in the education system not so
much through success but through a specific
focus on achievement and a certain career
trajectory. This approach refers to the
prevailing perceptions, mainly in the 60s and
70s that education reinforces previously
formed, already existing socioeconomic
inequalities. In other words, not the
peculiarities of the organization of the learning
process, including its accessibility, but the
students themselves through their behavior and
activity reproduce and confirm their status
characteristics and, accordingly, inequalities.
(5, 6).
The second approach (7, 8) emphasizes that the
individual is largely determined by social
institutions: his/her achievements depend on
the nature of the admission and a number of
other conditions and regulations that these
institutions establish. Achieving a certain level
of education or status here is seen as subject to
definite structural constraints and selective
criteria used within the educational system. In
recent years, this approach has become more
widespread and popular, but it certainly does
not exclude, but rather complements the first.
Hence, in the field of scientific and public
discourse, the question of the influence of
various factors on the reproduction of
educational inequalities is invariably raised,
with increasing attention being paid to
clarifying the role of the school, which covers
both its institutional and structural dimension,
and the subject-activity side in the face of the
main educational actors – teachers and school
principals. At the same time, this role, being
contextually dependent, undergoes changes,
adapting to the new economic and socio-
political realities.
Thus, in the earlier stage of sociological
research in the field of education (the 60s), the
attention of scientists is focused on such
aspects of the reproduction of inequality in the
walls of the school and the classroom, which
reflect the relationship between socio-class and
ethnic origin of the representatives of the
teaching staff and the methods, forms and
technology of teaching used by them, the
available educational practices, as well as the
nature of the relationship: teacher - student. In
addition, the specificity in the construction of
the curriculum and assessment procedures,
closely correlated with the cultural norms and
value preferences of the middle class, is
considered and emphasized.
Under the influence of these ideas many new
training programs are developed and
implemented, a serious "deconstruction" of the

LAVRENCOVA E.
Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020 287
curriculum is undertaken, aimed at overcoming
the gap between the teacher's expectations –
the principles, postulates, norms and
techniques used by him/her in the educational
work, which are based on the foundation of the
dominant culture, and the specific canons of
mentality, ways of perception and learning,
inherent in children from the minority ethno
cultural communities and reflecting the
respective subcultural worlds.
Later, the focus of research interest began to
concentrate on the study and analysis of
internal factors related to the organizational
structure and functioning of school institutions.
A great number of research works on ‘effective
schools’ has revealed, for instance, that some
schools are more successful than others in
assisting children to learn and that this
‘effectiveness’ is closely connected to certain
organizational factors, including “clear school
goals,” “rigorous academic standards,” “order
and discipline,” “homework,” “clear leadership
by the school principal,” “teacher participation
in decision-making,” “parental support and
cooperation” and “high expectations for
students”, the existence of teachers’
collaborative cultures (9).
In additional, some research has also shown
that effective schools support a collective
ideology focused on learning and based on the
belief that all children can and should have an
opportunity to learn. In the frame of this
intention, the positive role of students
themselves is usually stressed upon: it can be
implemented when students have high
academic expectations and regard their
classmates through a prism of academic
criteria. These results have been applied to
design the different kind of programmes and
tools to help ineffective and less competitive
schools with a high number of lower-class,
migrant or ethnic minority students, improve
their academic achievements and school
performance.
The increased focus on learning as an
opportunity to raise the effectiveness of
education is associated with many
recommendations for the development of
education and educational policies worldwide.
It is especially emphasized that schooling
without learning is a wasted opportunity. More
than that, it is a great injustice: the children
whom society is failing most are the ones who
most need a good education to succeed in life.
There is a possibility to improve the learning
process and its effectiveness by advancing on
three fronts:
• Assess learning – to make it a serious goal.
This means using well-designed student
assessments to gauge the health of education
systems learning measures to spotlight hidden
exclusions, make choices, and evaluate
progress.
• Act on evidence – to make schools work for
all learners. Evidence on how people learn has
exploded in recent decades, along with an
increase in educational innovation. Countries
can make much better use of this evidence to
set priorities for their own practice and
innovations.
• Align actors – to make the whole system
work for learning. Countries must recognize
that all the classroom innovation in the world
is unlikely to have much impact if, because of
technical and political barriers, the system as a
whole does not support learning (10).
It is this kind of barriers or restrictions (not
only technical or political ones) that a number
of scientists make sense of. They reveal that
there are essential limitations to improvement
in problem schools and that pedagogical and
organizational effectiveness are in fact strongly
related to school intake or school-mix effects.
It means that the concentration of academically
and socially disadvantaged children in certain
schools and in certain classes within schools
tends to generate effects in terms of teaching
and learning that cannot be totally, or even to a
great extent, counteracted by professional
involvement and organizational arrangements
(11).
Competition and school segregation
The teachers’ practices and ideological frames
are beginning to change and modify in the
context of school segregation. If in a
heterogeneous environment teachers are
usually oriented in their teaching to the
‘average’ student in accordance with a certain
educational standard, in homogeneous, low-
achieving schools or classrooms, they tend to
adapt to specific student intake, offering a
more limited curriculum and not so demanding
evaluations of student’s work. Based on this,
they start to develop a special professional
attitude related to the reorientation from the
instrumental approach of assessment to the
emotional-expressive manner of
communication and teaching with an emphasis
on rather social and emotional well-being and

LAVRENCOVA E.
288 Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020
personal support of students from vulnerable
groups.
Segregation among schools, partly the
consequence of the urban segregation patterns
and parental school flight evoked before but
also resulting from competition among
schools, is thus an essential factor to be taken
into account. This competition is related to
increasing school autonomy, which, in the
absence of a clear egalitarian ideal and the
presence of strong pressure on schools to
become more effective, leads to competitive
rather than collaborative relations between
them. (12).
Such competition between schools produces
the situation in which certain school
institutions with the necessary capacity to
participate in this market game adapt their
educational technologies, pedagogical
approaches and ideologies, organizational
models to the practices of the most competitive
schools. But this also implies a significant dose
of external institutional influences such as
school reputation, based on pupil intake and
pupil performance, and degree of competition
in the given local territory, which is connected
to the demographic situation, parental
expectations and strategies and applied policies
concerning autonomy and choice.
As a result of such market positioning within
the educational sphere in many countries, a
hierarchical pyramidal structure of school
education is formed with clearly defined lines
of public favoritism and exclusion. At the top
are schools that have a high, well-established
reputation and are hardly affected by
competition. Their main strategy consists in
maintaining the external and internal factors
that have created their reputation, such as
selection, strong learning expectations or
severe discipline. Their privileged position (not
as an expression of better financial support, but
as a constellation of the above factors) can be
illustrated by the example of Bulgaria, where a
given type of school institutions are qualified
as elite.
Schools with a good reputation that start losing
students will develop ‘conquering strategies’,
that is, entrepreneurial, externally oriented
practices. They will focus on developing
attractive school provision and on ‘scanning’
the potential market, sometimes neglecting
internal pressures (13). In the further
downward movement within these reputational
rankings, academically and socially
heterogeneous schools will develop their own
specific strategy trying to attract both the
students – representatives of middle-class and
some other categories of pupils, such as
capable children from low-status families,
children from minority families with more
solid cultural capital, etc. Further down will be
those schools that are mainly oriented towards
low-status categories of students belonging to
families with poorer cultural and educational
capital, with low aspirations and possible
behavioral problems. At the bottom of the
hierarchy will be „ghetto“ schools, often
segregated on an ethno cultural basis,
demonstrating a significant distance from
existing school market mechanisms at the
local level, and focus mainly on helping
children with learning and discipline problems
through specific supportive procedures and
pedagogic interventions.
Such a hierarchical arrangement of schools,
directly reflecting on the educational
trajectories of the students taught in them,
causes serious imbalances in the course of
social mobility and significant differences in
professional and, more broadly, social
realization for the representatives of different
strata and groups of society. Usually, such a
scenario is typical for countries that adhere to
„weak“ versions of equality of opportunity in
education, which are incrementalist in nature,
they demand a greater or lesser extent of
manipulation of resources, provision,
organization, and priorities within the existing
meritocratic and highly competitive structure
of the educational system.
Significantly more successful in terms of
increasing the educational chances of children
from low-status groups are the attempts of
countries that adhere to another (radical)
approach. Within this approach, education is
regarded as an agent for the reproduction and
legitimation of the culture, interests and the
power of dominant groups. The main intention
is related to reconstructing the institutional
structure and fight against the didactic
approaches and competitive individualism
within an achievement-orientated learning
environment with an emphasis on student
participation and responsibility for learning,
genuine collaboration, and group-centered
approaches (14). A number of data from
international studies show that such an
orientation in the field of education allows

LAVRENCOVA E.
Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020 289
achieving a significant reduction in the
differences in academic achievements between
excellent students and those with the lowest
results.
Bulgarian case of school segregation
Against the background of these countries and
even compared to the average levels for the
OECD and EU countries, Bulgaria stands out
with a very strong relationship between the
educational results of students and their socio-
economic origin. For comparison, in the OECD
countries almost a third (30.5%), and in Bulgaria,
59.7% of the differences between student
outcomes are due to factors of the school
environment - school management, teacher
qualifications, school resources, the socio-
economic and cultural background of the
students, etc. (15, 16). It is clear that in Bulgaria,
students are more dependent on their parents'
income and social status than their peers in most
European countries, including those with poorer
economic conditions such as Albania. Income
inequality and differences in the professional and
educational status of parents prove to be a great
burden for students. The data show that the
difference between children with low-skilled
parents and those with high-skilled parents is 2.5
years. And when it comes to disadvantaged
children, the situation seems even more
worrying. In turn, the specifics of the grouping of
schools in Bulgaria, which is characterized by an
obvious tendency to the homorganic composition
of students and respectively, the dominant
presence of students of the same socio-economic
origin, further enhances the negative effect of
low socio-economic status on children's
educational trajectories.
Ultimately, the systematically reported large
differences between the results of students with
different backgrounds, which are consistently
observed at all stages of PISA, as well as the
applied policies of selection and distribution of
students show that the Bulgarian school system,
along with the socio-economic origin of students,
contributes to the deepening of educational
inequalities. In this way, the institutional system
of school education not only reproduces the
existing social structure of Bulgarian society with
its inherent large-scale social inequality but even
strengthens it. The real scale of social inequality
in the country is eloquently evidenced by the
latest statistics on poverty in 2019, according to
which Bulgaria has the highest share of people at
risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU –
32.5%, and for persons under 17 it amounts to
33.9%. Moreover, if we look at the main
indicators by ethnic groups (Table 1), poverty
remains highly ethnicized (the situation is clearly
maintained throughout the past years of
transition) with a sharply outlined minority (and
especially Roma) profile.
The only chance for the children from the Roma
minority community to get out of the poverty
trap is to get an education, to achieve a higher
level of education. But even with the increase in
the coverage of these children in the school
system, inequality does not decrease precisely as
a result of educational segregation. And the main
explanation for this is that schooling is not the
same as learning. (17).
Table 1. Estimates of some key indicators by ethnic groups in 2019
Indicators
Relative share - %
Standard error
Confidence interval
95% lower limit, in
percent
95% upper limit,
in percent
Population at risk of poverty and social exclusion and ethnicity
Bulgarian ethnic group
18.6
0.9
17.0
20.4
Turkish ethnic group
38.5
3.5
31.8
45.6
Roma ethnic group
82.6
3.5
74.6
88.5
Another ethnic group
18.4
7.9
7.5
38.6
Risk of poverty and ethnicity
Bulgarian ethnic group
16.7
0.6
15.5
18.0
Turkish ethnic group
31.6
2.5
26.9
36.6
Roma ethnic group
64.8
3.8
57.0
71.9
Another ethnic group
21.5
7.2
10.6
38.9
Material deprivation and ethnicity
Bulgarian ethnic group
14.8
0.6
13.7
16.0
Turkish ethnic group
22.1
2.3
17.9
27.0
Roma ethnic group
63.0
3.9
55.1
70.2
Another ethnic group
13.3
5.2
5.9
27.3
Source: National Statistical Institute https://www.nsi.bg/bg/content/8258

LAVRENCOVA E.
290 Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020
Erosion of learning exacerbates inequality: it
seriously hobbles the disadvantaged children,
who are most in need of the impetus that a
good education can offer. Difficulties are
generated from the first steps to the education
system. The poor developmental foundations
and lower levels of pre-school skills resulting
from deprivation mean Roma children arrive at
school unprepared to benefit fully from it (18,
19).
But when, in addition to a low level of pre-
school preparation, these children are faced
with the inability to learn effectively in a
homogenized environment, and to this is
possibly added a lack of learning-focused
inputs, ineffective teaching and incompetent
management, the quality of education is called
into question. At the same time, in the absence
of real training and adequate knowledge, the
opportunities for subsequent realization of
individuals are drastically reduced, which in
the long run leads to an increase in income
inequality and a lower degree of social
mobility among the population.
Undoubtedly, one of the most significant
points here is related to the role of teachers. As
noted in the research literature, the teacher is
the most important factor affecting learning in
schools. In the United States, for example,
students with great teachers advance 1.5 grade
levels or more over a single school year,
compared with just 0.5 grade levels for those
with an ineffective teacher (20, 21).
The situation in Bulgaria is similar: it is no
coincidence that the highest educational results
are demonstrated by students from the so-
called elite schools, where due to the selected
composition of students and high prestige of
the schools, usually teach the most qualified
teachers. The situation in "Roma" schools is
much different. They are often seen as quite
unattractive places for professional realization
by teachers, which causes an outflow of the
most trained staff. Besides, the presence of a
number of non-specific problems and
difficulties arising in the process of educational
work become additional challenges and
demotivating factors for the pedagogical
specialists left to work there.
Practically every fifth Bulgarian junior high
school teacher works in a school where for
more than half of the students the Bulgarian
language is not their mother tongue. This fact
is a very serious challenge for the teachers in
these schools, who presumably have to
conduct the teaching process in Bulgaria (16)
In addition, the predominant number of
students in these schools comes from socially
disadvantaged families, which further
complicates the work of teachers and often
leads to the need for them to perform functions
that are not inherent in their professions, aimed
to compensate some deficits in the family
environment.
This imposed excessive focus mainly on
helping children with learning and discipline
problems along with an insufficient level of
teaching experience and competencies leads to
neglect of learning-focused inputs, and hence
to a low quality of teaching. Well, known
enough, that effective teaching strategies
usually suppose targeting teaching to the level
of the student includes using community
teachers to provide lessons to the lowest
performers, reorganizing classes by students’
ability, or using technology to adapt lessons to
individual student needs. But in most cases,
such ethnicized schools do not have sufficient
organizational, managerial and motivational
resources to implement these profitable
strategies.
Ineffective teaching here is often superimposed
on ineffective school leadership, which means
that school principals are not actively involved
in helping teachers solve problems, do not
provide instructional advice, and do not set
goals that prioritize learning (22). This in turn
closes the negative circle of barriers and
restrictions on access to quality education for
the most disadvantaged students.
CONCLUSION
Educational inequality in the field of school
communities has become one of the
sustainable institutions of post-communist
Bulgaria, and the plans to modernize the
system of school education probably do not
involve (outside the realm of political rhetoric)
deconstruction of these inequalities. And
although the development of inequalities in
education is rightly associated with an
objective and inescapable contradiction
inherent in the learning process itself, which is
expressed in the conflict between public and
individual interests, the admissibility of public
intervention through education in the private
life of citizens (23), the specifics of the current
socio-cultural and educational situation
requires a more tangible equalization of

LAVRENCOVA E.
Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2020 291
educational opportunities both in Bulgaria and
in most other countries around the world.
Many successful school practices show that a
number of interventions, innovations, and
approaches have led to significant
improvements in training. These promising
approaches are offered in a very wide
variability and cover new pedagogical
methods, ways to increase the motivation of
students and teachers, models of effective
school management, and various technologies
for improving learning. They may not be fully
applicable in all contexts, but the fact that such
an improvement in learning outcomes is
possible, especially for children from
disadvantaged social groups, as the experience
of some countries shows, seems encouraging.
REFERENCES
1. Becker, G., The human capital: A theoretical
and empirical analysis with special reference to
education. 3d ed. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, USA, 1993.
2. Earl, D., How can tertiary education deliver
better value to the economy? Tertiary education
occasional paper 2010/08, New Zealand
Government, Ministry of Education, 2010,
Accessed 05.05.2020, ISSN 1179-5026 (online)
from
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/ass
ets/pdf_file/0004/86980/value-of-tertiary-
education.pdf).
3. Sewell, W.H., Shah, V.P., Socioeconomic
Status, Intelligence, and the Attainment of
Higher Education, Sociology of Education, Vol.
40, 1:1–23, 1967.
4. Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., Portes, A., The
Educational and Early Occupational Attainment
Process, American Sociological Review, Vol.
34, 1:82– 92, 1969.
5. Coleman, J. S., The Equality of Education
Opportunity Report, Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, USA, 1966.
6. Coleman, J. S., The University and the Society’s
New Demands Upon It // Content and Context
on College Education. Ed. by C. Kaysen. –
New-York: Mc Graw-Hill, P. 359-400, 1973.
7. Gamoran, A., The stratification of high school
learning opportunities. Sociology of Education,
Vol. 60, 3:135-155, 1987.
8. Oakes, J., Keeping track: How schools structure
inequality (2nd edition). Yale University Press,
ISBN 0300108303, New Haven, CT, 2005.
9. Purkey, S., Smith, M., Effective schools: a
review, Elementary School Journal, 83:427-52,
1983.
10. World Bank, World Development Report 2018:
Learning to Realize Education's Promise.
Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank,
2018, Accessed 05.05.2020, (online) from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10
986/28340.
11. Thrupp, M., Schools Making a Difference: let’s
be realistic! Buckingham: Open University
Press, 1999.
12. Van Zanten, A., New Modes of Reproducing
Social Inequality in Education: the changing
role of parents, teachers, schools and
educational policies, European Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 4, 3:155-169, 2005.
13. Bagley, C., Woods, P., Glatter, R., Scanning the
Market: school strategies for discovering
parental perspectives, Educational Management
and Administration, Vol. 24, 2:125-138, 1996.
14. Troyana, B., A conceptual overview of
strategies to combat racial inequality in
education: introductory essay, pp.1-10, Racial
Inequality in Education, edited by Troyana
Burry, Tavistock Publications, London, 1987.
15. Prirodnie nauki I tehnologii v uchilishteto na
XXI vek. Rezultati ot uchastieto na Bulgaria v
Programata za mezhdunarodno otsenyavane na
uchenitsite PISA 2015, CKOKO, Sofia 2016,
Accessed 05.05.2020, (online) from
http://www.copuo.bg/upload/docs/2016-
12/book_2016_web.pdf.
16. Perspektivi pred prepodavaneto i ucheneto,
rezultati ot Mezhdunarodno izsledvane TALIS
2013 na Organizatsiyata za ikonomichesko
satrudnichestvo i razvitie, CKOKO, Sofia 2015,
Accessed 05.05.2020, (online) from
http://www.copuo.bg/upload/docs/2015-
09/BG_Report_final_TALIS_2015.pdf.
17. Pritchett, L., The Rebirth of Education:
Schooling Aren’t Learning. Washington, DC:
Center for Global Development; Baltimore:
Brookings Institution Press, 2013.
18. Paxson, C. and Schady N., Cognitive
Development among Young Children in
Ecuador: The Roles of Wealth, Health, and
Parenting, Journal of Human Resources 42 (1):
49–84, 2007.
19. Schady, N., Behrman, J., Caridad M., Azuero,
R. et al., Wealth Gradients in Early Childhood
Cognitive Development in Five Latin American
Countries, Journal of Human Resources 50 (2):
446–63, 2015.
20. 20. Hanushek, E., The Trade-Off between
Child Quantity and Quality, Journal of Political
Economy 100 (1): 84–117, 1992.
21. Rockoff, J. (2004). “The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Student Achievement:
Evidence from Panel Data.” American
Economic Review 94 (2): 247–52.
22. Orazem, P., Glewwe, P., Patrinos, H., The
Benefits and Costs of Alternative Strategies
to Improve Educational Outcomes,
Department of Economics Working Paper
07028, Iowa State University, Ames, 2007.
23. Jarvis, P., Paradoxes of Learning. On becoming
an Individual in Society, L.: Routledge, 2012.