Mind the equity!

Image created using AI

License Creative Commons

Xavier Massó

Although later qualified by the OECD itself, the news that the decline in PISA performance was more pronounced among pupils from affluent families than among those from poorer families made the day for some poor devils, who felt a little more equal as a result, even if only in ignorance.

This is the crudely simplistic version of the do-gooder justification trotted out in response to the poor results in earlier editions of PISA: yes, the results are very poor, it was conceded, but we were also leaders in equity, and our pupils were happier. They no longer say this because the results are not merely poor; they are among the worst imaginable, and we are running out of superlatives. But it was true: here, mediocrity is more evenly distributed, and that is what matters. What is actually being distributed does not seem to be a problem. Perhaps misery loves company…

There are words whose meaning has gradually been worn away by irresponsible and tendentious use, until they end up serving equally well for almost anything. This is when anyone can claim the word for themselves while also serving their own interests. This is what has happened to the term equity. At this point, all we can do is, as the hot-headed hitman in the film Airbag [1] put it, go back to the “concept” and see what we actually find. So, what do we mean when we talk about equity in education?

Once the universal right to education and the principle of equality of opportunity are accepted, the question becomes how that principle, which everyone claims to want and guarantee, is to be implemented effectively. This is where equity comes in, as the practical embodiment of equality of opportunity and as a means of promoting and securing it, from the perspective of governance and management. However, if one does not consider the school or academic dimension at all, it follows that curricula, for example, become subordinate to the criterion of equity, as do any number of other school-related aspects of educational institutions; which, incidentally, opens the door to talking, with every appearance of seriousness, about something as absurd as “inequitable curricula”, thereby committing an absurdity that is not merely plausible but almost inevitable: we have already fallen into the trap.

But let us not get ahead of ourselves. The educational debate over how equality of opportunity is to be made concrete revolves around equity as it applies within an educational model that is simply taken for granted—that is, one that is not questioned beyond whether it generates inequity. It is rather like discussing how to divide the cake without first checking whether it is poisoned.

With this in mind, equity, understood as the requirement to distribute educational quality [2], becomes a central issue, the proper and fair application of which is associated with educational success. This is a valid inference in itself, but it does not extend beyond the strict limits of its application within an educational model that is simply taken for granted. This leaves the very notion of educational success hanging in the air, whatever that may mean, and confines it to the theoretical stage, where it remains merely nominal. In other words, equity is the criterion governing the application of something that may be good or bad, desirable or undesirable, abundant or scarce… without presupposing any judgement about what is being applied under that criterion. And, truth be told, given the results produced by our education system, invoking equity as a consolation sounds blissfully naïve, or simply cynical.

Equality of opportunity is inherent in the right to education, and its effective realisation requires guarantees of equity. So far, everything seems very clear. In reality, the problem arises from a question of priorities and subordination. If we prioritise equity as such, overlooking the academic dimension and treating curricula and content as subordinate to equity, then we are reversing the proper order of things by prioritising what was subordinate. For equity does not precede education; rather, it is the requirement that education be realised as a right within a framework of genuine equality of opportunity. Otherwise, we would be treating equity as a subjective and equivocal right, dependent on each person’s own interpretation and preferred focus.

Let us now look at the definitions given for equity in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE)[3], and at which of them are applicable to education:

• Equality of mind.
• Habitual benevolent temperance; a tendency to be guided, or to make judgements, by a sense of duty or conscience rather than by the strict prescriptions of justice or the unambiguous wording of the law.
• Natural justice, as opposed to the letter of positive law.
• Moderation in the prices of goods or in contractual terms.
• A disposition that prompts one to give each person what they deserve.

It seems clear that, at a minimum, definitions 2), 3) and 5) can be understood in educational terms, and that all of them refer to some kind of extrinsic correction of a given state of affairs. Such correction presupposes some form of inequality, imbalance or injustice in the conditions affecting the various agents involved, which is then addressed in order to rectify the situation in the desired terms. It is a criterion for the practical application of a law derived from rights, an ad hoc adaptation of the inalienable right to equality of opportunity and, therefore, never something that goes beyond or stands outside it.

Let us now consider what is meant by equity in educational terms. For this, we turn to the work by López Rupérez already cited, which in turn refers to M. J. Bowman [4]. We reproduce the relevant passage verbatim [5]:

1. Providing everyone with the same level of education.
2. Bringing everyone to the same level of cognitive competence.
3. Bringing everyone to a certain common minimum level.
4. Ensuring that each person receives all the education needed to fulfil all their potential.
5. Providing individuals with educational resources according to their capacity to make effective use of them.
6. Providing everyone with the same opportunities at the outset, whatever may happen thereafter.
7. Requiring that, at every level of the education system, all groups (sexes, ethnicities, social classes, etc.) be represented proportionally according to their demographic weight.

It is immediately apparent that equity can be understood in many different ways, and that these are difficult to combine and even incompatible. Taken as a whole, what we have is a heterogeneous amalgam in which prioritising any one of its elements necessarily comes at the expense of the others. It also leaves equality of opportunity seriously compromised.

In any event, if we accept that equity must be a principle subordinate to equality of opportunity, from which it derives, Bowman’s list contains something very interesting and revealing: while definitions four, five and six indicate a conception of equity based on equality of opportunity understood as a starting point, definitions one, two, three and seven instead point towards equality of opportunity understood as an end point, in some cases treating it more as a collective right than an individual one.

There is undoubtedly a problem of ontological incompatibility between these two concepts of equality of opportunity, but that is not all. If we consider together the four definitions that understand equality of opportunity as an end point, we see that in most cases they are incompatible with one another, as well as capable of being multiplied indefinitely. Their respective implicit demands also substantially alter the very idea of an education system in terms of its aims and functions.

Ultimately, equality of opportunity in education does not even appear to mean the same thing depending on whether we regard it as a starting point or an end point. If it is understood as an end point, it is necessarily subordinated to whichever criterion of equity is adopted. This is not so, or is so to a much lesser degree, if we take together the definitions that fall on the side of equality of opportunity as a starting point: these display a greater degree of compatibility with one another and are, moreover, hierarchically subordinate to the principle of equality of opportunity.

Needless to say, the model of equality of opportunity currently in vogue in education is the one that regards it as an end point—that is, as we said earlier, the Cambodian way: what matters is that the distribution be equitable; what is actually distributed is beside the point, and so is the fact that the term equity has been completely taken out of context. So, the next time some pedagogocrat tells us how equitable our education system is, let us take the claim with a pinch of salt. Enough of passing one thing off as something else. Not everything is equity simply because that is what they call it, not even when the rich fail as well.

___

[1] Airbag, Juanma Bajo Ulloa (1997)

[2] F. López Rupérez, ‘La gobernanza de los sistemas educativos. Fundamentos y orientaciones’, Narcea (2021).

[3] https://dle.rae.es/equidad?m=form

[4] M. J. Bowman, ‘Education and opportunity’, Oxford Review of Education, 1.

[5] The numbering is ours.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons