Curriculum Wars In The Name of Equity and Equality: Is it real?
By Shamsukama Bin Mohd Zahri
Submitted on June 4, 2010
For EDUC7030: Curriculum Design & Practice
Masters Of Educational Studies (Mathemnatics)Introduction
It is interesting to found that globalisation has inspired people all around the world to think about what will happen to the world in the future. Among the most interesting parts is how globalisation has made people tends to think about other’s future. Even about the one who they do not know and have not met in the real life. Another interesting fact is how globalisation has agitated the sense of fighting for one’s rights and equality which has charged one’s attention about how changes in the surrounding community affect one’s rights. However, reading this news below made me rethinking about what will happen to education in the future if everyone tends to think only about himself and his/her groups’ interest and subsequently want special attention to be drawn in the school curriculum.
In explaining this notion, I agreed with Apple (as cited in Murray, 2008) that political and ideological issues are inherent in curriculum development (besides educational issues). Therefore, for me, it is the time to go back to the basic question in educational curriculum design that is “What knowledge is of most worth?” This question should be discussed in the light of equity and equality in education, so that, we can clearly see whether the slogan of “asking for equality” that have been used by some political and ideological groups are really for the sake of children’s education or not. This issue is important in order to make sure that curriculum reforms can be implemented smoothly without wasting time wiggling with suggestions that are not related to the main objective of the reforms itself (i.e. children’s education for successful future life).
Full article can be read using this link below: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,50494,00.html
Equity and Equality
Both phrases seem similar and sometimes they are both reciprocally used in discussing about human rights. Surprisingly, all dictionaries are unanimous in differencing both phrases. For instance, TheFreeDictionary.com defines equity as
- The state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair.
- Something that is just, impartial, and fair.
- Law
- Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness.
- A system of jurisprudence supplementing and serving to modify the rigor of common law.
- An equitable right or claim
- Equity of redemption.
- The residual value of a business or property beyond any mortgage thereon and liability therein
- The market value of securities less any debt incurred.
- Common stock and preferred stock.
- Funds provided to a business by the sale of stock
The same dictionary defines equality as
- The state or quality of being equal.
- Mathematics A statement, usually an equation, that one thing equals another.
I listed down some other links that gives the same explanation about equity and equality.
- http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-equity-and-equality/
- http://frtuck.blogspot.com/2006/12/equity-vs-equality.html (Tuck, December 6, 2006)
These links below discusses about educational equity and equality.
- http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/31/educational-equity-and-educational-equality/ (Brighouse, March 31, 2009)
- http://mste.illinois.edu/hill/papers/equity.html (Hill, no date)
Therefore, equity and equality are different in definition. To conclude, equity means ‘fairness or the ideal of being fair’ but equality means ‘the state of being equal’. Due to Sherman and Poirier (2007), - in writing for UNESCO’s Educational Equity and Public Policy: Comparing results from 16 countries- equality was listed as one of the equity principles. In contrast, Brighouse (2008) explained equality as it is as the same as equity but he later (March 31, 2009) admits that equity in fact differs from equality. The notion that equity is more meaningful than equality is supported by many scholars (see Hill, no date; Tuck, December 6, 2006), except for Brighouse (December 31, 2009) in which he argues that equity is some sort of action to calm people for not achieve pure equality. In valuing the meaning of equity and equality, I am prone to accept dictionary’s definition (which is resonance with most scholars) and see both words in a positive way (rather than agreeing with Brighouse).
Moreover, in addressing about equality, almost all scholars frame their discussion among the notion of every child should get equal opportunity to succeed in education rather than they should be treated equally in every aspect (see Jencks, 1988; Brighouse & Swift, 2008). This notion has been widely discussed in the light of improving the accessibility to school and education sources, and reception of a quality education.
One the other hand, equity has been explained as the notion that every child should be treated as fair as possible in order to enable them to have similar level of educational resources and similar result (Sherman & Poirier, 2007). In this case, fair does not mean equal because children from different region might need different type of support. For instance, afterschool classes might be needed in a rural area rather than in a city due to the fact that additional resources of education are limited in that region. It is important to acknowledge that different educational treatment might be needed by different individual and/or community. Even, sometimes the difference might be based on gender and race/ethnicity. For example, spatial-thinking skills have been found as naturally better among boys than girls. Therefore, mathematics geometry curriculum should be able to address the weakness of girls in spatial-thinking skills more than that to boys.
Obviously, it is likely to say that the focus of new curriculum is neither to equalize everyone in every aspect nor to treats every difference in everyone. In fact, educational equality and equity in curriculum reforms means to make sure every child have the same standard of education by equalizing the opportunity to have better education and trying to make education equitable for every child. Moreover, we should remember that not everything can be equalized but we surely can equate them!
Does everything in curriculum wars really need to be addressed?
Is it necessary to include every personal political interest into curriculum reforms? Does it worth it to include everything and gain nothing? Thus, what is important and more in priority to be addressed? As we discussed in previous section, the notion of equity and equality in education is more on how to design a curriculum such that it will be more equitable in quality and equal in opportunity to every children regardless of place, ethnic, status and situation. To this extent, I agree with the excerpt below (taken from the same news article)
In addition to my arguments, I listed below some principles of equality and equity in education from some scholars to show clearly that the notion of equality and equity in education is nothing more than for education itself (obviously, not for other unrelated interest).
UNESCO’s Principles of equity (Sherman & Poirier, 2007, p.24)
1. Horizontal equity
Serve equitable education system for children who equally situated (i.e. for them to have similar level of educational resources and achieve similar results).
2. Vertical equity
Serve education system that can be considered as equitable for children who differently situated and unequal starting points (i.e. for them to have considerably similar level of educational resources and achieve similar results).
3. Equal Education Opportunity
Children should have equal opportunity to succeed (relatively based on children’s motivation and effort).
Principle of equality (Jencks, 1988, p.519-520)
1. Democratic equality
To give every child equal time and attention regardless of their performance, effort and attitude, and how the time and attention given to them beneficial to others.
2. Moralistic justice
To reward virtue and punish vice.
3. Weak humane justice
To compensate previously disadvantage students (in education)
4. Strong humane justice
To compensate previously disadvantage students (in area other than education including those genetically disadvantage)
5. Utilitarianism
To give equal opportunity to race for an unequal reward (a race must be open, levelled and based on performance)
Last but not least, I leave it to the readers to evaluate whether four ideological fronts attached below (obviously it is the same with the one I have attached before) ask for an ‘educationally reasonable’ demand for the sake of children’s education and successful future life.
REFERENCES
Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. (2008). Putting educational equality in its place. American Finance and Policy,444-466.
Brighouse (March 31, 2009). Educational Equity and Educational Equality. Retrieved on May 2, 2010 from http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/31/educational-equity-and-educational-equality/
Hill, J. (no date). Equity vs. Equality? Retrieved on May 2, 2010 from http://mste.illinois.edu/hill/papers/equity.html
Jencks, C. (1988). Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?. Ethics, 98(3), 518-533.
Murray, H. (2008). Curriculum wars: national identity in education.London Review of Education, 6(1), 39-45.
Sherman, J.D. & Poirier, J.M. (2007). Educational Equity and Public Policy: Comparing results from 16 countries. Montreal: UNESCO-UIS.
Tuck, F. (December 6, 2006). Equity vs. Equality. Retrieved on Mei 2, 2010 from http://frtuck.blogspot.com/2006/12/equity-vs-equality.html
