The difference between equality and equity in the public education system
I use my course space to get students to understand the difference between equity and equality. It is important for them to think how environmental structures and resources influence concepts around development and learning in the field of psychology. I infused discussions on development with the Flint, Michigan case and how the contamination of water has devastating effects on prenatal and child development. I used operant conditioning to frame punitive school discipline and provided statistics on the kinds of behaviors that warrant a suspension in public school in the United States. We usually have a discussion on whether such practices decrease the presence of unwanted behaviors in children and adolescents.
I write from time-to-time on a professional blog about the trajectory of race in the public education system, someone always decides to respond and educate me about how talking about racial differences only aims to perpetuate division and the importance of holding all children to the same standards. This was in response to any argument on integrating historical sheroes and heroes in STEM learning that were not European.
Holding all children to the same standards — I do not think I disagree with the foundation of this argument but we must understand how this is an untruth — a myth in the public education system. A myth because we do not hold all children to the same standards — the only time we rely on enforcing standards in the most vehement way is when opposition to standards disrupts the historical privileges affluent and majority white groups gained. For example, when there was resistance to changing admission standards into universities like the University of Michigan in order to provide access to nonwhite students. The result, numerous lawsuits emerged arguing how such practices were unfair and the need to end Affirmative Action.
Holding all children to the same standards negates the structural issue of racism in the public education system. It loosely holds on to the ideals of equality but does not address the issue of equity in the United States. For those of you who need a quick lesson. Equality allows us all to begin at the same place or given the same opportunity but equity is about resources and how environmental structures provide access to those resources. That would be my academic definition.
Here is a simpler example I use in my courses.
Imagine two children approach a set of stairs, one is in a wheelchair and the other has two functional legs. Now both of these children start at the bottom of the stairs — we can say that is equality — they both have the opportunity to take the steps from the bottom of the stairs to the top. However, one has an advantage and this advantage manifest in the structure of the stairs (designed to allow the child with two legs to walk up the stairs) and the resources available (two legs). If the child in the wheelchair wants to get up the stairs, they can try using the wheelchair (not possible), they can get out and crawl up the stairs (stress and strain placed on their body and mind), or someone can provide them with a ramp. The child in the wheelchair has the capability to do it, but their journey will be slightly different.
If the environment is designed to ensure all children reach the top of the stairs then it will provide the resources and structure to do so. Do you get it?
Every child has access to education in the United States but all children do not have access to the same resources nor does the structure grant them the same privileges and access. We know that children who live in certain areas due to tax-based revenue will have more access to high-quality teachers, technology, and college prep courses. We know within schools, students who take advanced or college prep courses have a different educational experience than those who take remedial courses. And, regardless of one’s racial classification, we know the number of college prep courses completed relates to higher SAT performance and college persistence and graduation.
We know the accountability movement has led to the adoption of standardized tests to evaluate learning potential and how performance varies and outcomes from these tests vary. A number of economically disenfranchised, black and brown (i.e., African American, indigenous American, and Latinx) children, on average, perform lower than their peers on these tests. Performance on these tests will often support a narrative of learning deficits, placement into remedial and special education programs, etc. People will believe it is some innate characteristic of intelligence that prevents these students from doing well. However, evidence suggest the students who do well on these tests continue to experience further barriers to placement in gifted programs due to subjective referral criteria from teachers. We know this is beyond individual traits of intelligence but barriers in the public education system.
A recent study conducted in North Carolina found that economically disenfranchised students who were performing well on the end-of-grade test were not getting recommended into gifted programs at the same rate as more affluent students. Findings from this research indicated some of the more affluent students received lower scores on the end-of-grade test than these students. The inaction of teachers and other school personnel, biases, and beliefs regarding the academic potential and capacity of racially diverse students constrains a willingness to refer these students to gifted programs. These teachers influence the school structure and serve as important resources to students, without them, smart and brilliant students can remain idle in remedial education programs.
We know the structure of the school, for example, the use of punitive practices will influence the extent to which young people are disconnected from the school environment. We know assigning students who are perceived as disrespectful, insubordinate, tardy or skip school to out-of-school suspension overwhelmingly affects black and brown children. We know the development of zero tolerance policies was in response to the politicization of mass school shootings committed by white middle-class males; however, the children more often suspended from enforcing zero tolerance were not white middle-class males. We know children are prevented from accessing the academic resources needed to learn when they are sent out of school through suspension. And, if a student in not in school learning then they are more likely to display learning gaps and other related challenges.
I hope children, parents, educators, and whoever else finds value in holding are system accountable reads this. Disrupt this untruth, we hold all children to the same standards, and shake up our selective amnesia and refusal to acknowledge how the allocation of resources and structures in the public education system prevent achieving the actions of no child left behind and every student succeeds. We must question every policy; ask how will this policy redistribute resources and alter the structure in a way where those who have historically been the most marginalized will be at the top of the stairs in the end? If we tell each child you must race to the top without examining the structure and allocation of resources in the public education system we will continue to leave many children at the bottom. While many children are born into social conditions they have no control over poverty and racism it is our job to work to change these conditions.
Telling the young child in the wheelchair to try harder, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and just believe they can do it reduces accountability for the system and places more stress on the child. We must find ways to challenge the system and advocate for systems of support in families, communities, among educators in order to continue to lead this cause despite who is in charge.
