Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permissions to reproduce granted
if authorship is acknowledged]
Shortly
after posting my blog Good
Intentions are not Enough I received an email from a reader asking
about my conception of equity. Here is my response:
The
promise of education is that who one is, where one lives, and with whom one lives
should not affect the educational outcomes one achieves. That means that,
all other things being equal, students should receive the same treatment, the
same resources, and achieve the same outcomes unless
there are good (justifiable) reasons why they should not.
There
are two considerations in this assertion. One is all other things being
equal (i.e., the same). Obviously no two persons are the same. So, what
becomes important is on what relevant dimensions should there be equivalence or
sameness.
The
second consideration in the assertion is unless there are good (justifiable)
reasons why they should not be treated in the same way, receive the same
resources, or achieve the same outcomes. The key is what counts as good
(justifiable) reasons.
Canadian
education is heavily influenced by the United States. Two US documents
influenced Canadian thought and discourse about inequities (inequalities) in
educational opportunity. One is that the assignment to separate facilities based
on the pigmentation of one’s skin is inherently unequal.[1]
Notwithstanding the considerable differences of opinion that have emerged about
it over the past fifty plus years, another influential document was Equality
of Educational Opportunity by the sociologist James S. Coleman and others.[2]
A central assertion of the Report was that the educational and economic
backgrounds of the parents of Black students (and students of other ethnicities)
and White students was the main influence on their achievement.
Those
ideas – especially the second - helped enshrine the notion that children from
families living in impoverished circumstances and whose caregivers are less
well educated enter school at a disadvantage relative to their more affluent
peers whose parents are better educated. Provincial practice and the practice
of school boards reflect that assumption in their efforts to mitigate that
disadvantage.
Many
provincial governments have an index of economic and social conditions that
they use to allocate funding to school boards, for example. School boards that
routinely provide half-day kindergarten have justified providing full-day
kindergarten in schools located in impoverished communities. Arguments for the provision of early
childhood education often refer to the notion that such programs will help
ameliorate the differences between children living in poverty and their more
affluent peers. There are other practices that are justified in the name of equity
or equality of educational opportunity that argue that differences in economic
and social capital justify the differential opportunities and treatment of
students. I have written elsewhere that the educational impact of the
additional resources is rarely evaluated.
The
provision of additional educational support to children whose behaviour is
different from most of their peers is justified based on those differences (intellectual
and learning disabilities; behavioural needs or mental illness; physically
dependent, physical disabilities or chronic health impairments; deafness or hearing
impairment; blindness or visual impairment, etc.). These differences are deemed
relevant to ensuring the educational success of these students. A key question
is: which, if any, of these differences justifies adjusting one’s expectations
regarding the outcomes of education?
Justifying
differential outcomes for students whose intellectual capacity is severely
impaired is not difficult, though how much of a difference in outcome is more
problematic. Should similar adjustments be made for students
who are deaf (or hearing impaired) and or blind (visually impaired)? What, if
any, learning disability justifies lowering educational expectations? These
questions are not often asked. Nor do we evaluate whether the additional
supports are making a measurable difference in performance or outcomes for
these students.
In
education, there appears to be little difficulty in discriminating among
students and arguing that such discriminations are made for good reasons.
Justifying differential outcomes is more complicated. Differential outcomes are
too often justified in terms of the differences that were used to justify
additional resources. That seems a bit circular to me. It makes me wonder
whether the additional resources make a difference and in what ways. I am not
arguing for the elimination of such resources, just careful evaluation of their
impact.