Why do we need to define equity? In a paper on this topic, the Pennsylvania Economy League said it needed to define equity, because it “means different things to different people, whether it’s fiscal-based or outcomes-based.” Not only are equity issues being examined in public school systems from coast to coast in this country, they also are being considered in other countries. The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents published an article saying that while the Webster’s definition – freedom from bias or favoritism – is straightforward, “current notions of equity are much more complex. One way of defining equity is to identify the inequities we hope to eradicate.” The article goes on to identify three elements to be considered in creating an equitable system: equity of resources, equity in process, and equity of outcomes. It lists, in no particular order, “specific equity challenges in education,” including:
• Equity in teacher expectations and behaviors
• Equity in access to good teachers
• Equity in career expectations and career or academic counseling
• Equity in access to technology, and
• Equity in access to school disciplinary processes.
What other equity issues come to mind when you think about a school system in its entirety?
What about equity of opportunity? The BSD offers several programs distinguished for their inequitable resourcing, the International School program being the most glaring example. The fact that students might have an equal probability of gaining access to this program does not justify or legitimize the inequitable level of resources employed by this program. (Students do not have equal opportunity for this program, however, because of the BSD policy favoring siblings of IS students). The notion of offering a variety of opportunities also doesn’t justify the resourcing of this program. I’d like to see you thoroughly explore equity of opportunity in the BSD.
By: davidhallock on June 3, 2010
at 9:45 pm