Equity vs.

Equality When Faced with Practicality 1

The Analysis of Equity vs. Equality When Faced with Practicality in Multi-Cultural and Socially

Diverse Environments

Nathan L. Tamborello

The University of Houston

Equity vs. Equality When Faced with Practicality 2

There exists an equality paradox within educational environments which stems from the
learners themselves: children are not created equally. As harsh as that may sound, it’s true; as
anecdotal evidence, I am good at reading and terrible at math. My brother is terrible at reading
but excels at math. If you give us the same advanced book to read, say Moby Dick, my brother
would finish it in two or so years, after starting and stopping the novel a dozen times, whereas I
would finish it in a week or so. The two of us require differentiating instruction on the same
topic, yet therein lies the practicality conundrum: how does one teacher tailor curriculum to 20
students per class period, with six periods during the day, all while trying to meet state standards
and ISD curriculum requirements? That’s 120 different students, all with different learning
styles, schedules, home lives, and academic talent. The paradox continues to grow. The
question of equality vs. equity becomes muddled within the constant loop of time and content. In
essence, even though equity may look like the rosy-red option, is it even feasible? Or should
teachers strive towards a balance of equality and equity, learning when to give extra help and
when to teach every student the same? “Given equal resources, differences in students’
achievement are said to reflect unequal ability, motivation, effort, parental inputs, family income,
and other influences. Variations in such influences are viewed as inevitable and largely outside
the scope of the education system. (Kornhaber, Griffith & Tyler, 2014)
So what is the meaning of equality and equity in terms of public schooling? And what
does each approach bring to the table in terms of application and achievement?
Jencks sums the ideas up rather succinctly, stating:
“Using the ‘playing field’ metaphor, the equal conception provides everyone access to
the same equipment, same rules, same stadium, and equally qualified coaches. As in any
competition requiring knowledge and skill, winners and losers might be predicted in
advance based on many factors in and beyond the game (e.g., injuries, prior training,
physical attributes), but at least the game itself isn’t rigged. Moreover, the prizes for
winning are seen as meritocratically allotted. Thus, under the equal conception, schooling
serves a utilitarian or functional role in ultimately distributing students into a range of
social benefits and social roles. (Jencks, 1988)
As Jencks describes it, equality allows all the players of the game to at least play the game. But
what about equity? Per Jencks (1988), compensatory approaches to educational equity rest on
“the moral premise of humane justice ... that educational resources should go disproportionately
to the disadvantaged”. According to Jencks, equity actually takes away equality from students,
removing lessons from students who may be more advanced and giving more time and attention
to students who may need additional instruction, thus neglecting the students who may excel in
life more. It’s a very fine moral line he treads across, and almost Libertarian in nature. Why
should the good be punished just because they are good? In this sense, the punishment is less
Equity vs. Equality When Faced with Practicality 3

instruction, where teachers instead focus on students who fall behind or may not have even been
caught up in the race to begin with, whether that be due to social stimuli, past educational
factors, or learning ability.
But what if the problem is in the solution? The idea of equity vs. equality is flawed to
being with in its own right, as the idea of being regaled to either option is archaic and relegates
the user to only one outcome. However, Kornhaber speaks on a third option, one that doesn’t
ascribe to a one-size-fits-all mentality. There is a concept called the Expansive Conception,
wherein equality and equity are both utilized in order to narrow disparities in learning and enable
the school more equal chances for success. The idea of expansion states “that disparate student
achievement is strongly associated with influences outside schools’ purview. Therefore…it
provides for compensatory resources within and beyond the education system to close
achievement gaps.” (Kornhaber, et. al 2014) “In the realm of economics, the expansive
conception might be termed human capital investment equity, which focuses on ensuring
comprehensive services for young children from disadvantaged circumstances. These offer
strong returns for educational attainment and life chances relative to later investments”
(Heckman, 2010) So what does that that all mean in essence? Using the same playing field
metaphor that Jencks ascribed to above, the expansive conception’s game allows the player’s
equipment, coaches, team members, and rules to vary, and for players to be positioned anywhere
on or off the field if doing so allows them to score more often at a roughly equivalent rate.
(Kornhaber, et. al 2014)
So how does all this conjecture work in reality? This is where it gets interesting: to leave
the anecdotal world and view real-world perception of privilege and ability. In turning to my
classmates discussion postings, we are able to see individually how many people have been
affected by equality and equity principals, most being left behind in some areas and in other
areas holding privilege and power themselves, either distinctly unaware of it or glaringly aware
of their head start. Janet Pena speaks on her own divide from the school and being behind due to
her language, stating that “not knowing the English language meant I could not communicate
very well and as an immigrant you were always looked on as the "outsider". Due to the
disconnect I was basically a loner during those years, and what saved me in Elementary School
was attending the Bilingual program.” (Pena, J.: Week 3 Discussion, February 2, 2017) The idea
that Janet could have survived with the equal education that her fluent English speaking
classmates received is preposterous, and her teachers couldn’t afford to take Janet aside every
class period to re-iterate the lesson to her in an easier to learn format. In this case, the Expansive
Clause provides resources to close the equality gap in the form of a Bilingual program. These
allocated resources not only work best for the instructor, but the student also gets closer attention
that is personalized and tailored to her distinct shortcomings. Through the Bilingual program,
Equity vs. Equality When Faced with Practicality 4

Janet is able to not only practice her English in a less judgmental setting, but working with her
fellow Bilingual students allowed her to make friends and learn material in a format that was
more easily accessible to her than the normal school curriculum would have been.
How we perceive equity, equality, power, privilege, and social class all inform
educational policy, district-wide, state-wide, and even federally. These ideals shape the
possibilities for children and their futures, and resources need to be aligned to an expansive view
on equity: a view that will foster more equal chances of school and life success no matter gift or
circumstance. In theory, all of this is beautiful on paper, but in the real-world application, we
can only play it by ear it seems. Life is messy and students come from all backgrounds. In
essence, it is up to teachers, districts, and schools to understand the needs of their children and
accommodate them. Whether its equity, equality, or expansive, children deserve the right to be
given an education that fosters them into the next stage of their lives.
Equity vs. Equality When Faced with Practicality 5

References

Heckman, J.J. (2010). Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Budget
Reform. Retrieved February 5, 2017 from
http://eyeonearlyeducation.org/2010/11/16/nobel-laureate-to- debt-panel-invest-in-early
education/

Jencks, C. (1988). Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal? Ethics,
98(3), 518-533.

Kornhaber, M.L., Griffith, K., & Tyler, A. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore – but
what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 22 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014

Pena, J.: Week 3 Discussion, February 2, 2017