Equity in Education

'Equity' in Education Improving Academic Performance The word ‘equity’ often carries a loaded meaning, and in no realm is the debate more polarizing than in the field of education. When it comes to education, equity appears to be a noble goal â€" an end in and of itself to which society should aspire. . A recent article in The Atlantic highlights some of the most relevant issues in the debate by contrasting the American system to the Finnish system. Click here to read the Atlantic ArticleIndeed, the lessons gleaned from the comparison are quite striking â€"Finland’s move to a national system focused on school equality hasbeen linked to a massive increase in student performance while theincreasing inequities apparent in the American system have paralleleda considerable decline. However, with regards to equity of educationin the United States, the debate often reduces itself to a small setof practical realities, some of which go far beyond schools, teachers,and students. If equity is indeed the ideal goal, what hurdles mustbe overcome for us to get there? More importantly, what practicalsolutions are there for students caught in a system where the gapbetween the “haves” and “have nots” continues to grow?The American school system is in urgent need of reform â€" it’ssomething that every politician and American can (should) get behind.However, one philosophical and one practical question divide mix anddivide the public:1 ) How should we define “equality” with regards to education?2) What is the most equitable way to fund schools?With regards to the first question, many will argue that equality ofeducation means identical educational programs and facilities acrossall grade levels (this is essentially the Finnish model). Othersopine that equality means equal access to a public school which meetscertain minimum standards set by the Federal/State/Local government(this is the American model today). Still others will argue thatequality of education is purely about equal outcomes for studentpopulations.1) Equality of programs (current Finland)2) Equality of access (current US system)3) Equality of outcomes (objective of NCLB?)No matter which goal one believes our society should strive for, it isclear that the underlying practicality of how whether/how to equitablyfund schools stands in the way. This issue is deeply rooted in thefabric of America. The American Federal system checks the power ofthe federal government by empowering state and local governments tocontrol many government functions (e.g., police, fire). The eleganceof the system, in theory, is that people will vote with their feet ifthey disagree with state policies, and thus the best policies will winout in the long run. The control of education funding is left tostate and local school boards and comes primarily from local propertytaxes. Only national/interstate matters fall under the control of theFederal government. It is this system which is responsible for themassive disparity in funding between the best and worst schools inthis country â€" and this level of funding can be directly linked tooutcomes (I cite no literature here, but challenge the reader toreader to find either empirical and experiential evidence to thecontrary).In fact, the question about equity in education really comes down toeconomics â€" who will control funding, and how will those decisions bemade. The reality of this debate in the United States is that localfunding will continue to hold sway unless the greater good ANDindividual good is demonstrated to be better with State control.Thus, for all the rhetoric that national politicians put on the stateabout national education reform, the real power rests with the stateand county tax authorities. It is the beauty of the American Federalsystem which perhaps brings change closer than one might imagine.Populists rejoice!