Abstract
Within the social sciences, the term equity has a helpful and precise meaning – referring to a differentiated response to an individual’s distinct needs or circumstances. However, since the 2000s ‘equity’ has been recontextualised within national and international education policymaking as a generic term. This recontextualisation has led to ‘equity’ being used uncritically to refer to a range of related, and sometimes contradictory, concepts. This article draws on the literature to identify five framings of ‘educational equity’ within recent policy. It suggests that only one of these – which emphasises responsiveness to individual needs or characteristics – has clear conceptual alignment with the core principle of equity. The others either relate more strongly to the principle of equality or emphasise the tracking and measurement of outcomes. This article highlights the need for conceptual clarity to ensure the principle of equity is a helpful one in informing research, policy, and practice.
Introduction
Writing in this journal in 2008, David Raffe commented on a lack of conceptual clarity in the way that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (oecd) had used the term ‘equity’ within a recent review of Scottish education policy. Since then, the emphasis on ‘equity’ within Scottish and international education policy has strengthened. However increased use of the term equity has not always been accompanied by clarity about its meaning – within either policy or the educational literature. Drawing on the literature, this article seeks to explore the ‘tricky concept’ of equity within recent education policy and identify the different ways in which it is being used. It is structured into four main sections. The first section outlines how the concept of equity emerged within the social sciences in the second half of the 20th century as a distinctive principle of distributive justice. The second section explores another dominant principle of distributive justice – equality – as the article goes on to suggest that different interpretations of ‘educational equity’ represent considerable conceptual overlap between equity and equality. The third section of the article moves on to identify five different interpretations of ‘educational equity’ that are apparent within recent education policy. Finally, a discussion section reflects on these different interpretations, and suggests that there may be value for policy, practice, and research in developing a tighter framing of ‘educational equity’.
Equity
Early Interpretations of ‘Equity’
The term ‘equity’ had three different historical meanings within the English language (Unterhalter, 2009). Firstly, English translations of the Bible and works of classical Greek philosophy in the 14th century used equitee or equite to refer to a virtue embodying reasonableness, negotiation, debate, and respect for others’ opinions (ibid.). Secondly, during the 15th and 16th centuries, the legal profession adopted ‘equity’ to refer to a form of law making (ibid.). For instance, in England individuals who were not satisfied with legal decisions made under common law could appeal directly to the Lord Chancellor (Björkman, 1985). Over time, the decisions resulting from such appeals formed a distinct body of Anglo-American “equity law” (ibid.). Equity law had a focus on moral as opposed to procedural justice, and so could re-interpret earlier legal decisions (ibid.). Finally, in the 18th century, individuals involved in the development of modern capitalism and the financial system used the term ‘equity’ to refer to the ability of individuals to own “shares” of a commercial enterprise (Unterhalter, 2009).
‘Equity’ within the Social Sciences
‘Equity’ developed a distinctive meaning within the social sciences in the second half of the 20th century, emerging as a principle of distributive justice. Distributive justice addresses how material and social goods, such as wealth, opportunity, or power, should be allocated (Cochran-Smith, 2009; Espinoza, 2007). This issue has preoccupied philosophers and theologians for centuries. For instance, Aristotle, Plato, and St Thomas Aquinas all considered distributive justice in their work (Espinoza, 2007).
Only in a few places like America are wages so high that workers can begin to interest themselves in the finer points of distributive justice; and this has consequences for both management and organized labor.
In other words, Homans was concerned with how workers’ perceptions of the fairness or unfairness of the financial and non-financial rewards they received could influence their attitudes to work.
In the 1960s and 1970s, researchers working within economics and social psychology built upon Homans’ work (Finn & Lee, 1972). Economics researchers adopted the term ‘equity’ to describe input:output exchange relationships (Cook & Hegtvedt, 1983; Deutsch, 1975; Konow et al., 2020; Meindl, 1989; Reis & Gruzen, 1976). They described situations where an equal exchange took place as equitable, and those where inputs and outputs were out of proportion as inequitable (Finn & Lee, 1972). The economics literature also continued to explore the relationship between ‘equity’ and employee motivation, building on Homans’ interest in this issue (Law, 2016). Social psychology researchers developed a body of ‘equity theory’ to describe exchange relationships (Walster & Walster, 1975). They also explored how individuals perceived the fairness of such relationships – with a particular focus on ‘inequity’ (defined as situations where inputs and outputs did not align) (Colman, 2015; Cook, 1975).
This early literature focused on two facets of ‘equity’: inputs/contributions and outputs/rewards (Deutsch, 1975; Espinoza, 2007; Konow et al., 2020). It defined contributions variously in terms of an individual’s: skill (Deutsch, 1975); motivation (Salomone, 1981); membership of a particular social group (Blanchard, 1986); or merit (Grand, 1984). The literature also sometimes included need as a factor which could determine the rewards an individual should receive (Björkman, 1985; Grand, 1984; Salomone, 1981).
The literature highlighted the complexity of evaluating an individual’s contributions or inputs (Grand, 1984). For instance, Schaffer and Lamb (1981) suggested that ideas about ‘need’ are in fact often the source of social disagreement – as needs are not fixed but are socially determined and change over time. Echoing this, Burbules and colleagues (1982) suggested that defining need also requires us to consider biological, cognitive, or psychological factors. They also suggested that needs must be defined in relation to the intended purpose of the exchange – as some needs will be more relevant to this than others (ibid.). Some researchers have also viewed need as an alternative justice principle, which is conceptually distinct from ‘equity’ (Deutsch, 1975; Diederich, 2020). Other researchers (e.g. Hochschild, 1981) have highlighted that, although needs differ, everyone has needs, and therefore attempts to respond to need should be informed by the principle of equality rather than ‘equity’. Kittel (2020) built on this to suggest that need is typically defined by the absence of something, and therefore that a principle such as ‘equity’, which focuses on inputs, is unhelpful in theorising about how need should be addressed. These complexities inherent in defining need indicate that decisions informed by the principle of ‘equity’ tend to have a subjective or normative dimension (Bronfenbrenner, 1973; Farrell, 2012; Grand, 1984). Drawing on the work of Gans (1968), Salomone (1981., p. 11) highlights that such decisions are also likely to “require agreement about the major values of the society”.
The emerging ‘equity’ literature also considered how shares of either outputs or rewards should be allocated in response to individual inputs. The key decision is whether shares should be allocated equally (Grand, 1984) or unequally (Salomone, 1981). The equal allocation of shares has been termed “horizontal equity” (Berne & Stiefel, 1994). For instance, equal shares could be distributed if individuals are judged to have equal skills, motivation levels, or needs. Alternatively, shares could be allocated unequally if inputs or contributions differ (Blanchard, 1986). This has been termed “vertical equity” (Berne & Stiefel, 1994) or “equitable individualisation” (Schaffer & Lamb, 1981).
‘Equity’ has continued to be explored in research studies within economics, social psychology, sociology, and management/business studies up to the present day (Diederich, 2020; Hatfield et al., 2011). Into the 1980s researchers working with the concept of ‘equity’ began to focus on articulating the different rules which could underpin equitable individualisation (Meindl, 1989). Sociologists also adopted the term ‘equity’ to explore how individuals perceived inequalities (Liebig & Sauer, 2016). Researchers in business studies highlighted that the principle of ‘equity’ reflected an individualistic, Western understanding of worker motivation, and therefore that it was not necessarily a universal one (Fadil et al., 2005). Interestingly, many researchers working with the concept of ‘equity’ also questioned whether there was value in applying it outside of economic or industrial analysis (Reis & Gruzen, 1976). They often saw equality as a better basis for questions of distributive justice that focused on outcomes such as good interpersonal or community relationships (Liebig & Sauer, 2016; Morand & Merriman, 2012). This highlights the close, and often confused, relationship between ‘equity’ and equality as principles of distributive justice – which is the focus of the next section.
Equality
18th and 19th Century Interpretations of Equality
The modern concept of equality emerged during the Enlightenment period (Björkman, 1985). Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Adam Smith proposed that all citizens held certain natural rights (Bell, 1976; Chaney, 2011; Rosen, 2003). This new paradigm of ‘natural liberty’ influenced subsequent attempts on the part of revolutionary movements and social reformers to gain and extend rights to political participation – for instance through the French Revolution or the United States’ Declaration of Rights (Espinoza, 2007; Frankel, 1971; Nisbet, 1975; Rawls, 1999; Salomone, 1981). This “political equality” interpretation of equality also brought with it the idea that there was a moral equality among all citizens (Chaney, 2011).
In the 19th century there were several critiques of the initial interpretation of equality in relation to natural, political, or moral rights. These critiques emphasised that such equal rights could still go hand in hand with significant inequalities in access to social or economic goods (Frankel, 1971). The development of liberal political ideas, influenced by Utilitarian thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, also focused attention on the links between individual happiness and the most effective distribution of social or economic goods (Rosen, 2003). These critiques informed the formulation of a new interpretation of equality – equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity required that opportunities to achieve valued social or economic positions and goods were “fair”, as well as being guaranteed in law or in practice (Bell, 1976; Rawls, 1999). This interpretation of equality implied that society should attempt to widen access to social goods, such as education (Rawls, 1999; Rosen, 2003).
Equality in the 20th Century
Equality of opportunity remained the dominant interpretation of equality well into the 20th century. However, it was also critiqued on several grounds. For instance, progressive critics highlighted that formal equality of opportunity can exist within a society which has large inequalities of wealth and income (Frankel, 1971). Critics also posed important questions about whether all individuals can equally take advantage of equal rights and opportunities, given existing structural inequalities (Papastephanou, 2018). Critics also drew attention to the often-competitive nature of attempts to ensure equality of opportunity (Gillies, 2006; Reed & Oppong, 2005; Wolff, 2015). A more recent interpretation of equality of opportunity therefore differentiates between inequalities that arise from circumstances that individuals cannot control and those that arise from personal choice (Phillips, 2004).
The period following the Second World War saw an increased focus on the equality of outcomes as a counterpart to equality of opportunity (Nisbet, 1975). In part, this was influenced by a new body of sociological research, often with an educational focus, demonstrating that formal equality of opportunity had failed to realise greater equality in outcomes (Coates & Silburn, 1970; Harvey, 1989; McPherson & Raab, 1988; Tyler, 2011). Equality of outcome can be considered at the level of subgroups within the wider population or in relation to individuals (Phillips, 2004). Subgroup characteristics include age, race, or gender, while individual characteristics relate to ability, character, or personality (ibid.). The principle of equality of outcome has often been seen as an easier one to realise at subgroup than at individual level (ibid.). Various social programmes that aimed to achieve greater equality in subgroup outcomes were established from the 1960s onwards. Such programmes often involved additional financial resources or “positive discrimination” and “affirmative action” approaches to allow previously disadvantaged groups to achieve outcomes such as higher education qualifications (Benadusi, 2007; Crosby et al., 2006; Kodelja, 2016).
Equality of outcome became an extremely controversial interpretation of equality from the 1970s onwards. Thinkers such as Friedrich Von Hayek and Robert Nozick challenged attempts to reframe the principle of equality in relation to outcomes (Wolff, 2007; 2015). Such critics attempted to return to earlier interpretations of equality that had emphasised natural and political rights, or opportunity (Arnott, 2011). In justifying these critiques, these thinkers highlighted that attempting to equalise outcomes was inhibiting economic growth, which they saw as a social harm (Wolff, 2015). Critics of equality of outcome also labelled interventions to realise it as attempts to bring about “complete levelling” (Bell, 1976, p. 628). Despite these criticisms, many attempts to realise more equal outcomes did not seek to achieve this through processes of standardisation or levelling down. Instead, they focused on improving access to resources or additional support, or facilitating access, at subgroup level. Therefore, there is an element of caricature in subsequent criticisms of equality of outcome – with, as Phillips (2004, p. 2) notes, equality of opportunity then being established as the “mild-mannered alternative to the craziness of outcome equality”. Though controversial, equality of outcome remains part of contemporary understandings of equality. It has been used to inform recent policy responses such as those related to gender representation among political candidates (ibid.). It is also still commonly cited as an important ‘test’ of whether equality of opportunity has been realised (ibid.).
Policy Interpretations of ‘Educational Equity’
‘Educational Equity’ within the Education Policy Literature – Overview
So far, this article has outlined two principles of distributive justice: equity and equality. Several authors (e.g. Price, 2015; Terzi, 2007) have drawn on the work of theorists such as Nussbaum (2003) and Fraser (1999) to critique the educational relevance of such concepts of distributive justice. However, recognising the regular use of the term equity within education policy, this article now moves on to consider the dimensions of this recontextualisation (Bernstein, 1990). This section provides a brief overview of the literature on equity within education, and then identifies five different ways in which policymakers have interpreted ‘educational equity’.
International bodies such as the oecd began to use the term equity within their education policy work in the 1990s (Levin, 2003; Samoff, 1996; Savage et al., 2013; Thomson, 2013). Concurrently, these organisations have increased their influence over national education policy (Cairney & Kippin, 2021; Mundy & Ghali, 2009). This is likely to have contributed to the increased use of the term equity within national education policy – as many countries now claim that their education policies are informed by this principle (Cairney & Kippin, 2021).
Since the mid-2000s educational researchers have referred to equity much more frequently – which may reflect its new prominence within policy (Jurado de Los Santos et al., 2020). However, many researchers do not use the term in a precise or helpful way. Firstly, they often use equity prominently, for instance in the title of a piece of work, but do not define it (e.g. Burroughs et al., 2019; Nieto, 2000; Sleeter, 2008; Swanson et al., 2017). Secondly, many researchers define equity loosely, for example in relation to ‘social justice’, ‘inclusion’, or ‘fairness’ (e.g. Dyches & Boyd, 2017). Finally, researchers sometimes attribute the term equity to earlier educational work which did not, in fact, use the term (e.g. as seen in Chu’s (2019) interpretation of Guiton and Oakes’ (1995) work). In fact, researchers often use the terms equity and equality interchangeably (Björkman, 1985; Cochran-Smith et al., 2016; Espinoza, 2007; Papastephanou, 2018). Generally, researchers do not refer to equity’s earlier, relatively precise meaning within the social sciences – as a principle of “equitable individualisation” (Schaffer & Lamb, 1981).
Several researchers have documented these issues within the literature. For instance, Cairney and Kippin (2021) highlight that equity is a slippery and contested term within education policy research, based on their literature review of 109 articles focused on education policy and equity. Therefore, much of the large literature on ‘educational equity’ is often unhelpful in defining what it means. However, using a more limited body of literature it is possible to distil five distinct understandings of ‘educational equity’ within policy.
- –Equity 1: with ‘equity’ framed as access to educational provision, or opportunities to progress within education, often within the context of international development.
- –Equity 2: with ‘equity’ defined as a differentiated response to children and young people’s individual needs and circumstances (such as sex, race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status).
- –Equity 3: with ‘equity’ viewed as a minimum level of performance (for example in literacy or numeracy), as seen within international development goals or international benchmarking by organisations such as the oecd.
- –Equity 4: with ‘equity’ defined as the ‘equalisation’ of outcomes between sub-groups.
- –Equity 5: with ‘equity’ defined in relation to attainment gaps and measured performance, with a heavy focus on data as the central mechanism for tracking and monitoring whether outcomes have been achieved.
The article now moves on to describe each of these understandings of ‘educational equity’ within policy in more detail.
Equity 1: Equity as Access and Opportunities
[…] the vast majority of students have the opportunity to attain high level skills, regardless of their own personal and socio-economic circumstances.
Policymakers in the United States and in Australia have also echoed this framing of ‘equity’ as opportunity (Bulkley, 2013; Savage, 2013).
However, some recent literature has critiqued policymakers for defining access and opportunities as ‘equity’. Several authors have highlighted that access and opportunity were the hallmarks of the competitive, selective educational structures that were put in place from the 19th century onwards (e.g. Chu, 2019; Cochran-Smith et al., 2017). As noted above, the principle of equality originally focused on equal resources or provision for everyone, with no reference to their individual circumstances, on the basis that everyone has equal natural or political rights. In the 19th century, the principle of equality shifted to include equality of opportunity, which emphasised the importance of fair competition for all. In the 19th and 20th centuries policymakers used this principle of equality of opportunity to underpin the meritocratic ‘sorting’ of children and young people within state education systems, often underpinned by ideas of financial efficiency (European Group for Research on Equity in Educational Systems, 2005; Lodge & Blackstone, 1982). There is an established body of literature critiquing the concept of educational equality of opportunity (e.g. Bell, 1976; Chaney, 2011; Gamoran & Long, 2007; Tawney, 1931). Most memorably, Tawney (1931, p. 142) viewed equality of educational opportunity as the “tadpole philosophy” of society, in which only a few individuals could move to more favourable positions. Reflecting these critiques, defining ‘equity’ in relation to access and opportunities has been described as a “thin” understanding of the principle (Cochran-Smith et al., 2017).
Equity 2: Equity as a Response to Individual Needs and Characteristics
The second policy framing of ‘educational equity’ within the literature is much more aligned to the conceptually distinct principle of equity which, as described above, emerged within the social sciences from the 1960s onwards. In line with this principle, educational policymakers have interpreted ‘educational equity’ as a differentiated response to children and young people’s individual needs and characteristics (Cairney & Kippin, 2021; Chu, 2019). They have identified a wide range of characteristics or needs which might require an equitable response, including sex; race; ethnicity; socio-economic status; immigrant or refugee status; fostered or looked after status; sexuality; and geographic area or region (Cairney & Kippin, 2021; Chu, 2019). Some of these characteristics are innate, while others could be modified by wider public policy (e.g. policies addressing economic inequality). Policymakers have also defined relevant ‘inputs’ that could be tailored in response to these characteristics. For instance, at international level the oecd has developed a set of 10 policy actions that countries can adopt to realise greater ‘equity’ (Bøyum, 2014). These include ensuring that resources are directed to children and young people with the greatest needs (ibid.). At national level, countries have attempted to adjust several elements of educational provision to ensure a higher level of “equitable individualisation” (Schaffer & Lamb, 1981). These include the use of ‘high quality’ teachers; remedial teaching; curriculum differentiation; or specific curriculum interventions in areas such as literacy and numeracy (Bulkley, 2013; Cairney & Kippin, 2021; Chong, 2017; Cochran-Smith et al., 2017). Many countries have also adjusted the allocation of education funding to take account of factors such as socio-economic status (Gilead, 2019).
Interpreting ‘educational equity’ as a response to individual needs and characteristics aligns with the principle of equity’s distinctive focus on differentiation and fairness (Blanchard, 1986; Bronfenbrenner, 1973; Burbules et al., 1982; Espinoza, 2007; Salomone, 1981; Samoff, 1996; Schaffer & Lamb, 1981; Tyler, 2011). This interpretation of ‘educational equity’ has much in common with earlier ‘compensatory’ education policies. Compensatory education involved the unequal distribution of resources to address inequalities within wider society (Kornhaber et al, 2014). These approaches first emerged within education policy in the 1960s (Kogan, 1975). As noted above, during this period there was an increased emphasis on equality of outcomes within public policymaking. Compensatory approaches aimed to improve the outcomes of those with the greatest needs, rather than to equalise outcomes for everyone (although they were later attacked on these grounds) (Evetts, 1970). More recently, policymakers have continued to adopt compensatory approaches of various kinds, such as Sure Start, Education Action Zones and the Excellence in Cities Programme under the 1997–2010 UK Labour governments (Power, 2008).
Equity 3: Equity as a Minimum Level of Performance
[…] everyone should reach the “finishing line” of basic education and master the most important skills before transitioning to secondary level.
chong, 2018, p. 555
There are broader questions about the extent to which a minimum standard of performance can be compatible with highly unequal outcomes at a higher level. Setting a minimum level of performance could be a more achievable way for policymakers to realise equality of outcome at the individual level (Bulkley, 2013). Despite this, if the minimum standard is pitched at too low a level, realising it may ultimately do little to improve overall outcomes for groups or individuals who are most in need. Therefore, there is a need to consider the balance between the ease of achieving policy aims and the overall value of a defined minimum level of performance for all individuals.
Equity 4: Equity as Outcomes Achieved at Group or Individual Level
Equitable systems ensure that the outcomes of education and training are independent of socio-economic background and other factors that lead to educational disadvantage and that treatment reflects individuals’ specific learning needs.
european commission, 2006, cited in hippe et al., 2016
This extract highlights that a key element of defining ‘equity’ relates to the outcomes achieved by subgroups, here framed in relation to socio-economic status. Policymakers at national level have also frequently defined equity in this way; for instance the equalisation of outcomes between subgroups is an important element within the ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy in the United States (Bulkley, 2013). However, Chu (2019) notes that this interpretation of ‘equity’ is less prevalent within the United States than those focused on access and opportunities. Bulkley (2013) highlights that deciding which educational outcomes should be made more equal is not straightforward – as outcomes can be defined in relation to attainment, wider achievement, or participation.
‘Equity 4’ reworks an influential interpretation of equality that emerged in the 1960s. This redefinition of equality emerged from a sociological study of educational opportunity led by James Coleman and commissioned by the United States’ government (Coleman, 1968). The study’s report explored the equality of educational achievement, or outcomes, between subgroups – with outcomes defined as “equal performance on standardised achievement tests” (Bell, 1976, p. 618). The Coleman study highlighted that there were clear differentials in such test results related to socio-economic status (ibid.). Coleman’s reinterpretation of educational equality as more equal performance between subgroups represented a conceptual shift in how educational equality was defined – from inputs to outcomes (Coleman, 1968; Kodelja, 2016). At group level, equality of outcome involves ensuring the proportional equal achievement of outcomes by subgroups defined in relation to race, socio-economic status, sex, or other relevant categories (Espinoza, 2007; Frankel, 1971). At individual level, equality of outcome implies the need to bring all children and young people to the same level of educational performance (Bowman, 1975; Tyler, 2011). In its most extreme interpretation this would require halting progress by some individuals until others caught up (ibid.). However, in practice attempts to equalise educational outcomes from the 1960s onwards tended to involve the kinds of compensatory approaches discussed in relation to ‘Equity 2’, or through setting a minimum level of performance (‘Equity 3’), rather than attempts to standardise outcomes for all.
Equity 5: Equity as Attainment Gaps/Measured Performance
The final policy-related interpretation of ‘educational equity’ within the literature focuses on attainment gaps and measured performance. This framing of ‘equity’ therefore has some conceptual overlap with ‘Equity 4’. However, several authors have argued that international organisations have promoted the development of a very specific outcomes-focused interpretation of ‘equity’ over the last two decades (Cairney & Kippin, 2021; Klees & Qargha, 2014; Loughland & Sriprakash, 2014; Samoff, 1996). This interpretation is heavily focused on accountability (Luke, 2011; Rezai-Rashti et al., 2017; Rizvi & Lingard, 2011; Thomson, 2013). It defines ‘equity’ in relation to attainment gaps at subgroup level, and therefore views data as a central mechanism for reporting on and measuring ‘equity’ (Luke, 2011; Rizvi & Lingard, 2011).
Several authors have drawn attention to the significant role played by the oecd in influencing the development of this interpretation of ‘educational equity’. Mundy and Ghali (2009) highlight a shift in the focus of the oecd’s education work since the 1990s. Influenced largely by education reforms in the United States from the 1980s onwards, the oecd expanded its role in the development of quantitative indicators to benchmark and compare education systems (ibid.). This represented a step change from its previous role as a facilitator of education policy learning (ibid.). In relation to ‘equity’, the oecd’s main reporting tool is the ‘index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status’ (escs) used within its pisa assessments (oecd, 2012). The escs index is based on the results of a questionnaire that participating young people complete (Avvisati, 2020). The escs index combines into a single score measures of the financial, social, cultural, and human capital which young people and their families can access (ibid.). However, the index is likely to be influenced by the accuracy of self-reporting, missing data for some countries, and the validity of some measures across countries (e.g. in relation to the number of household possessions) (ibid.) The literature has also highlighted that such measurement approaches can lead to a one-dimensional understanding of inequality at an individual or a country level (Luke, 2011; Martino & Rezai-Rashti, 2013). There is a risk of backgrounding the wider societal or structural factors that influence inequalities in outcomes (Kerr & Raffo, 2016; Klees & Qargha, 2014; Rezai-Rashti et al., 2017; Thomson, 2013).
Discussion
The previous section identified five framings of ‘educational equity’ within international and national education policy.
- –Equity 1: as access and opportunities
- –Equity 2: as a response to individual needs and characteristics
- –Equity 3: as a minimum level of performance
- –Equity 4: as outcomes at subgroup or individual level
- –Equity 5: as attainment gaps and measured performance
‘Equity 1’ appears to be much more closely aligned to the principles of equality of access and opportunity, as the policy intention tends to be to ensure equal access and opportunities for all children and young people, regardless of their individual circumstances or needs. For instance, this understanding of equity could relate to ensuring that there is a consistent legal framework underpinning access to education, or to policies that attempt to embed fair chances to progress to higher levels of education for all children and young people. Equity may still be a helpful secondary principle which informs the processes through which, for instance, equality of opportunity is realised. As Bulkley (2013) notes, realising equal opportunity may sometimes imply the unequal distribution of resources (and therefore practice informed by equity).
As noted above, ‘Equity 2’ – where ‘educational equity’ is framed as differentiated treatment in response to individual needs and characteristics – appears to align most closely with the ‘core’ principle of equity which emerged within the social sciences from the 1960s onwards – defined by Schaffer and Lamb (1981) as “equitable individualisation”. Defined in this way, equity does not emphasise equal shares or treatment, although these can be equal if individual needs are also the same. ‘Equity 2’ most closely aligns to equity’s distinctive elements: paying attention to an individual’s specific characteristics and needs; adapting what an individual receives as a result; and the requirement that shares can be unequal if this is justified by an individual’s needs or circumstances. It also aligns with the literature’s emphasis on the necessarily subjective nature of equity, due to its inherent focus on knowing an individual well enough to judge how best to respond to their needs. This framing of equity could be illustrated by policies which aim to provide enhanced educational provision or resources on the basis on an individual need – such as a teacher either adapting their approach, or bringing in extra support from elsewhere, to ensure that a young person understands a particular concept or idea within the curriculum.
Both ‘Equity 3’ and ‘Equity 4’ appear more closely aligned to the principle of equality of outcome. As noted above, the principle of equity is not specifically concerned with (educational) outcomes. It does not imply that outcomes should always be equalised (Salomone, 1981). When the principle of equity is used to inform distributive justice decisions, the most important consideration is the balance of inputs and outputs (Liebig & Sauer, 2016). If unequal outputs can be justified based on unequal inputs, the underlying principle of equity can still be served (ibid.). Therefore, defining ‘equity’ as a minimum standard of performance for all (for instance all 16-year-olds being able to demonstrate their knowledge of a specific period of Scottish history), as in ‘Equity 3’, does not align with the distinctive character of equity. This is because definitions of a minimum standard tend to emphasise that it should be achieved by all, or almost all, members of a population (Bowman, 1975; Tyler, 2011).
For similar reasons, the emphasis on outcomes at the group or individual level within ‘Equity 4’ (which requires that, for example, there is no discernible difference in the outcomes achieved by boys and girls, or between those living in poverty and those from more affluent backgrounds) does not appear to have a close conceptual relationship with the principle of equity. The principle of equality of outcome, as Phillips (2004) has noted, may be more helpfully seen as a yardstick by which to assess whether individuals with different characteristics have achieved more equal outcomes. However, as with ‘Equity 1’, equity may still be a helpful secondary principle in realising ‘Equity 3’ and ‘Equity 4’, due to its emphasis on what support individuals require to achieve educational outcomes – whether expressed as a minimum standard, or at subgroup or individual level. An equitable approach to improving outcomes would emphasise providing appropriate individual support based on relevant needs or characteristics (European Group for Research on Equity in Educational Systems, 2005).
Finally, ‘Equity 5’ does not appear to be necessarily informed by either the principle of equity or equality. As a measurement approach focusing on, for example, differentials in attainment between subgroups in a standardised assessment, it could focus on inputs, outputs, or outcomes. However, framing ‘educational equity’ as measured performance does not align conceptually with the core principle of equity. As discussed above, equity involves exploring whether rewards and contributions are in proportion – with no reference to outcomes. Therefore, an approach which aims to track, measure and report on outcomes does not appear to align closely with the core principle of equity. In fact, there is evidence that an overt emphasis on ‘Equity 5’ may act against ‘Equity 2’. For instance, curriculum output regulation, including an over-emphasis on testing and examinations, can strengthen cultures of performativity that limit teachers’ ability to differentiate the curriculum to meet children and young people’s needs and characteristics (Au, 2007; Lingard & Keddie, 2013; Luke at al., 2012; Priestley et al., 2015).
The discussion above suggests that it may be most helpful to reframe ‘educational equity’ in a narrower way – one which is in line with the conceptually distinct principle of equity that Schaffer and Lamb (1981) describe as representing “equitable individualisation”. This reframing of ‘educational equity’ would direct attention towards equity as a process that is focused on what an individual needs. Defining ‘educational equity’ in this way would have much less conceptual overlap with the distinct principle of equality and would therefore prompt thinking about who should receive additional (or the same) support or resources, why they should receive these, and what kinds of support or resources they should receive. Such a reframing of ‘educational equity’ has the potential to shift the concept from an “assemblage” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2011) to a more helpful prompt to inform policy, research, and practice.
Conclusion
This article has argued that reframing the concept of ‘education equity’ towards a narrower focus on “equitable individualisation” (Schaffer & Lamb, 1981) – in other words a proportionate response to individual needs and characteristics – would be helpful for research, policy, and practice. Adopting such a tighter framing of equity would have different implications for each of these fields. For instance, it is unlikely that policy could set out how the principle of equity could be realised in a prescriptive way. However, policy could, for example: ensure that ‘space’ for equity exists, for instance through approaches to curriculum regulation; ensure that teachers and other practitioners have the skills and resources to most effectively realise equity within their own contexts; or facilitate the sharing of practice about different approaches to realising equity in diverse contexts. For practitioners, reframing equity in this way could prompt discussions about how it could be realised within their own context – for instance through knowing children and young people’s needs and characteristics well enough to inform a proportionate response.
Through its specific focus on the concept of equity, this article also highlights several linked themes. The first of these is the recontextualisation (Bernstein, 1990) of ideas from one context to another. As Bernstein notes, this process of recontextualisation involves selectively bringing together ideas from a wider set of sources, with the aim of producing a set of socially acceptable ideas. While Bernstein’s focus was on the processes that lead to the creation of acceptable educational knowledge, the concept of recontextualisation can also be applied to policy. The second theme is the importance of conceptual clarity in the use of terms such as equity within both policy and the academic literature. For instance, such clarity is likely to assist policy-focused research to explore in more granular detail how specific terms such as equity are being used. A third key theme is the need for criticality in the ways in which educational research explores policy relevant terms such as equity. While the focus of this article has been on the literature, all these themes are likely to prove helpful to future empirical research studies focusing either on the processes which have led to equity becoming such an influential educational term over the past two decades.
References
Anderson, R.D. (1995). Education and the Scottish people 1750–1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Arnott, M.A. (2011). ‘The more things change…?’: The Thatcher years and educational reform in Scotland. Journal of Educational Administration & History 43 (2), pp. 181–202.
Au, W. (2007). High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis. Educational Researcher 36 (5), pp. 258–267.
Avvisati, F. (2020). The measure of socio-economic status in pisa: A review and some suggested improvements. Large-Scale Assessments in Education 8 (1), pp. 1–37.
Bell, D. (1976). On meritocracy and equality. In: J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey, eds., Power and ideology in education, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 607–634.
Benadusi, L. (2007). Education equality indicators in the nations of the European Union. In: International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 155–190.
Berne, R., and Stiefel, L. (1994). Measuring equity at the school level: The finance perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16 (4), pp. 405–421.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogical discourse: Class, codes and control. (4 vols). London: Routledge.
Björkman, J.W. (1985). Equity and social policy: Conceptual ambiguity in welfare criteria. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 5 (2), pp. 16–32.
Blanchard, W. (1986). Evaluating social equity: What does fairness mean and can we measure it?. Policy Studies Journal 15 (1), pp. 29–54.
Bowman, M.J. (1975). Education and opportunity: Some economic perspectives. Oxford Review of Education 1 (1), pp. 73–84.
Bøyum, S. (2014). Fairness in education: A normative analysis of oecd policy documents. Journal of Education Policy 29 (6), pp. 856–870.
Bronfenbrenner, M. (1973). Equality and equity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 409 (1), pp. 9–23.
Bulkley, K.E. (2013). Conceptions of equity: How influential actors view a contested concept. Peabody Journal of Education 88 (1), pp. 10–21.
Burbules, N.C., Lord, B.T., and Sherman, A.L. (1982). Equity, equal opportunity, and education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4 (2), pp. 169–187.
Burroughs, N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., and Schmidt, W. (2019). Teaching for excellence and equity. Cham: Springer.
Cairney, P., and Kippin, S. (2021). The future of education equity policy in a covid-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. Open Research Europe.
Chaney, P. (2011). Education, equality and human rights: Exploring the impact of devolution in the UK. Critical Social Policy 31 (3), pp. 431–453.
Chong, P.W. (2018). The Finnish recipe towards inclusion: Concocting educational equity, policy rigour, and proactive support structures. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 62 (4), pp. 501–518.
Chu, Y. (2019). What are they talking about when they talk about equity? A content analysis of equity principles and provisions in state Every Student Succeeds Act plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives 27 (158), pp. 1–27.
Coates, K., and Silburn, R. (1970). Education in poverty. In: D. Rubinstein and C. Stonemason, eds., Education for Democracy. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 72–77.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2009). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. In: A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins, eds., Second international handbook of educational change. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 445–467.
Cochran-Smith, M., Baker, M., Burton, S., Chang, W., Cummings Carney, M., Fernández, M.B., Stringer Keefe, E., Miller, A.F., and Sánchez, J.G. (2017). The accountability era in US teacher education: Looking back, looking forward. European Journal of Teacher Education 40 (5), pp. 572–588.
Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., and Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center?. Teaching and Teacher Education 57 pp. 67–78.
Coleman, J. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review 38 (1), pp. 7–22.
Colman, A.M. (2015). Equity theory. In: A.M. Colman, ed., A Dictionary of Psychology. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
Cook, K.S. (1975). Expectations, evaluations and equity. American Sociological Review 40 (3), pp. 372–388.
Cook, K.S., and Hegtvedt, K.A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology 9 (1), pp. 217–241.
Crosby, F.J., Iyer, A., and Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology 57 (1), pp. 585–611.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?. Journal of Social Issues 31 (3), pp. 137–149.
Diederich, A. (2020). Identifying needs: The psychological perspective. In: S. Traub and B. Kittel, eds., Need-based distributive justice. An interdisciplinary perspective. Springer International Publishing, pp. 59–89.
Dyches, J., and Boyd, A. (2017). Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education 68 (5), pp. 476–490.
Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research 49 (4), pp. 343–363.
European Group for Research on Equity in Educational Systems (2005). Equity in European educational systems: A set of indicators. European Commission.
Evetts, J. (1970). Equality of educational opportunity: The recent history of a concept. The British Journal of Sociology 21 (4), pp. 425–430.
Fadil, P.A., Williams, R.J., Limpaphayom, W., and Smatt, C. (2005). Equity or equality? A conceptual examination of the influence of individualism collectivism on the cross-cultural application of equity theory. Cross Cultural Management 12 (4), pp. 17–35.
Farrell, J.P. (2012). Equality of education: Six decades of comparative evidence seen from a new millennium. In: R.F. Arnove, C.A. Torres and S. Franz, eds., Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local. 4th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Finn, R.H., and Lee, S.M. (1972). Salary equity: Its determination, analysis, and correlates.. Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (4), pp. 283–292.
Frankel, C. (1971). Equality of opportunity. Ethics 81 (3), pp. 191–211.
Fraser, N. (1999). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In: L. Ray and A. Sayer, eds., Culture and Economy After the Cultural Turn. Sage, pp. 25–52.
Gamoran, A., and Long, D.A. (2007). Equality of educational opportunity: A 40 year retrospective. In: R. Teese, S. Lamb, M. Duru-Bellat and S. Helme, eds., International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 23–47.
Gilead, T. (2019). Promoting distributive justice in education and the challenge of unpredictability. Studies in Philosophy and Education 38 (4), pp. 439–451.
Gillies, D. (2006). A Curriculum for Excellence: A question of values. Scottish Educational Review 38 (1), pp. 25–36.
Grand, J.L. (1984). Equity as an economic objective. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1 (1), pp. 39–51.
Guiton, G., and Oakes, J. (1995). Opportunity to learn and conceptions of educational equality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (3), pp. 323–336.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hatfield, E., Salmon, M., and Rapson, R.L. (2011). Equity theory and social justice. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 8 (2), pp. 101–121.
Hippe, R., Araújo, L., and da Costa, P.D. (2016). Equity in education in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union Luxembourg.
Hochschild, J.L. (1981). What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.
Jurado de Los Santos, Pedro, Moreno-Guerrero, A., Marín-Marín, J., and Soler Costa, R. (2020). The term equity in education: A literature review with scientific mapping in Web of Science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (10), pp. 3526.
Kerr, K., and Raffo, C. (2016). Exploring the relationship between equality, equity and social justice in education. In: D. Beach and A. Dyson, eds., Equity and Education in Cold Climates in Sweden and England. London: Tufnell Press, pp. 13–26.
Kittel, B. (2020). Need-based justice: A sociological perspective. In: S. Traub and B. Kittel, eds., Need-Based Distributive Justice. Springer International Publishing, pp. 91–131.
Klees, S.J., and Qargha, O. (2014). Equity in education: The case of unicef and the need for participative debate. Prospects 44 (3), pp. 321–333.
Kodelja, Z. (2016). Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal 6 (2), pp. 9–24.
Kogan, M. (1975). Educational policy-making: A study of interest groups and parliament. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Konow, J., Saijo, T., and Akai, K. (2020). Equity versus equality: Spectators, stakeholders and groups. Journal of economic psychology 77 pp. 102171.
Kornhaber, M.L., Griffith, K., and 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), pp. 1–30.
Law, J. (2016). Equity theory. In: J. Law, ed., A Dictionary of Business and Management. 6th ed. Oxford University Press.
Levin, B. (2003). Approaches to equity in policy for lifelong learning. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Liebig, S., and Sauer, C. (2016). Sociology of justice. In: Handbook of social justice theory and research, 1st ed. Springer, pp. 37–59.
Lingard, B., and Keddie, A. (2013). Redistribution, recognition and representation: Working against pedagogies of indifference. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 21 (3), pp. 427–447.
Lodge, P., and Blackstone, T. (1982). Educational policy and educational inequality. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Loughland, T., and Sriprakash, A. (2014). Bernstein revisited: The recontextualisation of equity in contemporary Australian school education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 37 (2), pp. 230–247.
Luke, A. (2011). Generalizing across borders: Policy and the limits of educational science. Educational Researcher 40 (8), pp. 367–377.
Luke, A., Woods, A., and Weir, K. (2012). Curriculum design, equity and the technical form of the curriculum. In: A. Luke, A. Woods and K. Weir, eds., Curriculum, syllabus design, and equity: a primer and model. New York: Routledge, pp. 6–39.
Martino, W., and Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). ‘Gap talk’ and the global rescaling of educational accountability in Canada. Journal of Education Policy 28 (5), pp. 589–611.
McPherson, A., and Raab, C.D. (1988). Governing education: A sociology of policy since 1945. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meindl, J.R. (1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives, and leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (2), pp. 252–276.
Morand, D.A., and Merriman, K.K. (2012). Equality Theory as a counterbalance to equity theory in human resource management. Journal of Business Ethics 111 (1), pp. 133–144.
Mundy, K., and Ghali, M. (2009). International and transnational policy actors in education. In: E. Hanushek, G. Sykes, B. Schneider and D.N. Plank, eds., Handbook of Education Policy Research. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 717–734.
Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education 51 (3), pp. 180–187.
Nisbet, R.A. (1975). The new despotism. Menlo Park, California: Institute for Humane Studies, Incorporated.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 9 (2–3), pp. 33–59.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd) (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools.
Papastephanou, M. (2018). Interrogating Equity Discourses: Conceptual Considerations and Overlooked Complexities. In: S. Carney and M. Schweisfurth, eds., Equity in and through Education: Changing contexts, consequences and contestations. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, pp. 209–222.
Phillips, A. (2004). Defending equality of outcome. The Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (1), pp. 1–19.
Power, S. (2008). How should we respond to the continuing failure of compensatory education?. Orbis Scholae 2 (2), pp. 19–37.
Price, D. (2015). Pedagogies for inclusion of students with disabilities in a national curriculum: A central human capabilities approach. The Journal of Educational Enquiry 14 (2), pp. 18–32.
Priestley, M., Humes, W., and Laming, M.M. (2015). Emerging school curricula: Australia and Scotland compared. Curriculum Perspectives 35 (2), pp. 52–63.
Raffe, D. (2008). As others see us: A commentary on the oecd review of the quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. Scottish Educational Review 40 (1), pp. 22.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reed, R.J., and Oppong, N. (2005). Looking critically at teachers’ attention to equity in their classrooms. Mathematics Educator, (1), pp. 2–15.
Reis, H.T., and Gruzen, J. (1976). On mediating equity, equality, and self-interest: The role of self-presentation in social exchange. Journal of experimental social psychology 12 (5), pp. 487–503.
Rezai-Rashti, G., Segeren, A., and Martino, W. (2017). The new articulation of equity education in neoliberal times: The changing conception of social justice in Ontario. Globalisation, Societies and Education 15 (2), pp. 160–174.
Rizvi, F., and Lingard, B. (2011). Social equity and the assemblage of values in Australian higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education 41 (1), pp. 5–22.
Rosen, F. (2003). Classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge.
Salomone, J.J. (1981). Equity from the sociologist’s perspective: Research and development series. Washington DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
Samoff, J. (1996). Which priorities and strategies for education?. International Journal of Educational Development 16 (3), pp. 249–271.
Savage, G.C. (2013). Tailored equities in the education market: flexible policies and practices. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education 34 (2), pp. 185–201.
Savage, G.C., Sellar, S., and Gorur, R. (2013). Equity and marketisation: Emerging policies and practices in Australian education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34 (2), pp. 161–169.
Schaffer, B., and Lamb, G. (1981). Can equity be organised? Equity, development analysis and planning. Paris: UNESCO.
Sleeter, C. (2008). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (8), pp. 1947–1957.
Strike, K.A. (1985). Is there a conflict between equity and excellence?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 7 (4), pp. 409–416.
Swanson, D.M., Yu, H., and Mouroutsou, S. (2017). Inclusion as ethics, equity and/or human rights? Spotlighting school mathematics practices in Scotland and globally. Social Inclusion 5 (3), pp. 172–182.
Tawney, R.H. (1931). Equality. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Terzi, L. (2007). Capability and educational equality: The just distribution of resources to students with disabilities and special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education 41 (4), pp. 757–773.
Thomson, P. (2013). Romancing the market: Narrativising equity in globalising times. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34 (2), pp. 170–184.
Tyler, W. (2011). The Sociology of Educational Inequality (rle Edu L). London: Routledge.
Unterhalter, E. (2009). What is equity in education? Reflections from the capability approach. Studies in Philosophy and Education 28 (5), pp. 415–424.
Walster, E. & Walster, G.W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues 31 (3), pp. 21–43.
Wolff, J. (2007). Equality: The recent history of an idea. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (1), pp. 125–136.
Wolff, J. (2015). Equality and social justice. In: ed. C. McKinnon, ed., Issues in political theory. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–120.
