What is equity

Equity is the ideal of “moral equality” (Jones, 2009) applied to the way people are treated by society, meaning “that people should be treated as equals” but not necessarily treated equally. According to Jones, “equity is about understanding how moral equality can be realised at the level of a whole society”. There are differing opinions on how this can be achieved. Rawls (1971) discusses  the principle of ‘fair equality of opportunity’ by which he means that social  advantage is meritocratic, that is, based on innate ability and effort rather than a function of social class or status. This essentially is the argument for fair competition. It is important to note that it necessarily assumes that all people have comparable opportunity to develop the skills and talents required for achievement. Rawl’s idea of fair equality of opportunity has been criticised because he limits his definition to social rather than economic advantage. Many consider Rawl's ‘difference principle’ which states that “unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off….an equal distribution is to be preferred” to be a fairer system. Rawls in fact stipulates that both equality of opportunity and equal distribution together most closely proximate moral equality. Other notions of equity discuss treating people with equal consideration and respect (Dworkin, 1983 as quoted in Jones, 2009), and consistency in applying the same principles to equal situations (Jones, 2009). Jones proposes three principles of distributive justice that sums up the discourse on equity: equal life chances, equal concern for people’s needs, and meritocracy. Redistribution of wealth/resources is required “so that life chances are not overly biased by inherited advantage”. In summary, it is important to understand and appreciate the difference between equality and equity. Equality is ensuring everyone has access to the same resources and opportunities. Equity takes into account relative circumstances and gives access to resources and opportunities required to achieve equal outcomes.

Barriers to equity in education

The OECD (2012) defines equity in education as ensuring personal and social circumstances are not obstacles to students achieving their learning potential.

International studies (Chudgar and Luschei, 2009) have found that socioeconomic factors have significant impact on student outcomes. Students from higher socioeconomic strata have the benefit of better nutrition, access to health care,  housing, extracurricular opportunities, lower imprisonment rates,  amongst other measures, that mean that students living in poverty do not begin their lives on a level playing field. The more unequal the society, the wider the achievement gap and New Zealand is certainly unequal. Recent statistics show that Māori and Pacific peoples make up 61.8 percent of New Zealand's prison population, 28.2 percent of Māori own a house (and only 18.5 percent of Pacific people). Clearly the principle of moral equity as described above has not been applied in the New Zealand context.

Socioeconomic disadvantage is by no means the only inequity in education in New Zealand. Schools themselves have been found to contribute to “within-school inequality” (Kearney, 2017) through policies that limit students' opportunity to learn by limiting exposure to content (Schmidt et. al, 2015). This essentially means that  students streamed into a low class won't be given the same content as those in the top class. Inequity is also perpetuated by deficitising some students over others.  Deficitising and pathologizing lead to lowering of expectations by society, institutions (including schools), teachers, whānau, and individuals' themselves. A recent first hand experience of this is a student with a range of different support needs who has been allowed to opt out of learning activities if he didn't want to participate. Even an indifference to deficit thinking can be harmful, leading to blame and absolution from societal responsibility to ensure equity. McArthur and Rutherford (2016) state that despite the governments attempts (Success for All policy, Ministry of Education, 2010) to address inequity in education, success will only occur if "policy and practice [occurs] within a ‘rights’ rather than ‘needs’ based framework". Previous policy has been driven by underlying assumptions that students with 'special needs' are "problematic, require extra resources and time, have limited/fixed ability, and may disrupt other students’ learning through challenging behaviour and additional demands on teachers’ time", and adopt an 'identify, assess, remediate' model of addressing inequity.  The very use of the term 'special needs' has been criticised as it not only implies discrete from a cohort of other 'normal' students which automatically propels diverse students into one amorphous group, it affirms negative assumptions of deficiency.

Legislative framework

Not only is there a moral imperative to ensure equity in education, the rights of the child is protected under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).  The rights under the fifty four Articles (UNCRC) include non discrimination regardless, of race, religion, ethnicity, gender etc. Article 12 specifically requires that the child is given a voice and that voice is given due weight. Articles 28 and 29 provide for the right to a quality education and to be treated with respect. Article 23 states that children with a disability have the right to reach their full potential and that appropriate support should be provided to facilitate this outcome. Despite these protections, educational institutions are doing little to ensure these rights are implemented (Smith, 2016). Smith states that in western countries such as New Zealand, the problems of “equity, social justice, and quality education within school” exist.

References