Differences in the Conception of Equality in Education

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Formal equality
Real equality or material equality
Equality of educational opportunities
Difference approach
Multi-dimensional approach
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The concept of equality is as old as the thought of humans but its universal appeal remains an elusive ideal. The demand for equality obsesses every political thought since we are not sure what it is but whatever it is, we want it. The ideology of equality is a paradox. We often assume that all people are equal but we learn they are not intact equal since every individual inherits different traits that are influenced by social conditions (education, family environment, etc) in which fortune places him or her. This in turn leads to differences in the conception of equality as discussed below.

Formal equality

This is an idea of equality that prevails within liberal thinking. Historically, this idea was meant to dismantle the legally and politically sanctioned privileges enjoyed by certain social groups. This notion is entwined with the liberal notion of rights. The perception of equal rights historically has presupposed the idea of impartiality, neutrality, and universality in the contents and access of education opportunities. As noted by Hall and Kennedy (2006) this principle has been accepted by most societies thus fostering a way forward to the fulfillment of the ideal of equality.

Its rationale is to ensure that, no student or group of students should enjoy greater access to education opportunities due to their social status or forbidden access on the account of gender, race, color, religion, sex, political ideas, and social origin. This principle was advocated by the societies after realizing that race, class, and gender contributed much to inequalities in education access and opportunities. The oversight of this ideology is that it doesn’t overcome certain situations of individual inequality. For instance, children from a poor background will rarely have access to quality education since they cannot be able to join private schools, also at higher grades, high dropouts are recorded to this social group. Secondly, it may lead to imbalances in the enjoyment of equal rights, and finally, equal treatment may have discriminatory effects on the account of the situation of that person.

Real equality or material equality

This is a conception by socialists and feminists that focuses on the results produced by education i.e. the outcome of education. It deals with problems associated with the inequalities in the society such as poverty that leads to unequal access to education opportunities. This approach calls for affirmative action to the community institutions such as the state to provide free education to all children in certain grades such as primary and secondary levels. It also seeks schools to provide the resources needed in the education to economically disadvantaged students. It also demands the dispensation of certain requirements of general applications to some individuals to prevent them from being discriminated against access to education e.g. special attention paid to the slow learners in the classroom. Examples are given in the constitution of Puerto Rico that not only provides the right of every person to an education that leads to the full development of her personality but goes further and demands the state to offer free access to primary and secondary levels. This rationale has some limitations in that it has a potential conflict with a certain conception of liberty and thus it is opposed by the liberals. (Michele, 2006)

Equality of educational opportunities

This is conceived as an argument in favor of equal rights because inequalities of rights in education opportunities to a student or group of students leads to unequal education opportunities, for example, those students who come from a poor background lacks enough capital to join schools that offer quality education and hence receives least enriching education and end up with historically deflating diplomas which have less value and thus cannot compete with their counterparts who are degree holders in the job market. This ideology on the conception of equality distinguishes the diverse modalities of the twentieth-century welfare state. It is straddled between the conception of formal equality and real or material equality (which is useful for a certain purpose and advocated by supporters of progressive social policies), carries the trouble of the common indetermination suitable to an origin based on ideological accommodation. (Michele, 2006)

It is sometimes used to mean equal rights as explained or to serve as a ground to demand equality of conditions since it argues that unequal conditions constitute barriers to equality of opportunities i.e. it considers both formal and real equality bearing in mind their strength and weaknesses. This ideology has been perceived as the opposite of equality of results but it is not easy to distinguish between results and opportunities. For example, in the case of equal access to education, it is not easy to tell whether it is a condition that provides for a better opportunity or it is the result of a policy that is aimed at the redistribution of services and resources. The key question that remains under this conception is the opportunities for what, as affirmed by J.R. Pole. Whose answer depends on values, needs among other factors created by historical circumstances, and group’s aspiration? As proposed by Jefferson, the proposition implies the vindication of an equal right to all children to get to be part of the elite i.e. each child should be beneficial to the education. (Noll, 2006)

Difference approach

This is a conceptual proposal that emerges after the realization of the situations in which it is not possible to eliminate real (natural or cultural) differences among people. This proposition hence rests on the ideology of the differences among people, which should always be, accepted the way they are. These differences may arise from biological traits- such as race and sex- or social constructs such as gender. The aim of this approach is not to remove the differences but to avoid, eliminate and reduce the harmful impacts that some may claim to attach to them. For instance, legal provisions in some countries require the physically and mentally challenged children to be provided with reasonable access to education since these characteristics cannot be erased but their adverse impact can be eliminated. Within this concept, claims for the cultural self-determination made by indigenous and other ethnic groups are included i.e. the right to own their culture and language, or rights asserted by girls about the differential facts of pregnancy or motherhood. (Noll, 2006)

Multi-dimensional approach

The numerous situations that involve some type of inequity in the contemporary world, as well as the different problems that the amendable ideal of equality has historically alleged to redress, necessitate abandoning any form of reductionism in the attribution of meaning to the concept of equality. The usefulness of the concept lies precisely in its polysemantic character. Its greatest strength is its capacity to bear multiple meanings of inequality since not all inequalities are the same and the problems of inequality have always been and will continue to be multi-dimensional. (Noll, 2006)

Conclusion

The usefulness and insufficiency of the several conceptions of equality call discussed for the development of a multi-dimensional and dynamic approach that can incorporate and transcend them. We should avoid reductionism when analyzing equality and we should make efforts to conceive more complex ways of addressing the multiple angles and problems connected to the concept of equality.

References

Hall, D., and Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student’s achievement patterns. Washington, DC; Education trust.

Kenneth, R. (2003), Equality of education Opportunity and the Criterion of Equal Educational Worth, Journal of studies in philosophy and education, vol 11 (329-337).

Michelle, F. (2005), Framing dropouts, New yolk, Sunny press publishers.

Michele, S. (2006), Social welfare, the Neo-conservative Turn, and Educational Opportunity: journal of philosophy of education, vol 38 (275-286).

Noll, J.M. (Ed.). (2006). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial education issues (13th Ed.). Dubuque, IA; McGraw-Hill.

Spring. J. (2005). The American school, 1642-2004 (6th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Click Here To Order Now!