Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solving the Equity/Equality Conceptual Dilemma: A New-Goal Oriented Model to Approach Analyses Associated with Different Stages of the Educational Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Globalization, Education and Social Justice

Part of the book series: Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research ((GCEP,volume 10))

Abstract

This study is grounded in the critical theory Paradigm, which focuses on issues of power, knowledge, conflicts over values, lack of resources, control, resistance, hegemony, and equity and how they manifest themselves in different situations (Apple, 1996; Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Giroux, 1983; Larkin and Staton, 2001; Paulston, 1977; Popkewitz and Brennan, 1997; Rezai-Rashti, 1995). From a critical theory perspective, it is assumed that social relations in education and other sectors are characterized by conflict and contradictions. Indeed, critical theory affirms that educational systems in capitalist societies are involved in the reproduction and change of class relationships and cannot be understood by simply “adding up” the effects of schooling on each individual to arrive at a sense of social impact (Bowles and Gintis, 1976). According to critical theory, in all the societies with a “free” market economy, the primary function of education is to reproduce the social relations of capitalist society. Since “equity” issues represent one of the pillars of critical theory’s concerns, this chapter focuses on it as well as on the concept of “equality” which has been used as a synonym of the concept “equity.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

     On the concept of distributive justice, see also Lerner (1974) and Rawls (1971). Rawls (1971: 303), for example, summarizes his general conception of the principles of justice in the following way: “All social primary goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored.”

  2. 2.

    According to Corson (2001: 67) one consequence of the current neo-conservative sweep in education, is the resurgence of “sameness” to form the ethos of equity programs and policies. The concept of substantive equality and systemic discrimination is being replaced by the more limited “one-size-fits-all” focus of equal opportunity (Coulter, 1998).

  3. 3.

     On the principles of utilitarianism, see for instance, Bentham (1948), House (1980), Rawls (1971) and Strike (1979).

  4. 4.

     On educational inequality see the definitions given by Coleman (1968) and the polemic study written by Jencks et al. (1972). A critique of Jencks’ work in Havighurst (1973).

  5. 5.

     For those interested in establishing the fairness of policies or programs by using a qualitative method, Blanchard (1986) has developed a model of fairness analysis, which IDentifies the distributional consequences of any policy or program related to social equity.

  6. 6.

     The term input refers to the perceived contributions that indivIDuals make, whereas output refers to the perceived benefits enjoyed by individuals.

  7. 7.

     It is important to note that access to any education level faces different restrictions. Access to higher education, for example, is limited by economic, social, and cultural barriers, including: lack of financial resources (socioeconomic discrimination); excessive distance from home to higher learning institutions; sex discrimination; inadequacy of primary and high schools in provIDing academic preParation; prejudice against certain racial, religious, or political minorities; unfair, culturally biased, standardized entrance examinations; physical (but not mental) disabilities that inhibit mobility; age discrimination; undue emphasis upon communication skill requirements (Crossland, 1976: 529).

  8. 8.

     Even though there is so much agreement on equality of educational opportunity as an IDeal, there is so much disagreement about its application. Regarding the unended discussion about equality of educational opportunity and its implications, see for example, Ennis (1976), Frankel (1971), Jencks (1988), Mosteller and Moynihan (1972), and O’Neill (1976).

  9. 9.

     Choice is a conceptually necessary aspect of opportunity which determines outcomes. But how should the concept of “opportunity” be defined? An opportunity is a kind of choice or chance to do something where indivIDuals face neither formal, legal, cultural/intellectual barriers nor physical block to pursuing such opportunity. As Campbell (1974–1975: 51) has nicely stated: “An opportunity may be saID to occur when an agent is in a situation in which he may choose whether or not to perform some act which is consIDered to be desirable in itself or is a means to the attainment of some goal which is consIDered to be desirable.”

  10. 10.

     There is an important difference between equality in education and equal opportunities for education. While the former emphasizes substantively equal resources, access, attainment, achievement, and outcomes, the latter emphasizes self-determination, that is, action or decision in the absence of constraints, which may or may not result in equality of access, survival, and or output in education (Burbules et al., 1982).

  11. 11.

    The foundation definition is too IDealistic because even though it may be feasible for different socioeconomic groups to get equal amount of resources from national governments, it does not consIDers unequal family/community resources.

References

  • Adams J (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2:267–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson CH (1971) Toward a new sociology: A critical view. Dorsey, Homewood, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple M (1996) Power, meaning and identity: Critical sociology of education in the United States. British Journal of Sociology in Education 17(2):125–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arriagada RP (1993) Universidad Para los más Capaces sin Discriminación Social. Santiago, Chile. Mimeographed document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham J (1948) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Hafner, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard W (1986) Evaluating social equity: What does fairness mean and can we measure it?, Policy Studies Journal 15(1):29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist A, Jimenez E (1989) The public role in private post-secondary education. A review of issues and options. Working Paper Series # 240. World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles S, Gintis H (1976) Schooling in capitalist America. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman MJ (1975) Education and opportunity: Some economic perspectives. Oxford Review of Education 1:73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner M (1973) Equality and equity. Annals 409 (September 1973):5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbules N, Lord B, Sherman A (1982) Equity, equal opportunity, and education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4(2):169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell TD (1975) Equality of opportunity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75:51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson K (1983) How equal is equal?, Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership 3(3):243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy M (1976a) The role of education in a strategy for social change. In: Carnoy M, Levin H (eds) The limits of educational reform. Longman, New York, pp. 269–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy M (1976b) International educational reform: The ideology of efficiency. In: Carnoy M, Levin H (eds) The limits of educational reform. Longman, New York, pp. 245–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy M (1995) Structural adjustment and the changing face of education. International Labour Review 134(6):653–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr W, Kemmis S (1986) Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Falmer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J (1968) The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review 38(1):7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook KS, Parcel TL (1977) Equity theory: Directions for future research. Sociological Inquiry 47:75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coons J, Clune W, Sugarman S (1970) Private wealth and public education. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corson D (2001) Ontario students as a means to a government’s ends. Our Schools/Our Selves 10(4):55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter R (1998) Us guys in suits are back: Women, educational work and the market economy in Canada. In: Mackinnon A, Elgqvist-Saltzman I, Prentice A (eds) Education into the 21st century: Dangerous terrain for women. Falmer, London, pp. 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossland F (1976) The equilibrist’s query: Equality, equity or equilibrium? Thoughts on policies of access to higher education, Prospects VI(4):526–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K, Moore W (1945) Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review X(April):242–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis RH (1976) Equality and educational opportunity. Educational Theory 26(1):3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza O (2002) The global and national rhetoric of educational reform and the practice of (in) equity in the Chilean higher education system (1981–1998). Ed. D. Dissertation, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck HJ (1975) Equality and education: Fact and fiction. Oxford Review of Education 1(1):51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fantini M (1989) Changing conceptions of equality. Moving from equality of opportunity to equality of results. Equity & Excellence 24(2):21–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrel J (1999) Changing conceptions of equality of education: Forty years of comParative ­evidence. In: Arnove R, Torres CA (eds) ComParative education: The dialectic of the global and the local. Rowan & Littlefield, New York, pp. 149–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer L (1989) Equality: An elusive ideal. Equity & Excellence 24(2):64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flew A (1983) Competition and cooperation, equality and elites. Journal of Philosophy of Education 17(2):267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel C (1971) Equality of opportunity. Ethics 81(3):191–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans HJ (1973) More equality. Pantheon Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner H (1983) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux HA (1983) Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey, South Hadley, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon EW (1972) Toward defining equality of educational opportunity. In: Mosteller F, Moynihan D (eds) On equality of educational opportunity. Random House, New York, pp. 423–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J, Cohen R (eds) (1982) Equity and justice in social behavior. Academic, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guri S (1986) Equality and excellence in higher education - Is it possible? A case of Everyman’s University, Israel. Higher Education 15:59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey G, Klein S (1985) Understanding and measuring equity in education: A conceptual model. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership 5(2):145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havighurst R (1973) Opportunity, equity, or equality. School Review 81(4):618–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein R, Murray C (1994) The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • House ER (1980) The role of theories of justice in evaluation - Justice on strike. Educational Theory 30(1):67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe KR (1989) In defense of outcomes-based conceptions of equal educational opportunity. Educational Theory 39(4):317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jencks Ch (1988) Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal?, Ethics 98:518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jencks Ch, Smith M, Acland H, Bane MJ, Cohen D, Gintis H, et al. (1972) Inequality: A reassessment of the role of family and schooling in America. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen A (1975) The price of inequality. Oxford Review of Education 1(1):59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez E (1986) The public subsidization of education and health in developing countries: A review of equity and efficiency. The World Bank Research Observer 1:111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone B, Shroff-Mehta P (2000) Higher education finance and accessibility: An international comParative examination of tuition and financial assistance policies. The international comParative higher education finance and accessibility project. The Center for ComParative and Global Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Wilson FC (1986) Equity in education: Low priority in the school reform Movement. The Urban Review 18(1):31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones L, Moore R (1992) Equal opportunities: The curriculum and the subject. Cambridge Journal of Education 22(2):243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konvitz MR (1973) Equity in law and ethics. In: Wiener P (ed) Dictionary of the history of ideas: Studies of selected pivotal ideas. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 148–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin J, Staton P (2001) Access, inclusion, climate, empowerment (AICE): A framework for gender equity in market-driven education. Canadian Journal of Education 26(3):361–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner M (1974) The justice motive: “Equity” and “parity” among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29(4):539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal G (1980) What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen K, Greenberg M, Willis R (eds) Social exchange advances in theory and research. Plenum, New York, pp. 27–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides G, Heck R (1990) Educational policy issues for the 1990s. Balancing equity and excellence in implementing the reform agenda. Urban Education 25(1):55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy E (1977) A note on the new equality. Commentary 64(5):53–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick D, Cook K (eds) (1983) Equity theory. Psychological and sociological perspectives. Praeger, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller F, Moynihan DP (eds) (1972) On equality of educational opportunity. Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson LJ (1984) Affirmative action, education, and social class. Philosophy of Education Society, Normal, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet R (1975) The new despotism. Commentary 59(6):31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O (1976) Opportunities, equalities and education. Theory and Decision 7:275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein AC (1978) Education and social inquiry. Peacock, Itasca, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T (1949) The Structure of Social Action. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T (1951) The Social System. The Free Press, Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passow H (1984) Equity and excellence: Confronting the dilemmas. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Education in the 90’s: Equality, equity and excellence in education. Tel-Aviv, Israel, December 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattnayak S (1996) Economic globalization and the urban process: Political implications for the state in Latin America. In: Pattnayak S (ed) Globalization, urbanization, and the state: Selected studies on contemporary Latin America. University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 203–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulston R (1977) Social and educational change: Conceptual frameworks. ComParative Education Review 21(2–3):370–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petras J (1999) Globalization: A critical analysis. In: Chilcote RM (ed) The political economy of imperialism: Critical appraisals. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, pp. 181–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popkewitz T, Brennan M (1997) Restructuring of social and political theory in education: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. Educational Theory 47(3):287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psacharopoulos G, Woodhall M (1985) Education for development: An analysis of investment choices. Oxford University Press for the World Bank, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff-Brown AR (1965) Structure and function in primitive society: Essays and addresses. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezai-Rashti G (1995) Connecting racism and sexism: The dilemma of working with minority students. In: Ng R, Staton P, Scane J (eds) Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education. Bergin & Garvey, Wesport, CT, pp. 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach J (1969) Social stratification in the United States. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau J (1912) The social contract or principles of political right (H. Tozer, Trans.). George Allen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau J (1950) A dissertation on the origin and foundation of the inequality of mankind. In: Rousseau J (ed) The social contract and discourses (G. D. H. Cole, Trans.). E. P. Dutton, New York, pp. 196–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmi J (1991) Perspectives on the financing of higher education. Document # PHREE/91/45. World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomone J (1981) Equity from the sociologist’s perspective. Research and Development Series # 214L. Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Columbus. Retrieved February 10, 2001, from the ERIC Database ED215168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samoff J (1996) Which priorities and strategies for education? International Journal of Educational Development 16(3):249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secada W (1989) Educational equity versus equality of education: An alternative conception. In: Secada W (ed) Equity and education. Falmer, New York, pp. 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro JZ (1984) Social justice and educational evaluation: Normative implications of alternative criteria for program assessment. Educational Theory 34(2):137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith W, Lusthaus C (1995) The nexus of equality and quality in education: A framework for debate. Canadian Journal of Education 20(3):378–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg RJ (1985) General intellectual ability. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Human abilities: An information processing approach. W. H. Freeman, New York, pp. 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg RJ (1988) The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. Penguin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike KA (1979) The role of theories of justice in evaluation: Why a house is not a home. Educational Theory 29(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike KA (1985) Is there a conflict between equity and excellence? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 7(4):409–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornblom K (1992) The social psychology of distributive justice. In: Scherer K (ed) Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 177–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tumin M (1965) The meaning of equality in education. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the National Committee for support of Public Schools. Washington, DC. Cited in Carlson, K. (1983), How equal is equal? Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership 3(3):243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler W (1977) The sociology of educational inequality. Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde L (1988) Editor’s introduction: The coexistence of excellence and equality. Education and Urban Society 20(4):315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner J (1985) Equity and social policy: Conceptual ambiguity in welfare criteria. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 5(2):16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner W, Havighurst R, Loeb M (1944) Who shall be educated? In: Warner W, Havighurst R, Loeb M (eds) Who shall be educated? The challenge of unequal opportunities. New York, Harper, pp. 141–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale A (1978) Equality and social policy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijck P (1993) On equity and utility. Rationality and Society 5(1):68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood G (1984) Schooling in a democracy: Transformation or reproduction? Educational Theory 34(3):219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (1994) Higher education: Lessons from experience. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2000) Higher education in dveloping countries: Perils and promise. World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile

    Oscar Espinoza

Authors
  1. Oscar Espinoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, Victoria Parade 115, Fitzroy, 3065, Australia

    Joseph Zajda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Espinoza, O. (2010). Solving the Equity/Equality Conceptual Dilemma: A New-Goal Oriented Model to Approach Analyses Associated with Different Stages of the Educational Process. In: Zajda, J. (eds) Globalization, Education and Social Justice. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3221-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation