The word ‘equity’ often carries a loaded meaning, and in no realm is
the debate more polarizing than in the field of education. When it
comes to education, equity appears to be a noble goal – an end in and
of itself to which society should aspire. . A recent article in The
Atlantic highlights some of the most relevant issues in the debate by
contrasting the American system to the Finnish system.
Click here to read the Atlantic Article
Indeed, the lessons gleaned from the comparison are quite striking –
Finland’s move to a national system focused on school equality has
been linked to a massive increase in student performance while the
increasing inequities apparent in the American system have paralleled
a considerable decline. However, with regards to equity of education
in the United States, the debate often reduces itself to a small set
of practical realities, some of which go far beyond schools, teachers,
and students. If equity is indeed the ideal goal, what hurdles must
be overcome for us to get there? More importantly, what practical
solutions are there for students caught in a system where the gap
between the “haves” and “have nots” continues to grow?
The American school system is in urgent need of reform – it’s
something that every politician and American can (should) get behind.
However, one philosophical and one practical question divide mix and
divide the public:
1) How should we define “equality” with regards to education?
2) What is the most equitable way to fund schools?
With regards to the first question, many will argue that equality of
education means identical educational programs and facilities across
all grade levels (this is essentially the Finnish model). Others
opine that equality means equal access to a public school which meets
certain minimum standards set by the Federal/State/Local government
(this is the American model today). Still others will argue that
equality of education is purely about equal outcomes for student
populations.
1) Equality of programs (current Finland)
2) Equality of access (current US system)
3) Equality of outcomes (objective of NCLB?)
No matter which goal one believes our society should strive for, it is
clear that the underlying practicality of how whether/how to equitably
fund schools stands in the way. This issue is deeply rooted in the
fabric of America. The American Federal system checks the power of
the federal government by empowering state and local governments to
control many government functions (e.g., police, fire). The elegance
of the system, in theory, is that people will vote with their feet if
they disagree with state policies, and thus the best policies will win
out in the long run. The control of education funding is left to
state and local school boards and comes primarily from local property
taxes. Only national/interstate matters fall under the control of the
Federal government. It is this system which is responsible for the
massive disparity in funding between the best and worst schools in
this country – and this level of funding can be directly linked to
outcomes (I cite no literature here, but challenge the reader to
reader to find either empirical and experiential evidence to the
contrary).
In fact, the question about equity in education really comes down to
economics – who will control funding, and how will those decisions be
made. The reality of this debate in the United States is that local
funding will continue to hold sway unless the greater good AND
individual good is demonstrated to be better with State control.
Thus, for all the rhetoric that national politicians put on the state
about national education reform, the real power rests with the state
and county tax authorities. It is the beauty of the American Federal
system which perhaps brings change closer than one might imagine.
Populists rejoice!