Talk:Educational equity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhott23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asmc19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HK khawaja. Peer reviewers: AbiL7, Mgmari19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This entire article makes no attempt at NPOV whatsoever. It uses nonsense jargon such as 'equity recognises'. It is just a propaganda piece

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.22.23 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 

This article is structured very clearly and provides a lot of information on the topic, but some of this information is unnecessary. Adding that the words “equity” and “equality” are misused in this context was informational, but there did not need to be two sections, let alone one, on this issue. The “Equality” section was completely unnecessary because it does not pertain to the topic. This is a problem because it takes away from the main point of the article. Neutrality was maintained in the sections about race, gender, and publications, which is necessary and ideal. However, another sign of bad quality, sections that are much longer than they are important, can be seen in the “Reputable Research Centers and Associations” section, for this section lacks importance. Overall, the article provides in-depth, significant information about educational equity, although it seems as if unnecessary parts were added inaccurately. Laurdeut (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The group did a nice job of making many meaningful edits to make the page more complete and informative. It was good that the group added a section in the beginning that laid out the difference between equity and equality. Viewers can easily get confused between the two, and it was helpful that the group provided the difference early on in the article. This Wikipedia article barely had anything to start with and now it not only has through descriptions of topics ranging from the race equality in education by the UK, US, and England to the challenges in education equity, but the group took one step forward and added recommendations and solutions for educational equity. The addition of the picture of the world that depicted which countries are associated with OECD was helpful for people to visually understand which countries are working towards educational equity, and how they are doing in comparison with each other based on their color in the diagram. The group also added hyperlinks and many sections that further enhanced their Wikipedia page. However, even though the sources for the group’s information were technically cited correctly, information regarding the sources’ authors are missing from the citation. The group also could have done a better job in terms of formatting the information and making the sections that follow each other go in a better order. For example, there are four sections titled “Equity vs Equality,” “Equity,” “Equaltiy,” and “Equity vs Equality,” again. Perhaps the four sections should be combined into one and just have three separate paragraphs. Overall though the group did an excellent job of improving this Wikipedia article. Alexandraalbericci (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This group did a great job structuring the article, as it is easy to follow and provides the most relevant information in the beginning. But although the article was organized well, there were some unnecessary sections, such as the "Equity vs. Equality," and the "Equality" sections. In the introduction the article claims that the study of educational equity is often linked with the study of excellence and equity. Nowhere in the description of educational equity does the article mention equality. It seems as though equality is irrelevant from the main points of the article, and should therefore have its sections be discarded. In fact, to someone learning about educational equity, introducing equality in addition to equity, to demonstrate their differences, may provide some unnecessary confusion. On a more positive note, the inequity sections were rather informative and well-written, allowing the reader to understand the point quickly. Additionally, the group did a good job including sections on racial and gender equity, as they added a more colorful take to the subject. Furthermore, the article's section titled "Notable Publications and Reports" provides the reader with real-life examples of the different types of equity discussed in the article, which provides a certain credibility to their findings. Finally, the group did not cite their references appropriately. As you can see, the group simply posted the links to all of the sources they used, rather than cite them in the appropriate APA format. This resulted in the article remaining a stub, which hinders its credibility. All in all, the group provided very valuable insight into educational equity, and with a few minor changes (references and typos), the article could be great.Jslplainview (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Educational equity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222023026/http://www.vsointernational.org:80/vso-today/index.asp to http://www.vsointernational.org/vso-today/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Patrinos's comment on this article

Dr. Patrinos has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article requires a framework. It should start with a basic definition of equity. While the article tries to do that, it simply points out that terms such as equity and equality are misused. But it doesn't help solve the problem. The description of equity is not useful. For example, the sentence: "Equity aims at making sure that everyone's lifestyle is equal even if it may come at the cost of unequal distribution of access and goods." I have not idea what that means.

With such a start, it makes the rest of the article different to understand.

This article requires a thorough revision.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Patrinos has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Fasih, Tazeen & Kingdon, Geeta & Patrinos, Harry Anthony & Sakellariou, Chris & Soderbom, Mans, 2012. "Heterogeneous returns to education in the labor market," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6170, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Rocco's comment on this article

Dr. Rocco has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Starting at an extremely young age, the sorting of students mimics hierarchy similar to one which will form later on in life. Students are both viewed and treated differently depending on which track they take. The quality of teaching and curricula vary between tracks and as a result, those of the lower track are disadvantaged with inferior resources, teachers, etc. In many cases, tracking stunts students who may develop the ability to excel past their original placement.

This sentece is not necessarity true. Only in a few Central European Countries (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic) tracking still takes place at age 10 or 11. In most of the countries that tracked early in the Seventies, reforms have been enacted to delay tracking (following the so-called detracking movement). Also, not necessarily fewer resources are devoted to the lower tracks. This might occur, but it is not a rule.

A useful reference on tracking is Brunello, G. and Checchi, D. (2007) Does School Tracking Affect Equality of Opportunity? New International Evidence, Economic Policy, vol 22(52):782-861

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Rocco has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Ariga, Kenn & Brunello, Giorgio & Iwahashi, Roki & Rocco, Lorenzo, 2007. "School Tracking Across the Baltic Sea," CEPR Discussion Papers 6552, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will include this in my revisions (see below). SteveCree2 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Recommendations and solutions

The 'Recommendations and solutions' section shows clear bias and probable plagiarism. It is also rambling and poorly written. I suggest it be deleted or dramatically revised.RockBass83 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@RockBass83: Removed. Next time, be bold! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed revisions

Hello! I'm Anne. I would like to make revisions to help improve the quality of this article. There appears to be a problem with keeping a neutral POV, so I would like to address this and reduce any biases that are present within the article. I would also like to restructure the article so that sections 2-4 are put under the same section but are labeled as sub-sections, and I would also like to create new subsections that describe other factors that intersect with educational equity.AMRara (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Revisions

Hello, again! I will be making revisions to help improve this article. To stay updated with my planned changes, you can visit my sandbox through my userpage, where you can also see a more detailed outline of my proposed revisions. Feel free to leave any comments or suggestions. Thanks! AMRara (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I would like help to improve this article as well and agree with AMRara about the need for restructuring. I think making sub-sections of sections 2-4 is a very good idea. I would also suggest to create a section of in-school mechanisms that cause educational equity, such as different tracking mechanisms in and between schools, because they differ significantly for the existence of equity. Right now, tracking is part of the socio-eco section, but I think it is broader, affects all types of equity and would be more guiding being part of a separate section describing in-school mechanisms. Charlottetim (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The article should be completely rewritten

While the article is well written, the few sources used have no grounding in current academic research on the topic, and are mostly reflective of a profound bias if not a particular ideology. This is evident from the fact that a clear definition of equity is not provided and that no concrete reference is made to the policies implemented, for instance in the EEU, with regards to employment, education and gender disparity. These latter are all predisposed to meet criteria of "equality" understood in standard classical liberal terms, rather than in terms of equity (or equality of outcomes). Wikipedia exists to inform people about existing policies and theories not as an instrument for a political agenda--86.6.150.203 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence that this article was part of a student assignment four times

As I read this article, as a newcomer, I conclude that the many shortcomings of the article are, at least, partially due to it having been the subject of student assignments. The lack of citations, poor writing, and heavy point of view (which many students assume is a neutral point of view) need serious work. I will insert more calls for citations in the text. This is not my field of expertise, so I leave it to others to fill in the many gaps. Pete unseth (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Article does not clearly define "Equity" and differentiate from "Equality"

One of the points of contention in current discussions of "Equity" is a clear definition, and a comparison or differentiation from "Equality". This article fails at the beginning on this fundamental point. It must be remembered that the public uses these terms differently from some academics, so terms must be defined carefully, not assumed.

This article needs very serious reworking. It might be simplest to delete some sections. Pete unseth (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This article is well below the Wikipedia standard. It's failed structure, as pointed out above by Pete unseth above, extends from its being a disparate collection of not-very-good undergraduate essays. The meaning of equity in education is of itself much contested; no coherent definition has been laid down here, let alone explored. A consequence of this contestedness is that any Wiki article attempting to grapple with it needs to be clear about the idea's ambiguity. There are a number of logical criticisms of the idea of equity in education, let alone other intellectual critiques. None of this is reflected here. This should really be an article in draft, it is so far from a coherent treatment of the idea of equity in education. I will enter a short paragraph at the end on simple logical criticisms of equity in education, but my view is that this doesn't help that much - the whole thing needs put into draft and re-written in a much simpler way SteveCree2 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tidied up the first sentence or so and put a criticisms paragraph in at the end. This doesn't really help that much, however, as the whole thing needs reworking. I'll spend some time on it over the next couple of weeks and hopefully others will come in too. SteveCree2 (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you concerns. This article really does need to be reworked extensively. It is far below the standard of clarity and accuracy seen in Wikipdia articles. Until then, I wonder if the article should be suspended because much is confused, misleading and badly explained. It comes as no suprise to read that its origin was a student project as it lacks neutrality, maturity of argument, etc to such a degree that I was obliged to come here and see what had been going on. HTH. Brabtastic (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Add information

Suggestions to add this information to already existing sections or create new sections accordingly.

Context

Long-term statistical trends tell only partial stories, shaped by what can be measured and what cannot. Yet, when considered holistically, they show probable future directions and possible paths of change. Access to educational opportunity, the inclusion of marginalized populations, literacy, and the creation of lifelong learning systems, share some commonalities but also considerable differences between and within countries, regions, and income groups of the world. Trends analyses also highlight which areas have received the most attention, and those that require new and urgent responses. Looking at probable educational futures from the perspective of historical and current challenges helps us in thinking about other futures that might emerge.

References

Enrollment Data

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, the world population stood at 2.4 billion, with only 45% of those people having set foot in a school. Today, with a global population of 8 billion, over 95% have attended school. Enrolment in 2020 surpassed 90% in primary, 85% in lower secondary and 65% in upper-secondary education. As a result, there has been a clear decline in the share of out-of-school children and adolescents worldwide over the past fifty years. While more than one in four children were out of primary school in 1970, the share in 2020 dropped to less than 10%. Improvements have been most evident for girls, who comprised almost two-thirds of children out of school in 1990. With near gender parity achieved globally in primary education, girls are no longer disproportionately represented in the out-of-school population, except in the lowest-income countries and in sub-Saharan Africa.

I propose to add this part to the section on "gender equity in education"

There has also been a significant increase in participation in pre-primary education worldwide, across all regions and country income groups, especially since 2000. Global participation rates went from just over 15% in 1970 to 35% in 2000, reaching over 60% in 2019. In higher and middle-income countries, participation rates are converging, with near universal pre-primary participation expected by 2050. Globally, gender disparities have narrowed over time and gender parity or near parity have been reached in pre-primary school participation. Expansion of participation in education has led to a steady increase in youth and adult literacy rates between 1990 and 2020 across all countries regardless of development status. Youth literacy rates in lower middle income and middle-income countries have now converged with those observed in upper middle income countries at 90+%. There has also been significant improvement in female youth literacy rates across all countries over the past thirty years which has narrowed the gender gap. Gender parity in youth literacy rates is now observed across upper income and middle-income countries and gender gaps are narrowing towards parity elsewhere. Equally, this bodes well for a future of universal adult literacy, as youth move into adulthood.

I propose to add this part to “racial equity in education/higher education”

Participation in higher education has also increased significantly over the past fifty years. Global participation rose from 10% of youth and adults worldwide in 1970 to 40% today. Growth in enrolment has also come with a feminization of higher education participation over the past fifty years. While participation in higher education was predominantly male in the 1970s and 1980s, gender parity was reached around 1990 and female participation has continued to grow faster than that of men since then. This is the case for countries across all income groups, except for low-income countries, and across all regions except sub-Saharan Africa where 7% of female students and 10% of male students participate.

::Why is "feminization of poverty" replaced in the text as "feminization of higher education"? Is this self-contradictory? Pete unseth (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 

Thanks for pointing this out - I accidentally inserted to wrong link, the terms never replaced each other though.

I corrected this error, the article about "feminization" is now correctly linked to the term. Lisa Rechelle (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

References

High Quality Education

Despite this remarkable progress in expanding educational opportunity over the past decades, however, access to high quality education remains incomplete and inequitable. Exclusion from educational opportunity remains stark. One in four youth in lower income countries is still nonliterate today. Even in middle income and upper income countries, the OECD Program for International Student Assessment has shown that sizable shares of the populations of 15-year-olds in school are unable to understand what they read beyond the most basic levels, in a world in which demands for civic and economic participation become ever more complex. And yet, even by conventional definitions, adult literacy rates are less than 75% in lower middle-income countries, and just over 55% in lower income countries. While gender gaps in adult literacy have also narrowed since 1990, they remain significant, especially for the poor. In low-income countries, more than 2 out of 5 women are not literate. One in five children in low-income countries and one in ten across the world, or some 250 million children, are still out of primary school today. Beyond gaps in the basic literacies of reading, math and science, similar gaps have been observed in cross national studies conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement and by the OECD in civic literacy, global competency and socio-emotional competencies, all of which are increasingly important to participate civically and economically. The situation is even more dramatic at the secondary level. Three out of five adolescents and youth in low-income countries are currently out of secondary school, and this despite 2030 commitments to ensure universal completion of free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education.

References

Participation Worldwide

While lower secondary enrolment is almost universal (98%) in high-income countries, more than a third of adolescents (40% of girls and 34% of boys) are not enrolled in lower secondary education in low-income countries. Disparities in participation in upper secondary education are even more pronounced, with fewer than 35% of girls and 45% of boys enrolled in low-income countries, compared to over 90% of boys and girls in high-income countries. Worldwide, more than one in four lower secondary level students and more than one in two in upper secondary do not complete the cycle of study. Close to 60% of high school students in lower middle-income countries and almost 90% in low-income countries leave school before completing the secondary cycle. Such a dramatic loss of youth potential and talent is unacceptable. The massive scale of early school leaving may be explained by a range of factors, including weak relevance of learning content, lack of attention to the specific social needs of girls and the economic circumstances of the poor, lack of cultural sensitivity and relevance, and inadequate pedagogical methods and processes relevant to the realities of youth. This is a largely overlooked dimension of what many have called a global “learning crisis”.

References

Predictions

Projections based on trends since 1970 indicate that high income countries could reach 100% participation rates as early as 2034, while middle income countries will be reaching between 60% and 80% participation rates in 2050. On the other hand, higher education participation rates in lower middle-income counties will only reach some 35% by 2050, and less than 15% low-income countries.Haste, H. and Chopra, V. 2020.

Teacher shortage

There is a worrying regression worldwide in the share of qualified primary school teachers. This is the case in several regions of the world and in particular in sub-Saharan Africa where the share of primary school teachers with minimum qualifications declined from 85% in 2000 to some 65% in 2020. Declines are also seen in regions that previously had high shares of qualified primary teachers, such as in the Arab region when the rate dropped from 98% in 2004 to 85% in 2020. The declining share of qualified teachers in sub-Saharan Africa is even more significant at the secondary level. Only half of all secondary school teachers in sub-Saharan Africa possessed minimum qualifications in 2015, down from nearly 80% ten years earlier.

References

Exclusion from education

Marginalized communities continue to be excluded by a combination of social, economic, cultural, and political factors. This is particularly true for girls and women, children, and youth with disabilities, those from poorer households, rural communities, indigenous peoples, and minority groups, as well as for those who suffer the consequences of violent conflict and political instability.

Poverty and Economic Growth

Poverty remains a key determinant of access to educational opportunity. It is a compounding factor that intensifies disparities for female students, those with disabilities, those experiencing situations of instability and conflict, and those who are marginalized due to ethnicity, language, or remote location. The global economy has grown two and half times in size between 1990 and 2020, driven essentially by the rapid economic growth in countries of East Asia and the Pacific, and particularly China, and the consistent enlargement of the economies of high and upper middle-income countries. Lower middle- and low-income countries, on the other hand, only accounted for one tenth of the global output, despite the fact that they were home to half of the world’s population in 2020. This is the result of the widely divergent pace of growth across regions over the past thirty years. The economies of China and sub-Saharan Africa had similar sizes in 1990, representing some 2% and 1.5% of the global economy respectively. Thirty years later, China accounts for 16% of the world GDP, while sub-Saharan Africa represents 2%.

Economic Growth

Global economic growth has led to the improvement of individual incomes and living conditions and a reduction of global poverty rates. World Bank data shows that global annual per capita income increased by 75% between 1990 and 2020. While more than a third of the world population was considered poor in 1990, the global poverty rate today is under 10%. However, the reduced pace of economic growth in low-income countries hinders progress in poverty reduction and hopes for income inequality reductions. The challenge of eradicating global poverty persists. Indeed, despite the global decline in poverty over the past thirty years, close to 690 million people across the world still live in poverty, on less than two US dollars a day. According to the World Bank, a quarter of the world population, or some 1.8 billion people, live on 3.20 US dollars or less a day.

Poverty

Extreme poverty is largely concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, is predominantly rural, and disproportionately affects women. Two thirds of those who are poor are children and youth under 25 years of age. Since the 1980s, rapid economic growth in emerging and middle-income economies has led to a converging reduction of inequality between countries. At the same time, however, inequality within countries has increased, albeit at different speeds. Since the 1980s, income inequality has surged in China, India, North America, and the Russian Federation, with more moderate increases observed in Europe. Meanwhile, in countries of the Arab world, as well as of sub-Saharan Africa, and much like in Brazil, inequality has traditionally been high and has remained so. According to the 2018 World Inequality Report, more than half of all income in sub-Saharan Africa and in the Arab world, or in countries such as Brazil and India, is captured by the top 10% of income earners. In nearly all countries, capital has shifted from public to private ownership. While economies have expanded, governments have become poorer, limiting the opportunities for income redistribution and reduction of inequalities.

Gender Discrimination

Poverty and income inequality intersect with other factors of discrimination that lead to educational exclusion. Gender discrimination, for instance, compounds significantly with other intersecting factors such as poverty, indigenous identity, and disability to further marginalize girls from their educational rights. While most income groups and regions are showing convergence towards gender parity in school enrolment, this is not the case in the lowest income countries or in sub-Saharan Africa. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) data shows that for every 100 boys of primary school age out of school in sub‐Saharan Africa, there are 123 girls also excluded from education. Exclusion of girls is even more pronounced in lower and upper secondary education. In 9 of the lowest income countries, the poorest girls spend on average 2 years fewer in school than boys. This gendered drop-off, particularly in secondary education, indicates how much more needs to be done to retain girls along the full lifespan of their education. Initial access is insufficient. Ensuring that girls complete a full cycle of secondary education is a responsibility that goes well beyond schools. It relates to the social and economic challenges that girls continue to face around the world, particularly at the age of puberty, around issues such as early marriage or early and unintended pregnancy, domestic work, and menstrual health and stigma.

Disability

Disability affects access to education across all regions and income groups when education systems do not have inclusive policies in place. The barriers to education experienced by those with disabilities is significantly compounded by poverty. The majority of children living with a disability are in poorer countries. At all ages, levels of both moderate and severe disability are higher in low- and middle-income countries than in rich countries. Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of disability, and education systems have an obligation to support the right to education for students with disabilities, and, to the greatest possible extent, include them in the least restrictive educational environment.

Conflict

Conflict also accounts for half of the world’s chronically out-of-school population. Violent conflict makes it unsafe to operate or attend schools and can displace entire populations. Educational institutions, personnel and students may be targeted and can be victims of kidnapping, rape, and armed recruitment. Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples Indigenous and ethnic minority children and youth face several barriers that limit their access to quality education at all levels. Beyond economic, linguistic and geographical barriers, factors such as racism, discrimination and lack of cultural relevance factor into high attrition rates among indigenous children and youth. In general, formal education fails to recognize indigenous knowledge and learning systems and does not respond to the realities and aspirations of indigenous peoples both in rural and urban settings. Historically, education has also been used to violate the cultural and religious rights of children, for example, as a vehicle for assimilation of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities into mainstream societies or as a vehicle of religious indoctrination or of obliteration of the religious or cultural identity of minority children in violation of their fundamental rights. The legacies of education’s weaponization against indigenous children and families continue to be experienced through systemic discrimination and neglect. Children from remote indigenous and minority communities, for example, are often forced to leave their communities to continue their education, living at hostels or boarding schools that deprive them of their families and community and cultural support. Lisa Rechelle (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

References

First three paragraphs contain many undefined terms

The first three paragraphs use terms that people will define differently. For example, I presume that in the discussion of educational equity, words like "fair" are assumed by different parties to mean different things. This sounds like it was written in a university classroom where everybody in the room has learned one way to think about this topic. Some editor should clarify the terms in these paragraphs. Pete unseth (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"level playing field"

The article contains the phrase "level playing field". This phrase is ambiguous, understood by different people quite differently. Consider a public high school, all are offered the same courses. School buses brought in students from distant homes. That was a level playing field. Some parents with below average income spent money on books for their children, not much on entertainment. Their children excelled educationally. When these children do well financially, they pay for their children to receive tutoring. Some will complain that the children of this generation are not playing on a level playing field. Those who complain in this way seem to assume families who succeed and excel have unfair advantages. This approach would prevent parents to work hard and do things that would give their children advantages.

What do other editors think Pete unseth (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Student effort and "equity"

There is much discussion about giving students equity at beginning, but not so much about their longer term educational results. What part is there in student effort at school? This aspect of the general topic is neglected. Is this due to ideology? Pete unseth (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)