Equity of Access and Opportunity
Equity of Access and Opportunity
By Oscar Medina
How do we begin to establish equity of access and opportunity across different high schools and racial/ethnic groups that have historically been disenfranchised from accessing higher education? My concept of equity is access and opportunity, specifically striving to create and provide access and opportunity to higher education. The goal is to eliminate the vicious reproductive cycle of unequal access and opportunity and replace it with an equitable system of access and opportunity. My concept of equity draws primarily from Rawls’ (1971) theoretical frameworks, “justice of fairness.” However, I first discuss a sufficient and adequate threshold (baseline) that will give context my concept of equity. This threshold is one that must be established by an institution (school or school district). I use high schools and their graduation requirements to discuss access and opportunity to higher education. I call my framework of equity - “access and opportunity.”
What is access and opportunity? Why is access important to higher education and what opportunities come with access? Access to higher education provides long-term opportunities for students and reduces unemployment, crime and poverty rates – improving society as a whole. Attaining a college degree will increase an individual’s incomes and life opportunities. A college education provides critical and analytical skills that lead individuals to participate in the political process. Once active in the political process and civic participation, individuals can make conscious decisions by practicing their political right. Access to institutions of higher education not only create opportunities to improve the living conditions of an individual but also serve to ameliorate the conditions of a growing unequal society.
Who has access and opportunity and who doesn’t? Segregated high schools located in predominantly white upper and middle class communities provide their students with access to higher education primarily because schools work toward their advantage. High schools located in upper and middle class communities provide their students with the cultural and social capital to access a university of their choice. White upper and middle class culture and language is ubiquitous throughout the high school’s curriculum and practices. While high schools in white upper and middle class communities provide access and opportunity to higher education to their students, high schools in working-class communities of color limit their access and opportunity and socialize their students to become workers rather than leaders. The high schools in low-income and working class communities guide their students to community colleges, the military or into the low-paid labor force. These are limited opportunities that are incomparable to the access and opportunities that white upper-middle class high schools provide their students.
I propose that all high schools must provide students access to a four-year university after graduating high school and those who chose to opt out from attending a university must be given the opportunity to attend a community college that will seek to transfer them to a four-year university within a reasonable time frame - two years worth of preparatory coursework. These efforts require structural change at the meso level. Meso level change would mean reforming institutional policy that will make the high school graduation standards a college preparatory curriculum mandatory so that students complete the college preparatory curriculum to be eligible to attend a four-year university when they graduate from high school. Making these efforts plausible requires the concept of maximization. Drawing from Guttmann’s (1999) concept of equal educational opportunity, maximization is the process that requires the state to devote as many resources to education as needed to maximize life chances (opportunities). In order for high schools to claim institutional equity they must begin by reforming their policies on graduation curriculum in order to better serve the disadvantaged high schools and students.
I chose to discuss equity of access and opportunity at the high school level because I strongly believe that equity is lacking across California high schools primarily because most of the students who graduate from low-income segregated high schools that are composed primarily of students of color are not even eligible to attend a four-year college. I want to discuss how high schools can employ a policy of equity that would provide access and opportunity for graduating high school students to pursue a four-year college degree. My framework of equity is one that strives to provide university access and opportunity for students of color graduating from segregated high schools in low-income communities. The motive behind this attempt is to establish a form of equity for high schools with a dense population of low-income students of color that have historically been disenfranchised from educational opportunities beyond their high school graduation.
Sufficiency and Adequacy
I want to discuss a minimum threshold drawing from a sufficiency and adequacy theoretical model (Gordon 1972) that will establish access and opportunity across different high schools. According to Gordon (1972) to equalize educational opportunity in a democracy requires parity in achievement at a baseline corresponding to the level required for social satisfaction and democratic participation. His model of opportunity is one of adequacy. The adequacy is making sure that students reach a baseline. He argues we must “insure equal opportunity for basic educational achievement without limiting the freedom of individuals to rise above the that baseline.” Drawing from this framework, I argue for a baseline that will grant university access to all graduating high students. This effort of implementing a baseline that all students must pass has the potential to provide significant access and opportunity to low-income students of color. Gordon’s baseline is one that consists of making sure students reach basic survival and participation skills. Gordon’s baseline reminds me of the current high school exit exam in California which students are forced to pass a standard test to receive their graduation diploma. My equitable baseline asks for the completion of a set of college preparatory courses that will grant graduating high school students access into four-year universities where their critical and analytical skills will sharpen to engage and participate in social change.
The Challenges and Complexities
Schools are known for sorting students into different educational trajectories, by what is known as academic tracking (Oakes). Schools practice this institutional form of racism more against working-class students of color. The institutional practice of academic tracking places a selective group of students on a university pathway while placing others on to a vocational pathway. Creating a baseline (threshold) that makes all high school students university bound (once passing the baseline) has the potential to even eliminate institutional tracking, because teachers, counselors and administrators will work toward providing all students with the college preparatory courses to graduate from high school eligible to apply to four-year university. Setting up a threshold of this capacity attempts to promise all students university access and opportunity.
This college bound threshold will require resources to be maximized at the high school level so that schools (particularly historically segregated) can have their students reach this baseline. The problem with maximization according to Gutmann (1999) is that maximization in education is a moral ransom because it offers maximizing resources to education at the stake of limiting other social resources. The weakness and problem with maximization is that it takes from others to reach an end goal (in this case the end goal would be to have all students reach the college bound threshold). I can see how some tax payers who do not have children in a public high school would not favor my framework of equity because they may not see the immediate results of improving society. My concern is, if we are to maximize resources to education, particularly in high school, how and where will resources be distributed and maximized? What will it take to have all graduating high school students reach the college bound threshold? Increasing the salary of teachers? Tutor laboratories? Operating schools for longer hours? Providing students with what resources in order to achieve the completion of a college preparation curriculum?
Why is the difference principle important?
In search of equal opportunity, Gutmann argues for a “democratic standard” in which inequalities can be justified only if they (disadvantaged students) do not deprive any student of their ability to participate effectively in the democratic process. Gutmann draws from Rawls (1971) who says that inequality is permitted only if it benefits the least-advantaged individuals. Despite this concept being problematic because it creates an unbalance or may limit the “overachievers” potential, this concept attempts to bring those most disadvantaged (low-income racial/ethnic minorities) up to the college bound threshold.
Assuming the framework of institutions required by equal liberty and fair equality of opportunity, the higher expectations of those better situated [students] are just if and only they work as part of a scheme [college preparatory] which improves the expectations [four-year college degree] of the least advantaged members of society” (Rawls 75).
Using Rawls difference principle and his theoretical framework offers a critical analysis of inequality and attempts to ameliorate the conditions of the least disadvantaged. One can argue that his view is partly egalitarian because it brings the disadvantaged up in an attempt to reach the most well off. According to the difference principle, “it is justifiable only if the difference in expectation [access to four-year college] is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off, in this case the representative unskilled worker [low-income students of color without the social and cultural capital that will help them apply and attend a four-year college]” (Rawls 78). The difference principle can be applied at many levels to increase diversity at four-year universities, which will provide access and opportunity to the most disadvantaged high schools and students.
Problems with the difference principle
The difference principle according to Sen (1992) is concerned with the distribution of primary goods to reach a “justice as fairness.” I only take from Rawls efficiency model within his difference principle to solidify a justice of fairness. The difference principle focuses on much more complex means of distribution such as primary goods (such as incomes) and well-being. Sen (1999) argues that human diversity makes for such inequalities in society, which leads me to depart and examine beyond my equity threshold. Drawing from Sen’s concept of inequality based on human diversity, leads me to ask the following questions. Will students of color from low-income high schools take the initiative to apply to a university after completing their college preparatory course work, let alone will they prepare and take the SAT? As social agents, students will have to take initiative in completing the university eligibility and application process. Ultimately, will the students that reach the threshold attend a university? For example, will a student’s immigration status or social status hinder her or him from attending a university? The student and their diverse background (class, race, gender, immigration status) throws a wrench into my equity framework. Nonetheless, how will low-income students of color perform once they attend the university? Will they excel or dropout? Will low-come students of color be comfortable at a university where the cultural and linguistic terrain is composed of a White upper and middle class culture?
Conclusion
The equity framework of access and opportunity attempts to close the racial and ethnic achievement gap and increase the college going rate for high schools that have historically lagged in providing college access and opportunity to their students. Because schools are persistently creating inequality through academic tracking and other systemic problems, opportunities are not being presented. High schools and universities must work collaboratively to increase access and opportunity. Diverse universities will benefit everyone particularly white upper and middle class students. Their view of society becomes more complex which makes better democratic citizens. Historically disenfranchised citizens will participation in civics at higher rates as well.
Work Cited
Gordon, W. Edmund (1972) Toward Defining Equality of Educational Opportunity. Random
House. New York.
Gutmann, Amy (1999) Democratic Education. Princeton University Press.
Oakes, Jeannie (1985) Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. Yale University Press.
Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard Press. Cambridge.
Sen, Amartya (1999) Inequality Reexamined. Russell Sage.
By Oscar Medina
How do we begin to establish equity of access and opportunity across different high schools and racial/ethnic groups that have historically been disenfranchised from accessing higher education? My concept of equity is access and opportunity, specifically striving to create and provide access and opportunity to higher education. The goal is to eliminate the vicious reproductive cycle of unequal access and opportunity and replace it with an equitable system of access and opportunity. My concept of equity draws primarily from Rawls’ (1971) theoretical frameworks, “justice of fairness.” However, I first discuss a sufficient and adequate threshold (baseline) that will give context my concept of equity. This threshold is one that must be established by an institution (school or school district). I use high schools and their graduation requirements to discuss access and opportunity to higher education. I call my framework of equity - “access and opportunity.”
What is access and opportunity? Why is access important to higher education and what opportunities come with access? Access to higher education provides long-term opportunities for students and reduces unemployment, crime and poverty rates – improving society as a whole. Attaining a college degree will increase an individual’s incomes and life opportunities. A college education provides critical and analytical skills that lead individuals to participate in the political process. Once active in the political process and civic participation, individuals can make conscious decisions by practicing their political right. Access to institutions of higher education not only create opportunities to improve the living conditions of an individual but also serve to ameliorate the conditions of a growing unequal society.
Who has access and opportunity and who doesn’t? Segregated high schools located in predominantly white upper and middle class communities provide their students with access to higher education primarily because schools work toward their advantage. High schools located in upper and middle class communities provide their students with the cultural and social capital to access a university of their choice. White upper and middle class culture and language is ubiquitous throughout the high school’s curriculum and practices. While high schools in white upper and middle class communities provide access and opportunity to higher education to their students, high schools in working-class communities of color limit their access and opportunity and socialize their students to become workers rather than leaders. The high schools in low-income and working class communities guide their students to community colleges, the military or into the low-paid labor force. These are limited opportunities that are incomparable to the access and opportunities that white upper-middle class high schools provide their students.
I propose that all high schools must provide students access to a four-year university after graduating high school and those who chose to opt out from attending a university must be given the opportunity to attend a community college that will seek to transfer them to a four-year university within a reasonable time frame - two years worth of preparatory coursework. These efforts require structural change at the meso level. Meso level change would mean reforming institutional policy that will make the high school graduation standards a college preparatory curriculum mandatory so that students complete the college preparatory curriculum to be eligible to attend a four-year university when they graduate from high school. Making these efforts plausible requires the concept of maximization. Drawing from Guttmann’s (1999) concept of equal educational opportunity, maximization is the process that requires the state to devote as many resources to education as needed to maximize life chances (opportunities). In order for high schools to claim institutional equity they must begin by reforming their policies on graduation curriculum in order to better serve the disadvantaged high schools and students.
I chose to discuss equity of access and opportunity at the high school level because I strongly believe that equity is lacking across California high schools primarily because most of the students who graduate from low-income segregated high schools that are composed primarily of students of color are not even eligible to attend a four-year college. I want to discuss how high schools can employ a policy of equity that would provide access and opportunity for graduating high school students to pursue a four-year college degree. My framework of equity is one that strives to provide university access and opportunity for students of color graduating from segregated high schools in low-income communities. The motive behind this attempt is to establish a form of equity for high schools with a dense population of low-income students of color that have historically been disenfranchised from educational opportunities beyond their high school graduation.
Sufficiency and Adequacy
I want to discuss a minimum threshold drawing from a sufficiency and adequacy theoretical model (Gordon 1972) that will establish access and opportunity across different high schools. According to Gordon (1972) to equalize educational opportunity in a democracy requires parity in achievement at a baseline corresponding to the level required for social satisfaction and democratic participation. His model of opportunity is one of adequacy. The adequacy is making sure that students reach a baseline. He argues we must “insure equal opportunity for basic educational achievement without limiting the freedom of individuals to rise above the that baseline.” Drawing from this framework, I argue for a baseline that will grant university access to all graduating high students. This effort of implementing a baseline that all students must pass has the potential to provide significant access and opportunity to low-income students of color. Gordon’s baseline is one that consists of making sure students reach basic survival and participation skills. Gordon’s baseline reminds me of the current high school exit exam in California which students are forced to pass a standard test to receive their graduation diploma. My equitable baseline asks for the completion of a set of college preparatory courses that will grant graduating high school students access into four-year universities where their critical and analytical skills will sharpen to engage and participate in social change.
The Challenges and Complexities
Schools are known for sorting students into different educational trajectories, by what is known as academic tracking (Oakes). Schools practice this institutional form of racism more against working-class students of color. The institutional practice of academic tracking places a selective group of students on a university pathway while placing others on to a vocational pathway. Creating a baseline (threshold) that makes all high school students university bound (once passing the baseline) has the potential to even eliminate institutional tracking, because teachers, counselors and administrators will work toward providing all students with the college preparatory courses to graduate from high school eligible to apply to four-year university. Setting up a threshold of this capacity attempts to promise all students university access and opportunity.
This college bound threshold will require resources to be maximized at the high school level so that schools (particularly historically segregated) can have their students reach this baseline. The problem with maximization according to Gutmann (1999) is that maximization in education is a moral ransom because it offers maximizing resources to education at the stake of limiting other social resources. The weakness and problem with maximization is that it takes from others to reach an end goal (in this case the end goal would be to have all students reach the college bound threshold). I can see how some tax payers who do not have children in a public high school would not favor my framework of equity because they may not see the immediate results of improving society. My concern is, if we are to maximize resources to education, particularly in high school, how and where will resources be distributed and maximized? What will it take to have all graduating high school students reach the college bound threshold? Increasing the salary of teachers? Tutor laboratories? Operating schools for longer hours? Providing students with what resources in order to achieve the completion of a college preparation curriculum?
Why is the difference principle important?
In search of equal opportunity, Gutmann argues for a “democratic standard” in which inequalities can be justified only if they (disadvantaged students) do not deprive any student of their ability to participate effectively in the democratic process. Gutmann draws from Rawls (1971) who says that inequality is permitted only if it benefits the least-advantaged individuals. Despite this concept being problematic because it creates an unbalance or may limit the “overachievers” potential, this concept attempts to bring those most disadvantaged (low-income racial/ethnic minorities) up to the college bound threshold.
Assuming the framework of institutions required by equal liberty and fair equality of opportunity, the higher expectations of those better situated [students] are just if and only they work as part of a scheme [college preparatory] which improves the expectations [four-year college degree] of the least advantaged members of society” (Rawls 75).
Using Rawls difference principle and his theoretical framework offers a critical analysis of inequality and attempts to ameliorate the conditions of the least disadvantaged. One can argue that his view is partly egalitarian because it brings the disadvantaged up in an attempt to reach the most well off. According to the difference principle, “it is justifiable only if the difference in expectation [access to four-year college] is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off, in this case the representative unskilled worker [low-income students of color without the social and cultural capital that will help them apply and attend a four-year college]” (Rawls 78). The difference principle can be applied at many levels to increase diversity at four-year universities, which will provide access and opportunity to the most disadvantaged high schools and students.
Problems with the difference principle
The difference principle according to Sen (1992) is concerned with the distribution of primary goods to reach a “justice as fairness.” I only take from Rawls efficiency model within his difference principle to solidify a justice of fairness. The difference principle focuses on much more complex means of distribution such as primary goods (such as incomes) and well-being. Sen (1999) argues that human diversity makes for such inequalities in society, which leads me to depart and examine beyond my equity threshold. Drawing from Sen’s concept of inequality based on human diversity, leads me to ask the following questions. Will students of color from low-income high schools take the initiative to apply to a university after completing their college preparatory course work, let alone will they prepare and take the SAT? As social agents, students will have to take initiative in completing the university eligibility and application process. Ultimately, will the students that reach the threshold attend a university? For example, will a student’s immigration status or social status hinder her or him from attending a university? The student and their diverse background (class, race, gender, immigration status) throws a wrench into my equity framework. Nonetheless, how will low-income students of color perform once they attend the university? Will they excel or dropout? Will low-come students of color be comfortable at a university where the cultural and linguistic terrain is composed of a White upper and middle class culture?
Conclusion
The equity framework of access and opportunity attempts to close the racial and ethnic achievement gap and increase the college going rate for high schools that have historically lagged in providing college access and opportunity to their students. Because schools are persistently creating inequality through academic tracking and other systemic problems, opportunities are not being presented. High schools and universities must work collaboratively to increase access and opportunity. Diverse universities will benefit everyone particularly white upper and middle class students. Their view of society becomes more complex which makes better democratic citizens. Historically disenfranchised citizens will participation in civics at higher rates as well.
Work Cited
Gordon, W. Edmund (1972) Toward Defining Equality of Educational Opportunity. Random
House. New York.
Gutmann, Amy (1999) Democratic Education. Princeton University Press.
Oakes, Jeannie (1985) Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. Yale University Press.
Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard Press. Cambridge.
Sen, Amartya (1999) Inequality Reexamined. Russell Sage.
posted by Oscar at 2:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home