To begin: For me equity is simple, it is about equal access to opportunity. I don't think that this is as simple as ensuring you do the same thing for each student, or spend the same amount of money etc. In fact sometimes I thhink that doing the same to everyone is a form of inequity because of historical or social or psychological factors. I also do not think equity means guaranteeing the same outcomes.

Part of the problem is that I think that there exist significant hidden barriers to some groups in education simply because of the accepted norms, an example being how social understandings of reporting on achievement impact on low SES students in Australia.

Thanks Mark, for your question. I would have asked a similar question, sooner or later, but you have done it. The recent Malaysian Education Blueprint has listed Equity as one of its aims. In this country, it is desired that every child will have access to quality education, regardless of race or the rural/ urban factor. At one time, some teachers were not keen to serve in rural areas with its many challenges and far from comfortable homes.

Steve. I like the idea of the same 'quality' of education for all. Quality is a great word. I was turned onto it by a famous novel called 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'. I think quality of education contains a huge depth of meaning to explore.

Miranda. I have read enough about Malaysia to understand your points. In Australia, there are mostly covert forms of inequity. That is inequity that is invisible to most people. It isn't associated overtly with specific groups but those groups still suffer from it by the very nature of the schooling system. In essence ANY person who begins school with any form of deficit is actually further penalised by the system. Not consciously by teachers, but unconsciously by virtue of the design of the system. If you are trying to correct prior inequities in your own system, it is possible thst you will encounter these hidden forms of inequity in the process. Usually it shows in specific groups tending to opt out or drop out of schooling before they should.

Hi Steve, I take your point about te use of the word 'deficit'. Firstly, the way I used it is in the context of the middle class expectations of schooling standards. When students first begin school, the standards, both explicit and implicit for say reading, are based on expectations that the home will have done certain things to develop readiness for reading. Many homes do not do those things and the proportion oof homes that do not do those things is higher in low SES groups (and indigenous), hence those kids come to school with a comparative deficit. It isn't that they are less able or less willing or less anything except prepared. As a result of this comparative deficit, they become labelled as 'less than' others which eventually perpetuates itself as the message 'you are a failure', resulting in the disengagement and 'stuff you' behaviours we have described in other places. Your point about the way it is used is also correct, except that I think the word 'used' is too active. If teachers did 'use' the deficit to define a different learning pathway that was respectful of the student, the outcomes would probably be better. I think the label is not 'used' but 'placed' or 'attributed' to the student in a passive way that often leads to the 'trajectory' of failure and disengagement I have mentioned before. We are probably saying the same thing in essence. I would describe my observations of this phenomenon as a byproduct of, or positioning by the system structures rather than an active process in the system. Unfortunately even teachers are positioned by the system to act dysfunctionally with these students.exacerbating the problem. By the way, what I mean by a deficit is ANYTHING that results in the student being positioned by the system as 'failing' or less than their contemporaries. This can include prereading practices, social behaviours, readiness for sharing behaviours, response to stress, premaths skills, etc. Does that make sense?

Absolutely. I deal with it on a daily basis. It takes me upwards of 3 years to get teachers to recognize and change even to a small degree their understandings of hidden inequities. They mostly do eventually, but it takes dedicated effort on a leader's part, mainly:

1. My constant intervention to reframe everything, from their interactions with students to text material used in communications, to how they frame assessment and reporting.

2. Their goodwill to even listen to me, which I actively cultivate.

I have begun a similar thread on TED conversations and it is interseting how hard it is to get even simple recognition of hidden biases. When I started this work over 10 years ago, I thought once explained educators would realise and work to fix the problem. My hopes have since been dashed but I conrinue to work at it. What makes it difficult is that politicians and bureaucrats, who wield the power to make changes, are least able to recognise the issue.

What does it mean equal access to curriculum for a student with intellectual disability? I have asked 40 teachers to describe the IEP of 40 students in primary school and my findings give evidence to the fact that all students are struggling to learn basic arithmetic and learning to read (without understanding). My suggestion is that the IEP (which is curriculum of first grades even for student in secondary education) is inappropriate for them and the barrier to inclusion at school and later in society because they don't acquire life skills to live an independent life.. It is not to blame the teachers for their ignorance but the educational leaders (from the head (ministry of education) to the bottom (school advisers and head teachers).

Zoi, your point is about equity of needs isn't it? The problem you describe is that politicians and bureaucrats are making inappropriate decisions about what the students need. This is indeed another issue worth considering. In fact, who should make this decision, teachers, specialists, parents, a team of educators?

I am talking about the "hidden" but so obvious forms of inequity and I give an example of a barrier to inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities. Policy makers suggest that all students have the same opportunities by having access to the same curriculum. According to the literature , the IEP team ( the Psychologist , the head of the school, the teacher of the class, other specialists and parents) should collaborate but though it sounds simple it is not due to accountability gap.

I agree about hidden forms of inequity. I see it all the time, not only for students with obvious disabilities but students whose deficits are not recognized, labelled or accepted. Eg those who simply began schooling behind the 8 ball socially. I haven't yet figured out how to attack this problem as it is ultimately political.

Thank you for the question, Mark and for the very interesting postings, which analyse the hidden sources of inequity. I've had a joint role in higher education and also a clinical/research role in child and adolescent mental health. From my research and clinical work, there were indications ( as discussed in thread) that the social construction of educational need , which is operationalized into policy can create difficulties for children/young people/adults , whose functioning does not fall into the culturally accepted span of ' behavioural norms' with regards, for example to attention span, ability to change activities or persist with activities, to socially interact , regulate their emotions, ask for help. Educational systems are characterised by high needs and finite resources and pragmatically tend to operate for the children, who conform to socially constructed 'norms'. . However, there are many children, young people and adults, who can find it difficult to operate in classrooms , where they are 1 of 30 , or find changing rooms every hour emotionally dysregulating . There are multiple reasons for the mismatch between the children's needs and the educational provision. Howard Gardner has written extensively on different learning styles, Thomas and Chess have explored the continuum of temperament and research on attachment e.g. Daniel Hughes and Daniel Siegl have explored the links between insecure attachment and capacity to attend, to trust adults to ask for help and to regulate emotions. Offord and Cincetti have identified risk and protective factors at an individual, family and community level (including gender, poverty, ethnicity, social support) which will impact on the resilience that a child can develop to cope with adverse circumstances.

In running a multi-agency Child and adolescent mental health degree and masters , it was apparent that few qualified teachers had received this kind of knowledge and pedagogical responses in their training. However teachers on this degree evaluated how essential it was to them in their everyday experience of teaching in helping them to interrogate their taken for granted assumptions , articulate individual children's needs, to respond to them and to advocate for wider resources. The ongoing mismatch between children's needs across a continuum e.g. of learning styles or temperament can lead to children/ young people expressing their frustration/ difficulties through disruptive behaviour , educational disaffection and withdrawal and/or social and emotional distress. Instead of being able to match the system to a wide range of behaviours/childrens' needs, the children are identified as the problem . These children can develop a negative identity and perception of competence, which can impact on their future education and/or become labelled as disruptive, educational failures or receive 'diagnoses' such as attention deficit disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. It would be reductionist to attribute the mismatch to education alone. A systemic response is required to disseminate the knowledge and research, which can help to interrogate the taken for granted assumptions and tacit inequity in education. In addition, teachers and lecturers require support to cope with the emotional labour required to achieve change , which will require them to not only look afresh at children/young people/adults, but also themselves and the social and economic system they ascribe to.

This is an area I am deeply interested in and I would be very grateful for comments and responses .

Susan, I read this earlier but am sorry it took so long to respond. I am snowed under at work so will have to be brief and hopefully can add more later.

What you wrote is absolutely what I believe is wrong with schools. My description of the process is that students follow a trajectory of self belief as a learner as they move through school. This trajectory is affected by all of the usual social factors, peers, family etc, and also by school factors such as their teacher's responses to them under different contexts, their parents and peers responses to such things as reporting on performance and their own innate approach to success and failure. I am just touching on the range of factors but the main point is that each trajectory is different and may be impossible to unpack. My impression is that any deficit on starting school, and by deficit i mean ANYTHING that leads to comparative lack of success in school terms, is magnified through schooling so that the trajectory leads most often to disengagement and further failure. So what to do? Reconstruct the school environment to reduce the chance of negative emotional responses. I don't mean the self esteem furfy but make the factors emotion neutral so that at least the school doesn't lead students into disengagement as it does now. I have already started playing with some ideas in curriculum, assessment and most importantly reporting. The problem is that politicians donot like emotion neutral reporting because they believe that students need to be made to suffer if they perform poorly or they won't try harder. My own findings do not support this view. In general student who persistently perform poorly because of some weakness are much more engaged when their perfomance is reported in a values neutral form. An example if what I mean would be to describe the set of characteristics they have demonstrated rather than a grade which implies comparison.

Dear Mark

Education plans made by technicians in offices , even skilled, never worked out. This perverse situation will be reversed only if the society prioritize education and for this there must be an appreciation of social mobilization to school and learn. The equity will be achieved only by the union of educators and community discussing and developing an appropriate educational policy needs of each region. For this to occur a politicization of the teacher is necessary

Nelson, I agree that a 'top down' approach never works out the way it is intended, however, what I am really talking about is creating a different environment for schooling, along the lines you have discussed in other places. In other words if the system requirements are more aligned with what we believe is good in schooling, development of attributes of a life long learner, positive self efficacy, self motivation etc, then it will be easier to teach equitably in that system. In a sense, this is what has happened around the world but based on a belief that is opposed to what I think is most equitable. Politicians are more and more involved in education and are constructing systems that reflect their (or their advisers) views. Currently the prevailing view is very carrot and stick oriented and is about competency in basics and control of teachers and ignores student psychology. I hope in the not too distant future that their is a much more evidence based approach that takes into account not only education research but psychological and sociological as well.