equality education essay

• Ideas for Action
• Join the MAHB
• Why Join the MAHB?
• Current Associates
• Current Nodes
• What is the MAHB?
• Who is the MAHB?
• Acknowledgments

Why Is Education So Important in The Quest for Equality?

Gerald Nelson | April 14, 2022 | Leave a Comment

Image: Pikist

Education is vital. We can all agree on this but where we fall out of the agreement is why exactly education is so necessary for equality. Without education, there can be no progress, no development, and no improvement. 

In today’s world, we are ever more aware of the issues surrounding sexism, racism, and inequality, allowing for a greater understanding of the importance of educating people to avoid these biases occurring in the first place.

What is Educational Equality and why is it necessary? 

Equality isn’t always so simple. Some may assume, for example, that educational equality is as simple as providing children with the same resources. In reality, however, there’s a lot more to it than this. We will check what governments are doing to achieve this goal. What actions they are taking to advance the cause of equality? Education is crucial because it’s a toolkit for success:

• With literacy and numeracy comes confidence, with which comes self-respect. And by having self-respect, you can respect others, their accomplishments, and their cultures.
• Education is the fundamental tool for achieving social, economic, and civil rights – something which all societies strive to achieve.

Educational Inequality is usually defined as the unequal distribution of educational resources among different groups in society. The situation becomes serious when it starts influencing how people live their lives. For example, children will be less likely to go to school if they are not healthy, or educated because other things are more urgent in their life.

Categorical Educational Inequality

Categorical Education Inequality is especially apparent when comparing minority/low-income schools with majority/high-income schools. Are better-off students systematically favored in getting ahead? There are three plausible conditions:

• Higher-income parents can spend more time and money on private tutoring, school trips, and home study materials to give their children better opportunities. Therefore, better-off students have an advantage due to access to better schools, computers, technology, etc. (the so-called opportunity gap).
• Low-income schools lack the resources to educate their students. Therefore their students tend to have worse educational outcomes.
• Although the public school system is a government-funded program to allow all students an equal chance at a good education, this is not the case for most schools across third world countries – see UNESCO statistics below:

How Educational Inequality is fueling global issues

Educational inequality is a major global crisis. It has played a role in economic problems, amplified the political deadlock, exacerbated the environmental predicament, and threatens to worsen the human rights crisis. If equality in education is not addressed directly, these crises will only deepen because: 

• Educational Inequality is also about  race and gender . Those who are less privileged are condemned to poverty and unemployment because of a lack of quality educational resources. 
• Without a sound education, people have  less knowledge  of the world around them or the issues facing their communities. They are less likely to vote or to pay attention to politics. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by those who represent narrow interests and promote fear, hatred, and violence. The result is an erosion of democratic values and an increase in authoritarianism.
• Without correction,  human rights abuses  will continue due to a lack of legal representation among those with no or low education levels.
• Poverty, unemployment, crimes, and health issues: A lack of education and skills forces children into poverty because they can’t get jobs or start a business. It also leaves them without hope and is one of the reasons for unemployment, lower life expectancy, malnutrition, a higher chance of chronic diseases, and crime rates.
• Limited opportunities: The most significant issue is that lack of education reduces the opportunities for people to have a decent life. Limited options increase the division of social classes, lower social mobility, and reduce the ability to build networks and social contacts. Students in poor countries also spend a lot of time working to support their families rather than focusing on their school work. These factors also worsen the upbringing of coming generations.
• Extremism:  Inequality can also lead to increased violence, racism, gender bias, and extremism, which causes further economic and democratic challenges.  
• Inability to survive pandemics:  Unlike developed nations after COVID, underdeveloped countries are stuck in their unstable economic cycles. Inequality causes a lack of awareness and online educational resources, lower acceptance of preventive measures, and unaffordable vaccines, for example. According to the  United Nations , “Before the coronavirus crisis, projections showed that  more than 200 million children would be out of school , and only 60 percent of young people would be completing upper secondary education in 2030”.
• Unawareness of technological advancements: The world is becoming more tech-savvy, while students in underdeveloped countries remain unaware of the latest technological achievements as well as unable to implement them. This also widens the education gap between countries.
• Gender inequality in education:  In general, developing countries compromise over funds allocation for women’s education to manage their depletion of national income. As such, they consider women less efficient and productive than men. Meanwhile, many parents do not prefer sending their daughters to school because they do not think that women can contribute equally to men in the country’s development. However, if we have to overcome this, there should be an increase in funding and scholarships for women’s education.
• Environmental crises:  People are usually less aware of the harmful emissions produced in their surroundings and are therefore less prepared to deal with increased pollution levels. This also affects climate change. The less educated the children, the more likely they are to contribute to climate change as adults. This is because education is not just about learning facts and skills but also about recognizing problems and applying knowledge in innovative ways. 
• A child who has dropped out of school will generally  contribute less to society  than a child who has completed secondary school. A child who has completed secondary school will contribute less than a child who went to university. This difference increases over time because those with higher levels of education tend to be more open-minded, flexible thinkers and are therefore better able to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Equality in education is therefore essential for addressing international issues including economic inequality, climate change, social deprivation, and access to healthcare. Many children in poor regions are deprived of education (see chart below) which is the only way out of poverty .

Proposed Solutions 

The United Nations Development Program says that access to education is a human right, and should be individually accessible and available to all by 2030. It demands:

• International collaborations to ensure that every child has the same quality education and to develop joint curricula and academic programs. The quality of teaching methodologies should not be compromised and includes providing financial assistance and tools for equal access.
• Running campaigns to discourage race, gender, and ethnicity differences, arranging more seminars to reach low-income groups, and providing adequate financial assistance, training, and part-time jobs for sole earners.  
• Modifying scholarship criteria to better support deserving students who cannot afford university due to language tests and low grades. 
• Increasing the minimum wage so that sole breadwinners can afford quality education for their children.  
• Schools should bear transportation costs and offer free grants to deserving kids from low-income families.
• Giving more attention to slum-side schools by updating and implementing new techniques and resources. 
• Allowing students to learn in their own language with no enforcement of international languages and offering part-time courses in academies and community colleges in other languages. 

Resolving educational inequality has many benefits for the wider society. Allowing children from disadvantaged backgrounds to get an education will help them find better jobs with higher salaries, improving their quality of life, and making them more productive members of society. It decreases the likelihood of conflict and increases access to health care, stable economic growth, and unlimited opportunities.

Conclusion:

It’s been said that great minds start out as small ones. To level the playing field, we need to focus on best educating our next generation of innovators and leaders, both from an individual and a societal standpoint. If we want equality to become a reality, it will be up to us to ensure that equality is at the forefront of our education system.

References:

Environmental Conscience: 42 Causes, Effects & Solutions for a Lack of Education – E&C (environmental-conscience.com)

School of Education Online Programs: What the U.S. Education System Needs to Reduce Inequality | American University

Educational Inequality: Solutions | Educational Inequality (wordpress.com)

Giving Compass: Seven Solutions for Education Inequality · Giving Compass

Science.org: Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline

Research Gate: Inequality and Economic Growth

University of Munich: pdf (uni-muenchen.de)

Research Gate: Effects-of-inequality-and-poverty-vs-teachers-and-schooling-on-Americas-youth.pdf (researchgate.net)

Borgen Magzine

United Nations: Education as the Pathway towards Gender Equality

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – Education

This article has been edited in line with our guidelines

Gerald Nelson is a freelance academic essay writer at perfectessaywriting.com who also works with several e ducational and human rights organizations. 

The MAHB Blog is a venture of the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. Questions should be directed to [email protected]

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Equality of Educational Opportunity

It is widely accepted that educational opportunities for children ought to be equal. This thesis follows from two observations about education and children: first, that education significantly influences a person’s life chances in terms of labor market success, preparation for democratic citizenship, and general human flourishing; and second, that children’s life chances should not be fixed by certain morally arbitrary circumstances of their birth such as their social class, race, and gender. But the precise meaning of, and implications for, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity is the subject of substantial disagreement (see Jencks 1988). This entry provides a critical review of the nature and basis of those disagreements.

To frame the discussion we introduce three key factors that underscore the importance of treating equality of educational opportunity as an independent concern, apart from theories of equality of opportunity more generally. These factors are: the central place of education in modern societies and the myriad opportunities it affords; the scarcity of high-quality educational opportunities for many children; and the critical role of the state in providing educational opportunities. These factors differentiate education from many other social goods. We follow this with a brief history of how equality of educational opportunity has been interpreted in the United States since the 1950s and the evolving legal understandings of equality of opportunity. Our subsequent analysis has implications for issues that are at the center of current litigation in the United States. But our philosophical discussion is intended to have wider reach, attempting to clarify the most attractive competing conceptions of the concept.

1.1 The Value of Education

1.2 the scarcity of high-quality educational opportunity, 1.3 the state regulation of education, 2. a brief history of equality of educational opportunity in the united states, 3.1 what is educational opportunity, 3.2 formal equality of educational opportunity, 3.3 meritocratic equality of educational opportunity, 3.4 fair equality of educational opportunity, 3.5 debates about fair equality of educational opportunity, 3.6 equality of educational opportunity for flourishing, 3.7 equality of educational opportunity for the labor market, 3.8 equality of educational opportunity for citizenship, 3.9 equality and adequacy in the distribution of educational opportunities, 4.1 education and the family, 4.2 disability, 4.3 the target of equal educational opportunity: individuals or groups, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. equality of educational opportunity as an independent concern.

Education has both instrumental and intrinsic value for individuals and for societies as a whole. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education”. The instrumental goals of K–12 education for individuals include access to higher education and a constellation of private benefits that follow college education such as access to interesting jobs with more vacation time and better health care; greater personal and professional mobility, better decision-making skills (Institute for Higher Education Policy 1998) and more autonomy at work. Research further shows that education levels are correlated with health and wealth: the more education a person has, the healthier and wealthier she is likely to be. At the same time, education is also considered intrinsically valuable. Developing one’s skills and talents can be enjoyable or good in itself and a central component of a flourishing life, regardless of the consequences this has for wealth or health.

In addition to the instrumental and intrinsic value of education to an individual, education is also valuable for society. All societies benefit from productive and knowledgeable workers who can generate social surplus and respond to preferences. Furthermore, democratic societies need to create citizens who are capable of participating in the project of shared governance. The correlation between educational attainment and civic participation is strong and well-documented: educated citizens have more opportunities to obtain and exercise civic skills, are more interested in and informed about politics, and in turn, are more likely to vote (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady 1995: 432–437, 445; Dee 2004).

It is therefore relatively uncontroversial to say that education is a highly valuable good to both individuals and to society, especially to democratic societies. This makes questions about who has access to high-quality educational opportunities, and how educational opportunities should be distributed, particularly important.

Questions about the just distribution of educational opportunity are especially vexing given the scarcity of resources allocated to education. Although developed societies provide some education for free to their citizens, funding for education is always in competition with the need to provide citizens with other social goods. As Amy Gutmann writes: “The price of using education to maximize the life chances of children would be to forego these other social goods” (Gutmann 1999: 129). Other basic welfare needs (e.g., housing, healthcare, food), as well as cultural goods (e.g., museums, parks, concert halls), must be weighed against public funds allocated to education, thereby making high-quality education—even in highly productive societies—scarce to some degree.

This scarcity is evident on several fronts with respect to higher education in the United States, which attracts applicants from all over the world. There is fierce competition for admission to highly selective colleges and universities in the U.S. that admit fewer than 10% of applicants. In this arena, wealthier parents sometimes go to great lengths to bolster their children’s applications by paying for tutoring, extracurricular activities, and admissions coaching—activities that can put applicants without these resources at a significant disadvantage in the admissions process. The recent “varsity blues” scandal, in which wealthy families paid millions of dollars to a college coach who promised admission to elite U.S. universities, is an extreme case in point about the degree of competition attached to selective universities.

A more urgent demonstration of the scarcity of educational opportunity in the U.S. and many other societies is evident in how access to high-quality primary and secondary education is effectively limited to children whose families can afford housing in middle-class neighborhoods, or who have access to private schools via tuition or scholarships. Despite the Brown decision’s eradication of de jure , or state-sanctioned, segregation by race in schools, public schools in the U.S. remain sharply segregated by race and by class due to de facto residential segregation. This segregation has significant consequences for poor and minority students’ educational opportunity. Given the strong correlation between school segregation, racial achievement gaps, and overall school quality, poor and minority students are disproportionately educated in lower performing schools compared to their white and more advantaged peers (Reardon 2015 and Reardon, Weathers, Fahle, Jang, and Kalogrides 2022 in Other Internet Resources ). The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these systemic background inequalities, with prolonged school closures in the U.S. disproportionately impacting low-income children who rely on schools to provide an array of social welfare services, including meals (Levinson, Cevik, and Lipsitch 2020; Levinson, Geller, and Allen, 2021).

In view of the constellation of intrinsic and instrumental goods that flow from educational opportunity, and in the context of relative scarcity, questions about how educational resources should be distributed are especially pressing as a matter of social and economic justice.

A third consideration that underscores the importance of thinking about the distribution of educational opportunities is that in most developed societies, the vast majority of such opportunities are provided through and regulated by the state. All developed societies have a legal requirement that children attend school for a certain number of years. This means that, unlike other policy levers, education is typically under the control of state institutions and has the potential to reach the vast majority of the nation’s children across racial, religious, class, and gender-based divides. And given the myriad benefits that flow from education, it is arguably a state’s most powerful mechanism for influencing the lives of its members. This makes education perhaps the most important function of government.

Since education is an integral function of government, and because it is an opportunity that government largely provides, there are special constraints on its distribution. Justice, if it requires nothing else, requires that governments treat their citizens with equal concern and respect. The state, for example, cannot justly provide unequal benefits to children on the basis of factors such as their race or gender. Indeed, such discrimination, even when it arises from indirect state measures such as the funding of schools from property taxes, can be especially pernicious to and is not lost on children. When poor and minority children see, for example, that their more advantaged peers attend better resourced public schools—a conclusion that can be drawn in many cases simply by comparing how school facilities look—they may internalize the view that the state cares less about cultivating their interests and skills. Children in this position suffer the dignitary injury of feeling that they are not equal to their peers in the state’s eyes (Kozol 1991, 2005). This harm is especially damaging to one’s self-respect because it is the development of one’s talents that is at stake; whether or not one has opportunities to gain the skills and confidence to pursue their conception of the good is central to what Rawls calls “the social basis of self-respect” (Rawls 1999: sections 65 and 67; Satz 2007: 639).

Given the importance of education to individuals and to society, it is clear that education cannot be distributed by the market: it needs to be available to all children, even children whose parents would be too poor or too indifferent to pay for it. Furthermore, if education is to play a role in equipping young people to participate in the labor market, to participate in democratic governance, and more generally to lead flourishing lives, then its content cannot be arbitrary but rather must be tailored to meet these desired outcomes. We address considerations of education’s content in subsequent sections, turning first to how equality of opportunity has been interpreted in the U.S., where we can see some of the implications of a truncated understanding of equality of opportunity in stark form.

The United States Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, in finding racially segregated public schools unconstitutional, declared that the opportunity for an education, when provided for by the state, is a “right which must be available to all on equal terms”. But de facto racial segregation persists in the U.S. and is coupled today with ever-growing class-based segregation (Reardon & Bischoff 2011). Black students are far more likely to attend high-poverty schools than their white peers (see school poverty, in the National Equity Atlas, Other Internet Resources ). The resulting, compounded educational disadvantages that poor, minority children face in the U.S. are significant. As research continues to document, the racial/ethnic achievement gap is persistent and large in the U.S. and has lasting labor market effects, whereby the achievement gap has been found to explain a significant part of racial/ethnic income disparities (Reardon, Robinson-Cimpian, & Weathers 2015; Reardon 2021 in Other Internet Resources).

Efforts to combat de facto segregation have been limited by U.S. jurisprudence since the Brown decision. Although the Supreme Court previously allowed plans to integrate schools within a particular school district (see Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education , 1970), in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) the Court struck down an inter-district busing plan that moved students across district lines to desegregate the Detroit city and surrounding suburban schools. This limitation on legal remedies for de facto segregation has significantly hampered integration efforts given that most school districts in the U.S. are not racially diverse. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court further curtailed integration efforts within the small number of districts that are racially diverse. In its Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District decision (2006), the Court prohibited districts from explicitly using individual students’ race as a factor in school assignment plans, thereby condoning only race-neutral integration plans in what many regarded as the Court’s final retreat from redressing de facto segregation (e.g., Rebell 2009; Ryan 2007).

The persistence of race and class-based segregation in the U.S. and the educational disadvantages that follow are rooted in the U.S. system of geographically defined school districts, whereby schools are largely funded by local property taxes that differ substantially between communities based on property values. This patchwork system compounds the educational disadvantages that follow from residential segregation. The 50 states in the United States differ dramatically in the level of per pupil educational funding that they provide; indeed some of these interstate disparities are greater than the intra-state inequalities that have received greater attention (Liu 2006). The system for funding schools and the residential segregation it exacerbates—itself the product of decades of laws and conscious policies to keep the races separate—has produced and continues to yield funding inequalities that disproportionately affect poor Americans of color. The segregation of resources, with greater resources flowing to children from families in the upper quintiles of society, makes it highly unlikely that children from the lower quintiles can have an equal chance of achieving success. This is evident in research documenting the growing achievement gap between high and low-income students, which is now 30–40% greater among children born in 2001 than those born twenty-five years before (Reardon 2011: 91; Reardon 2021 in Other Internet Resources).

Given the judicial retreat from remedying de facto segregation, many advocates have shifted their attention to the school finance system. A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in this arena was an initial setback to efforts to advance educational equality via federal school finance litigation. In this case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Court found that there is no federal right to education, and that funding inequalities among school districts due to variations in property tax revenue are not unconstitutional. This decision further entrenched the educational inequalities that follow from the geographic happenstance of a child’s home. In contrast to the U.S., many other countries do not finance their schools through local property taxes (e.g., Finland funds its schools at the national level based on the number of students they educate, and it provides more funding to schools that educate more students who are immigrants or whose parents are unemployed or uneducated; Sahlberg 2011). Many other societies distribute educational resources in a more centralized way than does the United States, which leaves educational funding, and even educational standards, to a large extent in local hands (for a recent volume on the idea of a federal right to education in the U.S., see Robinson 2019).

The U.S. Supreme Court did, however, leave an opening for state courts to act, and so legal advocates have adopted a state-by-state approach in the decades since Rodriguez . As this litigation has unfolded in almost every U.S. state, a policy debate with philosophical underpinnings has emerged around the question: Should educational resources be distributed on an equal basis (an equity model), or according to a sufficiency threshold (adequacy model)? State constitutions differ as to the basis they suggest for the state’s interest in funding education.

In the legal and political sphere, the adequacy approach has been more successful in school finance litigation at the state level. But the philosophical elaboration of equity and adequacy as competing ideals is somewhat distinct from how they are used in legal battles and political discourse. As we describe below, some theorists challenge the cogency of the sharp distinction often made between these two ways of justifying the distribution of educational resources.

3. The Meaning of and Debates about Equality of Educational Opportunity

Debates about the meaning and value of equality of educational opportunity—and about whether equal educational opportunity requires equality or adequacy—can be considered in the light of two questions.

The first question is that given the diverse goals of education—preparing individuals for the job market, for democratic citizenship, and to experience the intrinsic goods of education—is there only one justified rubric for distributing educational resources? For instance, distributional policies that support career preparation may be very different from those that support other goals like preparation for democratic citizenship. Since the labor market is a highly competitive sphere, education for labor market success appears to be a positional good, understood as a good whose value depends on one’s relative standing (i.e., the quality of my education for labor market success depends to a great extent on how good your education in this realm is since we will be vying for jobs). In a highly competitive job market with high stakes, distributing educational resources equally becomes especially important.

Conversely, education for human flourishing can be seen as a non-positional good because an individual’s attainment of the intrinsic goods of education (e.g., to enjoy literature, to be intellectually curious) is not compromised by others’ success in this realm; it is not a competitive field. In fact, one’s ability to enjoy the arts might be increased by others’ ability to do so too. An adequacy threshold for distributing educational opportunities directed at human flourishing may therefore be justified. As our educational goals vary, so too might the distributive principles for educational resources need to change.

The second question we must consider is about the best interpretation of the ideal of equality of educational opportunity. Is equality of opportunity achieved when everyone with similar talent gets the same results? When per pupil expenditures are equalized? When those with the same natural talent potential get the same opportunities?

Answers to these two fundamental questions enable philosophers to construct a conception of equality of educational opportunity. Of course, philosophical controversies remain even supposing the content of the conception can be settled. Some of these controversies concern clashes with other values, including that of the family and diversity: What limits do parental rights put on the pursuit of equality of educational opportunity? Is affirmative action required by or contrary to equality of educational opportunity? Other issues arise when we try to interpret what equality of educational opportunity means for those with disabilities, or when we attempt to define “merit” and “native talent potential”.

The following sections of this entry will describe the key maneuvers in different ways of answering these two questions: first, what the ideal can mean and what distributive principles realize it; and second, how to navigate tensions between this ideal and other values. The first section below introduces debates about the various definitions of equality of educational opportunity and its associated distributive principles. Some of the material covered in this section comes from the literature on equality of opportunity more generally, which we apply to educational aspects of these debates (for a recent article in this spirit written for the education policy and research community, see Levinson, Geron, and Brighouse, 2022). The subsequent section surveys debates about how to negotiate the challenges faced by those looking to realize the ideal of equality of educational opportunity, including whether equality of educational opportunity can be reconciled with respecting the private sphere of the family.

Before we can say what an equal educational opportunity is, we need to say what an opportunity is in general. Peter Westen (1985) provides a helpful definition of an opportunity that can be applied to the education sphere. For Westen, an opportunity is a relationship between an agent or a set of agents, and a desired goal, mediated by certain obstacles, none of which are insurmountable. For instance, Alice has an opportunity to become educated mediated by obstacles such as enrolling at a school, putting in hard work, and the quality of her teachers.

To employ this concept in the context of education, we need to answer questions about who the proper agents are, what the appropriate goal or goals are, and what, if any, obstacles are legitimate. For example, if we take admission at a highly selective college as our goal, and the citizens of some country as our agents, we might think that meeting a certain academic requirement, such as passing an entrance exam, is a relevant obstacle that should be permitted to stand in the way of the goal. In this context, we will also think that an applicant’s race, sex or religious affiliation should not be obstacles. When the appropriate group faces only the relevant obstacles with respect to the appropriate goal we can say that equality of opportunity obtains between the members of that group.

For instance, Alice and Belle have equal opportunity to attend a selective university if, all other things being equal, the only obstacle they face is passing an entry test, which is a relevant obstacle. They do not have equal opportunity if Alice also faces an irrelevant obstacle, such as race-based discrimination, that Belle does not face.

Educational opportunities are those opportunities that aim to enable individuals to acquire knowledge and certain skills, and to cultivate certain capacities. As noted above, we may value educational opportunity in some instances for the intrinsic value of acquiring knowledge, while in other cases we may care more about its instrumental effects on individual welfare (e.g., labor market success). Whatever our rationale for caring about educational opportunity, in order for an individual to be said to have this opportunity, she must have no insurmountable, irrelevant obstacles to the particular educational goal we have in mind.

Most commonly we associate the goals that constitute educational opportunities with access to educational institutions such as schools and universities, but apprenticeships and professional development and training also provide educational opportunities. In addition, there are many informal types of educational opportunity. These include public debates and lectures as well as time spent reading, practicing, or thinking outside of a school context.

Most contributors to debates about equality of educational opportunity focus on opportunities that are made available through public K–12 and higher education institutions. The reasons for this are similar to our reasons for being concerned with educational opportunity in the first place. Those institutional opportunities are more easily regulated and under the state’s control, they educate the vast majority of children in the developed world, and they have a profound effect on the quality of our lives. As a result, most of the literature primarily concerns K–12 educational institutions and colleges. Nevertheless, a crucial question concerns the extent to which the state should try to address inequalities in educational opportunities that are generated through the family. For example, we know that parents who read to their children give their children an educational advantage (Hutton et al. 2015). Should the state seek to correct for the disadvantages of those children whose parents could not (or would not) read to them? More generally, parents pass on not only genetic traits to their children, but also characteristics that differentially prepare children for success at school, and even at jobs. Again, how should the state respond to these and other factors that influence children’s likelihood of success at school? Are these appropriate obstacles for children to face or not?

The next sections survey different interpretations of equal educational opportunity in view of these questions.

Formal equality of opportunity is the view that formal rules that make reference to personal or ascriptive characteristics should not be obstacles to achieving certain goals. Such characteristics include race, socio-economic class, gender, religion, and sexuality. It is essentially a concept of equality before the law. It is often understood as an anti-discrimination principle (See the entry on equality of opportunity for more discussion).

As applied to educational opportunity, formal equality of opportunity requires the removal of formal obstacles, in the form of laws or entrance criteria for educational institutions, which refer to ascriptive characteristics. For instance, formal equality of opportunity is opposed to legally segregated schools whose admissions policy states that students be white, male or belong to a certain religion. This conception is likewise opposed to laws that endorse or require segregation in schools. The Brown decision is certainly consistent with at least formal equality of opportunity. At the same time, it is worth noting that formal equality of opportunity is at odds with the tolerant attitude many societies take toward schools and colleges that are segregated by sex and religion. One possible way in which these practices might be reconciled with formal equality of educational opportunity would be to argue that this principle applies only to public educational institutions and not private schools and colleges. Some people accept that formal equality of opportunity is a sufficient norm to guide the distribution of educational opportunities, but most political and moral philosophers accept it as necessary but not sufficient. A principle of non-discrimination leaves open whether and to what extent the state needs to provide the resources that are required for education, or how those resources should be distributed (see Gutmann 1999: 127ff). Since resources are necessary for education—whether in the form of books and materials, teachers, facilities, and so on—formal equality of opportunity is compatible with some children failing to actually receive an education. Formal equality of opportunity fails to provide effective equality of opportunity.

Additionally, formal equality of educational opportunity is not concerned with the informal rules, social norms, or private discrimination that people in a society face that can have a profound effect on a child’s opportunities for education. Consider that formal equality of opportunity is compatible with school segregation, if school attendance zones were determined by residence and residence were segregated by race and social class (as is typically the case in the U.S.). If integration is a moral imperative, formal equality of opportunity cannot achieve this goal (Anderson 2010). Many people believe that insofar as informal discrimination is an unfair obstacle to educational opportunity, it is a serious problem that requires policy attention.

Even if formal equality of opportunity could be defended as a just distributional principle outside of the educational context, perhaps because going beyond it violates certain rights (see Nozick 1997), it cannot be defended in the context of schooling. No democratic society can justify failing to educate the children of its poorest students. (Additionally, see Friedman & Friedman, 1990, for a libertarian argument for universal education based on its third party effects.)

Proponents of meritocratic equality of opportunity argue that no other obstacle besides merit should stand in the way of achievement of the desired goals. This view requires that educational goods be distributed solely in accordance with individual merit. In the context of education, merit is often measured by entrance requirements, aptitude tests, or grades on exams. Of course, merit could be defined in some other way—by how hard a student works, by how much a student improves, or by classroom participation, although all of these indicators pose measurement challenges.

Meritocratic equality of opportunity has well-known limitations, especially with respect to children. If educational opportunities should be given to those who have the most merit in terms of the best scores on entrance tests, we will overlook the fact that merit is endogenous to education, which is to say, educational opportunity itself creates merit (Satz 2007). The more educational opportunities an individual child has, the more “merit” that child may come to have. This might suggest that we should pay more attention to individuals’ underlying potential rather than to their assessed merit. Yet few people believe that we should give opportunities to those who have the most underlying but uncultivated ability at the expense of those who have less underlying ability or who are less qualified but have worked hard (Miller 1996).

To illustrate a second limitation with the meritocratic conception of equal educational opportunity, imagine that all highly selective university places have been awarded to members of the upper class through cronyism, and that a progressive new government is suddenly elected into power to enforce meritocratic admissions. After generations of consolidating superior education, jobs and wealth at the expense of the poor, the upper-classes are in a far better place, particularly if private schooling is available, to ensure that their children end up being the most meritorious, thereby preserving vast social inequalities between members of different classes. Although some opportunities are open to all equally, opportunities to develop “merit” are not distributed equally (Williams 1962). Intergenerational transmission of opportunities to cultivate merit would generate a deeply divided and unequal society, which is at odds with the ideal of equality of educational opportunity.

Two further limitations concerning meritocratic equality of opportunity in the context of education are worth noting, aside from the possible toxic consequences of engaging in meritocratic rhetoric (Young 1958; Sandel 2020). The first, as has already been mentioned, is that the definition of merit itself can be contentious. Is there an account of merit that is wholly independent of conceptions of justice (Sen 2000)? Is merit simply what maximizes productivity? Should merit be based solely on test scores or also take into account moral attributes like the ability to work cooperatively with others?

The second is that while conditioning educational opportunities on “merit” may look compelling when dealing with young adults, it is deeply problematic when applied to very young children. As Michael Walzer (1983: 203) notes, the job of the reading teacher is to teach children to read, not merely to offer the opportunity to learn to read. And this job presumably includes all children in a classroom—even those who are not especially “meritorious”. Perhaps this is also why the educational “tracking” of very young children on the basis of ability seems especially objectionable—there are certain capacities that need to be cultivated in all children (Satz 2007).

Because of the limits of formal equality of opportunity, John Rawls developed a conception he calls Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEO). FEO requires that social offices and positions be formally open to all, and that individuals who are similarly talented and motivated should have a roughly equal chance to attain these positions, independent of their social class background (Rawls 2001: 42–44). FEO holds that all citizens of a society count as the relevant agents, the desired goal is offices and positions, and the obstacles people should not face includes their social class background. The obstacles people may legitimately face include having fewer developed abilities or less willingness to use them.

When applied to education, this principle may support educational measures that close the achievement gap between the rich and the poor with the same high talent potentials, assuming that these children can be identified. This is because such students from poorer backgrounds should fare as well as their wealthier peers with the same potentials. The Rawlsian principle of FEO aims to eliminate the effects of social background and economic class on educational achievement. Fair equality of opportunity therefore offers a radical interpretation of equality of educational opportunity.

Debates about FEO have focused on the relative importance of the goods it regulates (i.e., access to offices and positions) and the fact that it regards inequalities in inborn potential as relevant obstacles generally, and in the education arena.

In A Theory of Justice , Rawls accords the fair equality of opportunity principle priority over access to other types of advantages such as income and wealth. Disputing this priority, some have argued that the opportunities that FEO regulates are not more important than these other goods and that we should prefer a principle (known, for example, in Rawls’ work as the difference principle) that ensures that the least advantaged are as well-off as possible in terms of income (or according to some critics, well-being) (Alexander 1985; Arneson 1999; Clayton 2001; Miklosi 2010). Richard Arneson presses this complaint forcefully in his paper “Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity”. Rawls’ argument for FEO over the difference principle comes from a commitment to individuals’ self-respect and the contribution that the ability to compete for offices and social positions on fair terms make to that self-respect. But Arneson argues that those among us with lesser capacities might reasonably reject according such weight to the self-respect of the talented. After all, the self-respect derived from the results of a “natural lottery” is unequally distributed. The untalented among us, Arneson argues, would prefer increases in well-being to a principle of self-respect that confers no benefit to them.

In terms of education, rather than ensuring that those with the same inborn talent potential and ambition have the same level of educational achievement, Arneson would emphasize that educational opportunities should aim at promoting the welfare of the least advantaged. This is more important, as he sees it, than ensuring that future competitions for jobs are fairly structured. But Rawls and his defenders have argued that wealth and welfare are different in kind from the goods that FEO regulates, and that FEO pertains to more important goods that are closely connected to autonomy, the social bases of self-respect, and what he calls the two moral powers. This explains their priority and irreducibility (Taylor 2004; Shields 2015; Shiffrin 2004). Further, if everyone had a decent minimum, then the additional contribution of wealth to well-being is less significant. In subsequent work however, Rawls does acknowledge that the priority of FEO over his difference principle may be less stringent than he thought.

Some philosophers criticize FEO as insufficiently egalitarian. This criticism has taken two forms. First, some claim that by making fair opportunities relative to motivation, FEO has insufficient bite in a non-ideal world in which inequality frequently produces diminished aspirations in the oppressed. If women have been socialized for centuries to think that certain positions in society are beyond their capacities, and accordingly they are not motivated to pursue such positions, does FEO have the resources to criticize this?

A second objection points out that inequalities in social luck (e.g., being born into a poor family, which FEO requires institutions to correct for) and inequalities in natural luck (e.g., being born with less talent potential, which FEO does not require institutions to correct for) should be treated the same. It is easy to think that both types of luck are equally arbitrary from a moral point of view, and that this arbitrariness is a source of injustice. Indeed, some of Rawls’ own remarks seem to suggest this. Why, we might ask, should educational institutions help close the gap between the talented rich and talented poor but do nothing to close the gap between talented and untalented students, when being untalented is, just like social class, totally unavoidable. Matthew Clayton and Richard Arneson press this complaint against Rawls. Clayton claims that Rawls’ own reasoning appears to privilege consistency about both types of luck. So Rawls should either accept a different principle applying to both natural and social luck, or else he must condone a type of natural aristocracy for both talent and wealth.

Part of a response to these objections would have to defend the resources that Rawlsian theory has for dealing with race and gender as obstacles to fair equality of opportunity as well as the importance of the specific goods that FEO protects. Rawls himself singled out certain goods as having a higher priority than the goods of income and wealth alone. In defense of Rawls on the first objection, Seana Shiffrin (2004) has argued that FEO is a “robust anti-discrimination principle”, which should not be read out of its context within Rawls’ two principles as a whole. Moreover, it

would be difficult to provide the sort of educational training necessary to fulfill the principle’s commands without thereby engaging in teaching that also combatted the stereotypes that produce significant differentiation of ambitions. (2004: 1650, fn31)

On her view, the social bases of self-respect require the robust anti-discrimination principle that FEO provides. In defense of Rawls on the second objection, Robert Taylor (2004) has attempted to show that self-realization has a crucial place in the hierarchy of goods on the Kantian interpretation of Rawls’ principles. He claims that FEO therefore has priority over the difference principle because it regulates goods that are more central to the exercise of our moral powers and our highest order interests. However, his defense of Rawls has been criticized for being overly perfectionist and therefore not politically liberal. If this criticism is sound, then it may seem to imply that while perfectionist Rawlsians can justify FEO, political liberal Rawlsians cannot. Liam Shields (2015) argues that there is a non-perfectionist account of self-realization and that this leads us to supplement the principle of FEO with a principle of sufficient self-realization. This may be one way to defend FEO against those who favor a strict focus on welfare.

However, these responses would not satisfy those who believe that we should adopt prioritarianism with respect to especially important goods, distributing them in a way that gives priority to those who have the least (Schouten 2012). Prioritarianism is a controversial view, and has some controversial implications for the distribution of K–12 education. For example, a prioritarian view might endorse providing no state supported educational resources at all for those who are extremely talented, unless it could be shown that doing so improves the lot of the least well off. But many people will reject this implication, believing that the state does have educational obligations to the talented in their own right. Prioritarianism is also inattentive to inequalities that obtain elsewhere in the distributional scheme, for example, between those at the median and those at the very top. Many egalitarians will be disturbed by disproportionate opportunities going to the top 1%, even if the very bottom of the distribution is improved. Rawls’ view is not a simple prioritarian one, but instead endorses a complex set of principles—some of which are egalitarian such as FEO, and some of which give special attention to the least well off, such as the difference principle.

A final issue with FEO concerns our understanding of, and ability to determine, natural levels of talent. It can be very hard to know who has the most potential even when children are well into their schooling. This suggests that it is not an appropriate or feasible benchmark for the regulation of social institutions since we could never know whether it was satisfied (Gomberg 1975). In addition, the focus on natural talents has led some to consider the interaction between epigenetic traits and social environmental factors, calling into question the integrity of this distinction. This expands our sense of the arbitrariness of natural inequalities and may provide important insights on how to redress these inequalities (Loi, Del Savio and Stupka 2013).

One goal of education is to enable young people to grow into adults who have flourishing lives. What would it mean to give children the equal opportunity for flourishing lives? Again, that depends on the view one should have about the appropriate obstacles. At the most extreme, some have argued all people should face only the obstacle of their own choices. The view makes sense of many of our intuitions. For example, we tend to think that victims of bad luck, those born with disabilities, or those who are severely harmed by natural disasters, are entitled to aid. Meanwhile, those who gamble and lose are not usually viewed as having any case for compensation.

The view so stated has very radical implications for educational institutions since it charges them with ensuring that all students have equal prospects for living well, regardless of differences in their natural potentials. Thus, educational institutions organized in accordance with equality of opportunity for flourishing would not only have to provide compensatory support and resources for those from disadvantaged family backgrounds, but also for those who have genetic disadvantages.

Many philosophers have taken issue with this general view. Some have argued that its unmitigated emphasis on choice and responsibility would lead to stigma (e.g., Anderson 1999; Wolff 1998). Imagine a letter to parents saying that the state is offering your child extra opportunities because your genes create significant disadvantages. Moreover, as has already been noted, any view emphasizing choice so heavily seems especially out of place when dealing with young children.

We also need an account of the flourishing that should be the aim of educational opportunities. Is it to be understood in terms of preference satisfaction? Or something else? Would it require autonomy? In choosing an account of flourishing, we have to respond to these questions and also be attentive to concerns about sectarianism. How can an undoubtedly controversial account of what makes a human life valuable (e.g., that a good life is an autonomous life) be a suitable basis for educational policy in a pluralistic society? Many liberals argue that families may justifiably reject, and request exemption from, an education that conflicts with their religious, cultural, or political views. They argue that an educational system driven by a principle of equality of opportunity for flourishing will not respect individuals’ entitlement to pursue their own account of how they wish to live, in accordance with their own reason (Rawls 2005). Of course, it might be pointed out in reply, that educational decisions made by parents affect not only their own views of how to live but also, and more importantly, their children’s.

A second key goal for education, which plays a prominent role in public discourse, is to prepare individuals for productive employment. Education for the labor market has significant benefits for the state (e.g., GDP growth) and for individuals (e.g., remunerative and rewarding employment and all its associated benefits, including more discretionary income, more leisure time, and in the U.S., better healthcare). This function of education is critically important as a matter of justice. Education aimed at preparing individuals for employment has become especially pressing in view of the income inequalities that leading economists have highlighted (Piketty 2014; Saez & Zucman 2014). And since education for employment is a highly positional good given a competitive labor market, it matters all the more how educational opportunity in this arena is distributed.

Although there is a clear correlation between educational attainment, income, and employment rates (see 2022 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Other Internet Resources ), the link between academic achievement as measured on tests and labor market outcomes has been found to be more attenuated (Bowles, Gintis, & Osborne 2001). Research has shown that “soft skills” (e.g., personality traits like tenacity; individual’s goals and preferences) may be more predictive of success than cognitive abilities measured by test scores (Heckman & Kautz 2012). Moreover, schooling that is most directly targeted at employment—vocational education—has a history in the U.S. of entrenching race and class-based inequalities (e.g., Oakes 1985). Although the relationship between traditional academic skills and labor market success may be less significant than previously thought, and despite the checkered history of vocational education, formal schooling still has a critical role to play toward equipping individuals for labor market success on several fronts.

First, students do acquire soft skills in formal school settings. One study found that student achievement on tests accounts for just 20% of the effects of educational attainment on earnings (Bowles, Gintis, & Osborne 2001), which indicates that schools are cultivating non-cognitive skills that tests do not measure, and that are consequential in the labor market (Levin 2012). Second, educational attainment has long been seen to have a signaling function in the labor market (Spence 1973), whereby employers rely upon job candidates’ educational credentials as a proxy for future productivity. Educational attainment itself, then, apart from applicants’ demonstration of particular skills, is central to screening and differentiating candidates. Finally, a college diploma has become especially consequential in recent years as the income gap between those with and without one has grown; individuals with a bachelors degree earn 84% more over their lifetime than those with just a high school diploma (see Carnevale, Rose & Cheah 2011). Lesley Jacobs’ notion of stakes fairness (2004) underscores the importance of equality of educational opportunity when it comes to preparation for the labor market. Ideally, the stakes attached to education for labor market success would not be nearly as high as they are now, whereby a winner-takes-all competition for a job can determine an individual’s access to social goods like healthcare, leisure time, and discretionary income. When the (non-ideal) stakes are this high, equality of educational opportunity matters all the more (Jacobs 2010).

Another important goal for providing educational opportunities is the development of students’ capacities associated with being a good citizen and maintaining democratic institutions over time (Callan 1997; Galston 2001; Gutmann 1999). It might be argued that just as equality of opportunity to become a flourishing individual is a matter of justice, so too is equality of opportunity to develop civic skills, and to participate effectively in political deliberations.

The structure and appropriate content of civic education is debated extensively. While some argue that citizenship education can be narrowly construed so as to not encroach upon individuals’ private commitments, others claim it is a far more demanding educational endeavor. A key part of this debate is the extent to which education requires the cultivation of autonomy, and if does, the nature of the autonomy that is required. Some claim that since some groups in pluralistic democracies reject the idea of an autonomous life, education for autonomy cannot be imposed upon them even for civic purposes, and so education should not entail the cultivation of individual autonomy (Galston 1989). Rawls’ own solution to the potential clash between civic education for autonomy and individuals’ private commitments is to advocate only a limited form of autonomy, political autonomy, which “leaves untouched all kinds of doctrines—religious, metaphysical, and moral” and yields a relatively thin civic education (Rawls 2005: 375). Others take issue with this view, arguing that civic education requires an encompassing form of autonomy that has unavoidable spillover effects into the private sphere of individuals’ lives, and that may clash with some religious convictions (Callan 1997; Gutmann 1995; see also Arneson & Shapiro 1996, for a discussion of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), a U.S. Supreme Court case about religious exemptions from compulsory education).

Another dimension of ongoing debates about equality in the realm of civic education concerns the scope of the community for which we are educating students to become members. Is the right unit of analysis a particular nation state or the global community? If it is a particular nation state, how can we cultivate in students a sense of their national identity and the disposition to respect their state’s institutions and laws (and to advocate reform when needed), while also making them sensitive to what they owe non-citizens as a matter of justice? A key component of this debate is whether students should receive a patriotic civic education—that is, one that prioritizes shoring up their allegiance to their state over their capacity to reflect critically upon its potential shortcomings. Galston (1989) has notably argued that students need a civic education that is more rhetorical than rational, while a number of liberal theorists have criticized his view on grounds of democratic legitimacy, its status-quo bias, and the related possibility of ossifying existing inequalities (e.g., Brighouse 1998; Callan 1997; see also the related entry on civic education ). On the other hand, if we instead have a cosmopolitan view of civic education and aim to cultivate “citizens of the world” (e.g., Nussbaum & Cohen 1996), what are the relevant capacities that need to be made effective? There is no world state for students to participate in.

Whatever one believes about the appropriate scope and content of civic education, a pressing issue is students’ extremely uneven access to educational opportunities that prepare them for participatory citizenship. Meira Levinson’s work on the “civic achievement gap” highlights this corollary to the much-more discussed achievement gap and underscores vast inequalities across student groups in terms of what youth know about how government works, and their ability to participate effectively in civic life (Levinson 2012). These low rates of participation and engagement also have consequences for how the interests of the poor are treated. Indeed, even if one rejects equality of opportunity in this domain, there is ample evidence that many societies are not doing enough to enable their poorer and less educated citizens to effectively and competently participate in public life.

A longstanding debate in the literature juxtaposes the view that we should prioritize equality in the distribution of educational opportunities with the view that an “adequacy” approach is the right one (on this debate, see Reich 2013). Those who advocate the equality view may insist on equal outputs (i.e., educational outcomes, like the mastery of particular skills) or inputs (i.e., educational resources, like equal per pupil funding or qualified teachers). The adequacy view, by contrast, is seen as holding that what matters most is meeting a specified educational threshold.

In the context of school finance litigation in the U.S., advocates often invoke these two distributive ideals together rather than regarding them as being at odds (Rebell 2009: 21–22; Ryan 2008: 1232–1238). Although most school finance litigation in the U.S. today is pursued from an adequacy framework given its greater political viability, litigators often make comparative claims about students’ educational opportunities to bolster their case. Conversely in contexts where lawyers pursue equality claims, they frequently appeal to a conception of educational quality (e.g., achieving literacy, numeracy, and civic skills) to anchor their claims, and to avoid the leveling-down problem whereby equality is achieved by making everyone worse off, without regard for the realization of particular educational goals.

Some philosophical work has similarly undercut the sharp equality/adequacy distinction and shows how the two ideals are closely intertwined in the pursuit of educational justice. These approaches (e.g., Satz 2007; Anderson 2007) argue that adequacy in education has a relative and comparative component because the educational threshold depends on the knowledge and skills that others have, and so it is necessarily a moving target. For example, what it takes to serve on a jury, or to have an adequate opportunity for college, depends on the knowledge and skill levels of others. This “relational” approach to adequacy can respond to one of the strongest concerns proponents of equality raise: that because many of the benefits of education are positional, which is to say, their value depends upon one’s position relative to others, equality is the right distributive principle for educational opportunities. The meritocratic distribution of jobs, where the most qualified candidate is appointed (rather than the individual who is merely well-qualified), ensures that positionality is decisive in many cases. Conceptions of adequacy that are attentive to relevant comparative claims can address this issue and thereby deflate the tension between adequacy and equality approaches to distributing educational opportunities.

However one interprets equality of educational of opportunity, a number of important challenges face anyone who believes that the ideal is a crucial component of a fair and just society. Several of these challenges are philosophical in nature. For instance, one can ask whether certain values (e.g., respecting family autonomy) compete with the demands of equality of opportunity in education in ways that trump or are trumped by concerns about educational equality. One can also ask whether equal educational opportunity requires affirmative action, and what it may require for students with disabilities and special educational needs. One can accept equality of educational opportunity with respect to some goods and adequacy of educational opportunity with respect to others (Callan 2016). There are other challenges that are not philosophical but practical, such as how we can convince policymakers to allocate sufficient funds to meet students’ educational needs, and how we might increase public support for the ideal of equality of educational opportunity more generally.

4. Equality of Educational Opportunity’s Tensions with Other Values

Family background has long been recognized as a source of significant inequalities. Even before we consider that children have quite different personalities and needs, inequality in family wealth and differences in family priorities and wield influence over a child’s prospects in the labor market, in civic participation, and in overall well-being. Although the number of parents who choose to pay tuition to have their children educated in private schools may be relatively small, purchasing elite private schooling can result in compounding advantages for some students (and thus relative disadvantages for others). Only about 10% of primary and secondary students in the U.S. attend private schools (see NCES’s the Condition of Education 2016 in Other Internet Resources ), while students who attended private secondary schools have comprised nearly 30% or more of matriculating classes at some highly selective American universities in recent years (see, for example, online profiles of the 2016 freshman class at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale listed in Other Internet Resources ). Students at some public schools may also suffer more immediate disadvantages from the absence of the positive peer effects of being in a school with higher achieving students and more engaged parents. Smaller class sizes, more highly qualified teachers, and more extra-curricular opportunities may enable private school students to benefit from the compounding advantages of greater success in the college admissions process and subsequent labor market. And since employment opportunities and elite college places are scarce goods that are closely linked to other benefits in health, wealth, and overall well-being, these inequalities can be highly consequential.

While some of these inequalities might be remedied by social policies that address employment practices, gender and racial inequality, and wealth inequality, we have reasons to think that some inequality in opportunity will remain in a just society simply because parents should be able to treat their children differently from other people’s children in ways that are to their children’s advantage. For example, a parent may read bedtime stories to his children but if he does he does not also need to read them to other children, even if a failure to read to everyone exacerbates inequality. There are limits to what the state can do without intruding on the life of the family. At the same time, concern for mitigating inequality that is rooted in familial relations has to grapple with the fact that different parenting styles have value as well as downsides, and that the middle-class norm of trying to maximize children’s potential (“concerted cultivation”; Lareau 2011) is no exception in terms of having certain disadvantages for children.

There are several possible approaches to the conflict between equal educational opportunity and the family. One approach subordinates our concern for equality of educational opportunity to our concern with the family. To support this view we might try to argue that the goods of family life are especially weighty, or, that as a matter of value pluralism, the state cannot impose complete uniformity on childrearing practices. Conversely, we could subordinate our concern for the family to our concern with equality of educational opportunity. If this were to happen, however, we could end up abolishing the family as we know it, since the family and partiality run contrary to equal opportunity. One cannot, it seems, have the family and have perfect equality of opportunity. Plato famously advocated raising children in common within communities in The Republic (though not out of concern for equality). But most philosophers, including Rawls, believe that abolishing the family is far too high a price to pay for equality (this is discussed in Munoz-Dardé 1999; Brighouse & Swift 2009; Schoeman 1980; Schrag 1976; see also Miller 2009 on different conceptions of equality of opportunity and how the family fits within them).

Alternatively, we might think that some careful weighing of the values at stake is required. For instance, we might think that only some of the demands of familial partiality, those related to intimacy such as reading bedtime stories, are sufficient to outweigh concern for equality of educational opportunity. Other aspects of familial partiality that appear to be unconnected to intimacy, such as paying tuition for private schools, would not be justified. This view would enjoin us to equalize children’s educational opportunities whenever we can, without sacrificing the goods central to the family (Brighouse & Swift 2014). Yet it can be very difficult in practice to determine whether an advantage parents provide their child is constitutive of the family or not.

Individuals with cognitive and physical disabilities have been marginalized, denied resources, and even denied an education. Can a conception of equality of educational opportunity accommodate those with cognitive and physical disabilities? Some critics claim that theories of justice focus unduly on meeting the demands of reciprocity and cooperation as a pre-condition to equal opportunity and other demands of justice, and in doing so, exclude some individuals with disabilities from those entitlements. Some argue that we need new theories (Kittay 1999; Barnes 2016) while others argue that existing theories and approaches can be applied to or extended to include individuals with disabilities (Stark 2013; Robeyns 2006; Brighouse 2001). In education, treating individuals with disabilities the same as those without does not always suffice to treat all equally, for disabilities sometimes give rise to special needs and requirements and this raises challenges for ‘inclusion’ (Warnock 2005). In order to avoid these challenges it seems that we might need to endorse differential treatment, which can lead to stigma and division and has been associated with educational segregation. This gives rise to what has been called the “dilemma of difference” and pertains to decisions about whether students with disabilities should be educated in the same class as students without disabilities. Placing disabled children in mainstream schools or classes may lead to bullying, as Mary Warnock (2005) has noted, but placing disabled children in separate settings may further entrench the wide-spread social stigma associated with disability, even when there is much that can be done to ensure disability is not an obstacle to learning. Further debates focus on the extent to which (at least some of) the disadvantages of disability may be detached from the disability itself and the extent to which they are attached only in virtue of social organization or social attitudes, which we could and should alter. For instance, if the dominant modes of communication in our society were sign-based rather than spoken, perhaps deafness would not be considered a disability. Likewise, where braille translations are readily available, the blind do not face a disability with respect to reading (Sparrow 2005). In the case of education, the design of the school or the curriculum can determine whether a disability is an obstacle to learning. For some discussion of this debate see Terzi 2005.

Disability may be thought to pose problems for various conceptions of equality of educational opportunity and can strengthen well-known objections. For example, it poses problems for those who endorse a meritocratic allocation of advantageous positions, such as FEO. If one of the primary goals of an education system is to ensure fair competition for jobs, many people with disabilities will likely face greater and even insurmountable obstacles to becoming the most meritorious candidate. Recall that FEO requires equal prospects for the equally naturally talented and ambitious. Some of those with disabilities do not have similar or equal natural talent with others vying for opportunities, even if these differences could be compensated for through education. Meritocratic equality of opportunity also appears to neglect some people with disabilities, by interpreting merit in terms of inborn potentials. FEO and meritocratic equality of opportunity are consistent with providing very low or even no educational opportunities to some cognitively disabled persons, but that hardly seems like an acceptable outcome. Adequacy accounts may also struggle to explain what to do when disabilities are so severe that individuals cannot achieve adequate educational levels, or do so only at enormous cost. If an adequate education involved at least acquiring a high school diploma, it is not possible for some cognitively impaired persons to reach this level. Since the focus of adequacy is on achieving that level, and these people cannot do so, it appears that when educational adequacy is set at these levels no entitlement to education for the cognitively disabled can be derived from it. This sort of example puts a lot of pressure on accounts of adequacy to explain at what cost adequacy is worth pursuing, and also challenge those who deny that native ability is relevant to equality of opportunity.

One way to avoid such outcome would be to supplement these views of equality or adequacy of educational opportunity with other principles. For example, it might be held that we owe some educational resources even to the severely cognitively disabled not on grounds of equality of opportunity but on grounds of humanity.

Opportunities belong to agents. However, when we are concerned with equality of opportunity we may be concerned that each individual has the same opportunities or that certain groups (classified by race, gender, socio-economic class, sexuality or religion) have the same opportunities. In other words, our concern may be that people’s opportunities are not affected by their membership of some disadvantaged group rather than being concerned that each individual has equal opportunity within groups. Imagine two societies. In society A , all those who gain entrance to selective colleges on the basis of test scores are white. In society B , all those who gain entrance on the basis of test scores are white or non-white in proportionate to their percentages in the overall population. Should we care about whether we are in society A or B ? If our concern is with individuals alone, then so long as our conception of equality of opportunity is met, then there is no difference between society A and B . Of course, we may suspect that society A violates our conception of equality of opportunity. But suppose that it does not.

Do we have any reason to favor a college admissions policy that moves us from A to B ? Those who advocate for affirmative action in admissions argue that we have reason to depart from a color-blind standard. Some of those arguments appeal to the illegitimacy of the standards used (e.g., tests scores), which critics say are biased. Others argue that we should expect to see equality of outcomes with respect to relevant social groups. For example, John Roemer (1998) defends a conception of equality of opportunity according to which members of groups that have been subordinated (women, racial minorities) should have the same probabilities of achieving success as the members of the dominant group. This is because he thinks the obstacles these groups face should be the same and if we assume that they have equal distributions of talent within them, then different outcomes means there are different obstacles. Roemer uses the example of smoking to illustrate this. Smoking rates vary by social class: the poorer you are, the more likely it is that you will smoke. On Roemer’s view, this means that it is harder for a poor person to stop smoking than a wealthy person. So we should not penalize a poor person who smokes to the same extent that we penalize a wealthy person. Of course, which social groups should be included in this exercise is controversial. Conservatives and liberals differ as to whether individuals face different obstacles simply by virtue of their group membership.

A different argument for moving to society B is given by Glenn Loury (1987) who argues that the dynamic effects of a society like A would prevent poor but talented minorities from achieving equality of educational opportunity because they would lack access to the social networks upon which jobs and other opportunities depend. In society A , disadvantages would cluster. Because equality of opportunity does not, as we have seen, easily extend to the private sphere of family and intimate associations, it is compatible with the continued practice of racial discrimination in such practices, even when there is legal, formal equality.

Loury thus sees a role for preferential policies in higher education that would move us from a society like A to a society like B . One of the more controversial reforms associated with higher education and equality of opportunity is affirmative action, which reserves preferential treatment for historically disadvantaged groups. Affirmative action has been criticized by those who think that merit, and not race or class, should be the only criterion for selecting college applicants. Others argue that it can lead to the unintended stigmatization of members of disadvantaged groups who attend college as not deserving of their place. However, this is to forget that opportunities to develop merit are themselves unfairly distributed between groups historically. Notwithstanding this response, affirmative action remains a controversial response to a very difficult social problem (Guinier 2016).

This entry has provided analysis of key positions in debates about equality of educational opportunity. We began by describing the reasons for being concerned about equality in this arena and then surveyed debates about the value and distribution of such opportunities. As the above discussion highlights, the realization of the ideal of equality of educational opportunity may be frustrated by competing conceptions of what equality itself entails, and also by other important values that are in tension with equalizing education opportunities (e.g., respecting family autonomy). Social scientific advances in recent years have clarified our understanding of the mechanisms behind children’s unequal access to educational opportunities, and the consequences of those inequalities for social mobility (e.g., Chetty et al. 2014; Duncan & Murnane 2011). This knowledge enables policymakers to target interventions to areas that will be most impactful (e.g., growing recognition of the importance of early childhood education). But value tensions of the sort highlighted in this entry will persist, and they warrant ongoing attention by philosophers as our understanding of the causes and consequences of educational inequalities sharpens.

• Alexander, Larry A., 1985, “Fair Equality of Opportunity: John Rawls’ (Best) Forgotten Principle”, Philosophy Research Archives , 11: 197–208. doi:10.5840/pra19851111
• Anderson, Elizabeth S., 1999, “What Is the Point of Equality?”, Ethics , 109(2): 287–337. doi:10.1086/233897
• –––, 2007, “Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective”, Ethics , 117(4): 595–622. doi:10.1086/518806
• –––, 2010, The Imperative of Integration , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Arneson, Richard J., 1999, “Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity”, Philosophical Studies , 93(1): 77–112. doi:10.1023/A:1004270811433
• Arneson, Richard and Ian Shapiro, 1996, “Democratic Autonomy and Religious Liberty: A Critique of Wisconsin v. Yoder”, in Political Order (Nomos 38), Ian Shapiro and Russell Hardin (eds.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 365–411.
• Barnes, Elizabeth, 2016, The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, and Melissa Osborne, 2001, “The Determinants of Earnings: A Behavioral Approach”, Journal of Economic Literature , 39(4): 137–1176. doi:10.1257/jel.39.4.1137
• Brighouse, Harry, 1998, “Civic Education and Liberal Legitimacy”, Ethics , 108(4): 719–745. doi:10.1086/233849
• –––, 2001, “Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?”, Social Theory and Practice , 27(4): 537–560. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200127433
• Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2009, “Educational Equality Versus Educational Adequacy: A Critique of Anderson and Satz”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 26(2): 117–128. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00438.x
• –––, 2014, Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Callan, Eamonn, 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198292589.001.0001
• –––, 2016, “Democracy, Equal Citizenship, and Education”, Theory and Research in Education , 14(1): 77–90. doi:10.1177/1477878515619789
• Carnevale, Anthony P., Stephen J. Rose, and Ban Cheah, 2011, The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings , Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce. [ Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah 2011 available online ]
• Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, & Emmanuel Saez, 2014, “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 129(4): 1553–1623. doi:10.3386/w19843
• Clayton, Matthew, 2001, “Rawls And Natural Aristocracy”, Croatian Journal Of Philosophy , 1(3): 239–259.
• Dee, Thomas S., 2004, “Are There Civic Returns to Education?”, Journal of Public Economics , 88(9–10): 1697–1720.
• Duncan, Greg J. and Richard J. Murnane (eds.), 2011, Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances . New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, 1990, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement , New York: Harcourt.
• Galston, William, 1989, “Civic Education in the Liberal State”, in Nancy Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 89–102.
• –––, 2001, “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education”, Annual Review of Political Science , 4(1): 217–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.217
• Gomberg, Paul, 1975, “IQ and Race: A Discussion of Some Confusions”, Ethics , 85(3): 258–266. doi:10.1086/291965
• Guinier, Lani, 2016, The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Gutmann, Amy, 1995, “Civic Education and Social Diversity”, Ethics , 105(3): 557–579. doi:10.1086/293727
• –––, 1999, Democratic Education . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Heckman, James J. and Tim D. Kautz, 2012, “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills”, Labour Economics , 19(4): 451–464. doi:10.3386/w18121 doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014
• Hutton, John S., Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus, Alan L. Mendelsohn, Tom DeWitt, Scott K. Holland, & C-MIND Authorship Consortium, 2015, “Home Reading Environment and Brain Activation in Preschool Children Listening to Stories”, Pediatrics , 136(3): 466–478. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-0359
• Institute for Higher Education, 1998, Reaping the Benefits: Defining the Public and Private Value of Going to College , Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education.
• Jacobs, Lesley A., 2004, Pursuing Equal Opportunities: the Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2010, “Equality, Adequacy, And Stakes Fairness: Retrieving The Equal Opportunities In Education Approach”, Theory And Research In Education , 8(3): 249–268. doi:10.1177/1477878510381627
• Jencks, Christopher, 1988, “Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?” Ethics , 98(3): 518–533. doi:10.1086/292969
• Kittay, Eva, 1999, Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency , New York: Routledge
• Kozol, Jonathan, 1991, Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools , New York: Broadway Books.
• –––, 2005, The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America , New York: Broadway Books.
• Lareau, Annette, 2011, Unequal childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life , Oakland: University of California Press.
• Levin, Henry M., 2012, “More Than Just Test Scores”, Prospects , 42(3): 269–284. doi:10.1007/s11125-012-9240-z
• Levinson, Meira, 2012, No Citizen Left Behind , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Levinson, Meira, Tatiana Geron, and Harry Brighouse, 2022, “Conceptions of Educational Equity”, AERA Open , 8. doi:10.1177/23328584221121344
• Levinson, Meira, Alan C. Geller, and Joseph G. Allen, 2021, “Health Equity, School Hesitancy, and the Social Determinants of Learning”, The Lancet Regional Health – Americas , 2: 100032. doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100032
• Levinson, Meira, Muge Cevik, and Marc Lipsitch, 2020, “Reopening Primary Schools During the Pandemic”, New England Journal of Medicine , 383: 981–985. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2024920
• Liu, Goodwin, 2006, “Interstate Inequality in Educational Opportunity”, New York University Law Review , 81(6): 2044–2128.
• Loi, Michele, Lorenzo Del Savio, and Elia Stupka, 2013, “Social Epigentics and Equality of Opportunity”, Public Health Ethics , 6(2): 142–153. doi:10.1093/phe/pht019
• Loury, Glenn C., 1987, “Why Should We Care About Group Inequality”, Social Philosophy and Policy 5(1): 249–271. doi:10.1017/S0265052500001345
• Miklosi, Zoltan, 2010, “How Does the Difference Principle Make a Difference?”, Res Publica , 16(3): 263–280. doi:10.1007/s11158-010-9123-1
• Miller, David, 1996, “Two Cheers for Meritocracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 4(4): 277–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.1996.tb00053.x
• –––, 2009, “Equality Of Opportunity And The Family”, in Debra Satz and Rob Reich (eds.), Toward A Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy Of Susan Moller Okin , New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–112. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195337396.003.0006
• Munoz-Dardé, Véronique, 1999, “Is the Family to be Abolished Then?”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 99: 37–56. doi:10.1111/1467-9264.00044
• Nozick, Robert, 1997, “ Life is Not a Race ”, in Louis P. Pojman and Robert Westmoreland (eds.), Equality: Selected Readings , New York: Oxford University Press, 167–169.
• Nussbaum, Martha C., 2007, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Nussbaum, Martha C. and Joshua Cohen, 1996, For Love of Country? , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Oakes, Jeannie, 1985, Keeping Track . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Phillips, Anne, 2004, “Defending Equality of Outcome”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(1): 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00188.x
• Piketty, Thomas, 2014, Capital in the Twenty-first Century , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, John, 1999, A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: a Restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Reardon, Sean F., 2011, “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations”, in Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane (eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation, pp. 91–116.
• Reardon, Sean F. and Kendra Bischoff, 2011, “Income Inequality and Income Segregation”, American Journal of Sociology , 116(4): 1092–1153. doi:10.1086/657114
• Reardon, Sean F., Joseph P. Robinson-Cimpian, and Ericka S. Weathers, 2015, “Patterns and Trends in Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Academic Achievement Gaps”, in Helen F. Ladd and M.E. Goertz (eds.), Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (2nd Ed.) , New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 497–516.
• Rebell, Michael A., 2009, Courts and Kids: Pursuing Educational Equity through the State Courts , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Reich, Rob, 2013, “ Equality, Adequacy, and K12 Education ”, in Danielle Allen and Rob Reich (eds.), Education, Justice, and Democracy , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 623–648.
• Robeyns, Ingrid, 2006, “Three Models of Education: Rights, Capabilities and Human Capital”, Theory and Research in Education , 4(1): 69–84. doi:10.1177/1477878506060683
• Robinson, Kimberly Jenkins (ed.), 2019, A Federal Right to Education: Fundamental Questions for Our Democracy , New York: New York University Press.
• Roemer, John E., 1998, Equality of Opportunity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ryan, James E., 2007, “The Supreme Court and Voluntary Integration”, Harvard Law Review , 121(1): 131–157.
• –––, 2008, “Standards, Testing, and School Finance Litigation”, Texas Law Review , 86: 1223–1262.
• Saez, Emmanuel and Gabriel Zucman, 2014, Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data (NBER Working Paper no. 20625), Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w20625
• Sahlberg, Pasi, 2011, Finnish lessons , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Sandel, Michael, 2020, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Satz, Debra, 2007, “Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship”, Ethics , 117(4): 623–648. doi:10.1086/518805
• Schoeman, Ferdinand, 1980, “Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family”, Ethics , 91(1): 6–19. doi:10.1086/292199
• Schouten, Gina, 2012, “Fair Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of Natural Ability: Toward a Prioritarian Principle of Educational Justice”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 46(3): 472–491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00863.x
• Schrag, Francis, 1976, “Justice and the Family”, Inquiry , 19(1–4): 193–208. doi:10.1080/00201747608601791
• Sen, Amartya, 2000, “ Merit and Justice ”, in Kenneth Arrow, Samuel Bowles, and Steven Durlauf (eds.), Meritocracy and Economic Inequality , Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 5–16.
• Shields, Liam, 2015, “From Rawlsian Autonomy to Sufficient Opportunity in Education”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 14(1): 53–66. doi:10.1177/1470594X13505413
• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2004, “Race, Labor, And The Fair Equality Of Opportunity Principle”, Fordham Law Review , 72(5): 1643–1676.
• Sparrow, Robert, 2005, “Defending Deaf Culture: the Case of Cochlear Implants”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 13(2): 135–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00217.x
• Spence, Michael, 1973, “Job Market Signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 87(3): 355–374.
• Stark, Cynthia A., 2013, “Luck, Opportunity and Disability”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(3): 383–402. doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.795701
• Taylor, Robert S., 2004, “Self-realization and the Priority of Fair Equality of Opportunity”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 1(3): 333–347. doi:10.1177/174046810400100307
• Terzi, Lorella, 2005, “Beyond the Dilemma of Difference: The Capability Approach to Disability and Special Educational Needs”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 39(3): 443–459. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00447.x
• –––, 2010, Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and Special Educational Needs , New York: Continuum.
• Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady, 1995, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality , New York: Basic.
• Warnock, Mary, 2005, “Special Educational Needs: A New Look”, Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
• Westen, Peter, 1985, “The Concept of Equal Opportunity”, Ethics , 95(4): 837–850. doi:10.1086/292687
• Williams, Bernard, 1962, “ The Idea of Equality ”, in Peter Laslett and W.G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics and Society, Second Series , Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 112–17.
• Wolff, Jonathan, 1998, “Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 27(2): 97–122. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1998.tb00063.x
• Young, Michael, 1958,  The Rise of the Meritocracy, New Brunswick, NJ: Thames and Hudson.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Cited Court Cases

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
• Milliken v. Bradley (1974).
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2006).
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).
• Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1970).
• Yoder v. Wisconsin (1972).

Other Resources

• “The Condition of Education” , National Center for Education Statistics
• Reardon, Sean F., 2015, “School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps” , (CEPA Working Paper No.15–12). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
• Reardon, Sean F., 2021, “ The Economic Achievement Gap in the US, 1960-2020: Reconciling Recent Empirical Findings ”, (CEPA Working Paper No. 21.09). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
• Reardon, Sean F., Erica Weather, Erin Fahle, Heewon Jang, and Demetra Kalogrides, 2022, “ Is Separate Still Unequal? New Evidence on School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps ”, (CEPA Working Paper No.19-06). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
• National Equity Atlas , PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute. In particular the entry on School Poverty
• 2022 US Bureau of Labor Statistics

affirmative action | childhood, the philosophy of | citizenship | civic education | disability: and justice | discrimination | economics [normative] and economic justice | egalitarianism | equality | equality: of opportunity | justice: distributive | luck: justice and bad luck | rights: of children

Copyright © 2023 by Liam Shields < liam . shields @ manchester . ac . uk > Anne Newman < arnewman @ stanford . edu > Debra Satz < dsatz @ stanford . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Recognizing and Overcoming Inequity in Education

About the author, sylvia schmelkes.

Sylvia Schmelkes is Provost of the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City.

22 January 2020 Introduction

I nequity is perhaps the most serious problem in education worldwide. It has multiple causes, and its consequences include differences in access to schooling, retention and, more importantly, learning. Globally, these differences correlate with the level of development of various countries and regions. In individual States, access to school is tied to, among other things, students' overall well-being, their social origins and cultural backgrounds, the language their families speak, whether or not they work outside of the home and, in some countries, their sex. Although the world has made progress in both absolute and relative numbers of enrolled students, the differences between the richest and the poorest, as well as those living in rural and urban areas, have not diminished. 1

These correlations do not occur naturally. They are the result of the lack of policies that consider equity in education as a principal vehicle for achieving more just societies. The pandemic has exacerbated these differences mainly due to the fact that technology, which is the means of access to distance schooling, presents one more layer of inequality, among many others.

The dimension of educational inequity

Around the world, 258 million, or 17 per cent of the world’s children, adolescents and youth, are out of school. The proportion is much larger in developing countries: 31 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and 21 per cent in Central Asia, vs. 3 per cent in Europe and North America. 2  Learning, which is the purpose of schooling, fares even worse. For example, it would take 15-year-old Brazilian students 75 years, at their current rate of improvement, to reach wealthier countries’ average scores in math, and more than 260 years in reading. 3 Within countries, learning results, as measured through standardized tests, are almost always much lower for those living in poverty. In Mexico, for example, 80 per cent of indigenous children at the end of primary school don’t achieve basic levels in reading and math, scoring far below the average for primary school students. 4

The causes of educational inequity

There are many explanations for educational inequity. In my view, the most important ones are the following:

• Equity and equality are not the same thing. Equality means providing the same resources to everyone. Equity signifies giving more to those most in need. Countries with greater inequity in education results are also those in which governments distribute resources according to the political pressure they experience in providing education. Such pressures come from families in which the parents attended school, that reside in urban areas, belong to cultural majorities and who have a clear appreciation of the benefits of education. Much less pressure comes from rural areas and indigenous populations, or from impoverished urban areas. In these countries, fewer resources, including infrastructure, equipment, teachers, supervision and funding, are allocated to the disadvantaged, the poor and cultural minorities.
• Teachers are key agents for learning. Their training is crucial.  When insufficient priority is given to either initial or in-service teacher training, or to both, one can expect learning deficits. Teachers in poorer areas tend to have less training and to receive less in-service support.
• Most countries are very diverse. When a curriculum is overloaded and is the same for everyone, some students, generally those from rural areas, cultural minorities or living in poverty find little meaning in what is taught. When the language of instruction is different from their native tongue, students learn much less and drop out of school earlier.
• Disadvantaged students frequently encounter unfriendly or overtly offensive attitudes from both teachers and classmates. Such attitudes are derived from prejudices, stereotypes, outright racism and sexism. Students in hostile environments are affected in their disposition to learn, and many drop out early.

It doesn’t have to be like this

When left to inertial decision-making, education systems seem to be doomed to reproduce social and economic inequity. The commitment of both governments and societies to equity in education is both necessary and possible. There are several examples of more equitable educational systems in the world, and there are many subnational examples of successful policies fostering equity in education.

Why is equity in education important?

Education is a basic human right. More than that, it is an enabling right in the sense that, when respected, allows for the fulfillment of other human rights. Education has proven to affect general well-being, productivity, social capital, responsible citizenship and sustainable behaviour. Its equitable distribution allows for the creation of permeable societies and equity. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure “inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. One hundred eighty-four countries are committed to achieving this goal over the next decade. 5  The process of walking this road together has begun and requires impetus to continue, especially now that we must face the devastating consequences of a long-lasting pandemic. Further progress is crucial for humanity.

Notes  1 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , Inclusive Education. All Means All , Global Education Monitoring Report 2020 (Paris, 2020), p.8. Available at https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion . 2 Ibid., p. 4, 7. 3 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education's Promise (Washington, DC, 2018), p. 3. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018 .  4 Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, "La educación obligatoria en México", Informe 2018 (Ciudad de México, 2018), p. 72. Available online at https://www.inee.edu.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/P1I243.pdf . 5 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , “Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4” (2015), p. 23. Available at  https://iite.unesco.org/publications/education-2030-incheon-declaration-framework-action-towards-inclusive-equitable-quality-education-lifelong-learning/   The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.   

How International Cooperation in Policing Promotes Peace and Security

The role of international policing is closely aligned with the principles of justice, peace, democracy and human rights, and is integral to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Voices for Peace: The Crucial Role of Victims of Terrorism as Peace Advocates and Educators

In the face of unimaginable pain and trauma, victims and survivors of terrorism emerge as strong advocates for community resilience, solidarity and peaceful coexistence.

Sailors for Sustainability: Sailing the Globe to Document Proven Solutions for Sustainable Living

Most of the solutions we have described are tangible examples of sustainability in action. Yet our sailing journey also made us realize that the most important ingredient for a sustainable future is sustainability from within. By that we mean adopting a different way of perceiving the Earth and our role in it.

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

Equity vs Equality in Education: Building Inclusivity

By andy minshew.

• May 2, 2020

The quality of education that students receive directly correlates to their quality of life years down the road.[1] Early education in particular has the power to shape a child’s future and the more resources available to them, the better. For this reason, it’s crucial for educators to address any barriers young students face to succeeding in school. The key is equity. Equity means offering individualized support to students that addresses possible barriers, like poverty or limited transportation. 97% of teachers agree that equity is important, but many don’t know how to best work towards it in their classrooms.[2] But once educators have the right strategies to promote equity in schools through understanding the difference between equity vs equality in education, they can make sure each student is prepared to reach their potential.

Want to create inclusive and equitable classrooms at your school? Discover the difference between equity and equality, then learn five strategies for resolving common barriers to equity in education.

Main Differences Between Equity and Equality

Equality is more commonly associated with social issues, perhaps because more people know what it means. In a nutshell, its definition is as it sounds–the state of being equal. When a group focuses on equality, everyone has the same rights, opportunities, and resources.[4] Equality is beneficial, but it often doesn’t address specific needs. Giving each student a take-home laptop, for example, would not address students who don’t have Internet in their houses. Even if a school is equal, some students may still struggle.

Equity, on the other hand, provides people with resources that fit their circumstances. The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of social equity is “the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people.” [5] Schools that prioritize equity versus equality are more in tune to their students’ needs and provide resources to overcome their specific challenges.

Equity and Equality Descriptors

In short, equality is:

• Group-focused

And equity is:

• Individual-focused

“The route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating everyone equally,” says the Race Matters Institute. “It will be achieved by treating everyone equitably, or justly according to their circumstances.” [6] Equity is more thoughtful and, while it’s harder work, it is better at resolving disadvantages. While equality is an admirable goal, try shifting your school’s focus to equity for a more effective outcome.

Challenges Involving Equity and Equality in Schools

Barriers to an inclusive education can affect groups based on race, gender, and many other factors. The issues are not only who is being targeted but also how we try to resolve them. In terms of equity vs equality in the classroom, most schools focus on horizontal equity. The definition of horizontal equity in education is treating people who are already assumed equal in the same way.[7]

Horizontal equity is only useful in homogenous schools, where each person really is given the same opportunities in life. But in most schools, students will come from a variety of backgrounds–some more privileged than others. For this reason, educators should focus on vertical equity, which assumes that students have different needs and provides individual resources based on said needs.[8]

How does poverty impact students?

Another challenge facing equity vs equality in education is poverty. 60% of the most disadvantaged students come from under-resourced homes or communities.[9] Because their families or schools might have very limited budgets, it can be difficult to provide these students with equitable resources. Additionally, these under-resourced communities often have trouble keeping educators who can make a difference: 62% of high-poverty schools report that it is challenging to retain high-quality teachers.[10]

According to the Scholastic Teachers and Principals Report, these are a few additional barriers to equity in American schools:[11]

• Family crises
• Mental health issues
• Lack of healthcare
• Coming to school hungry
• Homelessness or living in a temporary shelter
• Still learning the English language

Recognizing the challenges preventing equity in your classroom is the first step to resolving them. Try to analyze any issues that are keeping your students from succeeding in school. Perhaps you teach in an under-resourced community, or one of your students is an English language learner (ELL) . By evaluating the needs of individual students, you’re much closer to providing them with the support necessary for academic achievement.

Benefits of Focusing on Equity in Education

Equity in schools is the answer to supporting every student, not just those from disadvantaged backgrounds. When schools provide their students with resources that fit individual circumstances, the entire classroom environment improves.[12] Not only that, but the importance of equity extends to our society as a whole. In equitable communities, everyone has the opportunity to succeed regardless of their original circumstances.

Student Development and Community Equity

Equity can also strengthen a student’s health and social-emotional development . In a study involving over 4,300 students in Southern California, the children who felt safer, less lonely, and reported less bullying also had higher diversity levels in their classes.[14] Being equipped to promote diversity and provide for students from all backgrounds makes for an environment where students feel comfortable and have better emotional regulation. Additionally, equitable communities are linked to better health and longer average lifespans.[15]

Surrounding communities benefit from equity in schools as well. Equity is linked to stronger social cohesion, meaning that individuals connect with each other better and are more compassionate.[16] It also leads to long-term economic growth.[17] This means that promoting equity in schools can be one of the best and most effective social investments .

To summarize, these are some of the benefits of focusing on equity in education:

• Higher test scores
• Better health
• Stronger social atmosphere
• Longer life
• Economic growth

5 Tips for Using Equity to Create an Inclusive Classroom

Knowing the difference between equity and equality is the first step to creating a classroom where every child can succeed. From there, educators can take steps to better address the challenges faced by struggling students.

Keep these five tips in mind for promoting equity in your classroom and helping every student succeed:

• Remember that every child is different and has unique needs. Evaluate any challenges that students face and, if needed, offer support or resources [18]
• Cultivate an environment in your classroom where every student feels heard. Encourage them to speak out against unfairness and let you know if they’re facing any hardships at home or in class
• Parent engagement is a particularly helpful way to resolve challenges involving equity. Keep open communication with parents and encourage them to volunteer or attend school events to involve them with their child’s education [19]
• Provide equity training in schools for faculty members so teachers know how to resolve common barriers [20]
• Add diversity and inclusion activities as well as lessons against prejudice to your school curriculum so every student feels like they belong [21]

OECD Observer Staff. Ten Steps to Equity in Education . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, January 2008, pp. 1-8.[1]

Scholastic Team . Barriers to Equity in Education | Teachers and Principals School Report . Retrieved from scholastic.com: http://www.scholastic.com/teacherprincipalreport/barriers-to-equity.htm.[2]

Winston-Salem State University. Strategic Planning at Winston-Salem State University: Working Toward Equity . Retrieved from wssu.edu: https://www.wssu.edu/strategic-plan/documents/a-summary-of-equity-vs-equality.pdf.[3]

Just Health Action. Part 1: Introduction to Environmental Justice, Equity, and Health . Retrieved from justhealthaction.org: http://justhealthaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/JHA-Lesson-Plan-3-How-are-equity-and-equality-different-final.pdf.[4]

World Health Organization. WHO | Equity . Retrieved from who.int: https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/equity/en/.[5]

Race Matters Institute. Racial Equality or Racial Equity? The Difference it Makes . Retrieved from viablefuturescenture.org: https://viablefuturescenter.org/racemattersinstitute/2014/04/02/racial-equality-or-racial-equity-the-difference-it-makes/.[6]

Catapano, J. The Challenges of Equity in Public Education . Retrieved from teachhub.com: https://www.teachhub.com/challenges-equity-public-education.[7,8]

OECD Observer Staff. Ten Steps to Equity in Education . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, January 2008, pp. 1-8.[9,10]

Scholastic Team. Barriers to Equity in Education | Teachers and Principals School Report . Retrieved from scholastic.com: http://www.scholastic.com/teacherprincipalreport/barriers-to-equity.htm.[11]

OECD Observer Staff. Ten Steps to Equity in Education . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, January 2008, pp. 1-8.[12]

Gorard, S., and Smith, E . An international comparison of equity in education systems . School Comparative Education, 2004, 40(1), pp. 15-28.[13]

Atchison, B., Diffey, L., Rafa, A., and Sarubbi, M. Equity in Education: Key Questions to Consider . Education Commission of the States, June, 2017, pp. 1-6.[14]

OECD Observer Staff. Ten Steps to Equity in Education . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, January 2008, pp. 1-8.[15, 16, 17]

Scholastic Team. Barriers to Equity in Education | Teachers and Principals School Report . Retrieved from scholastic.com: http://www.scholastic.com/teacherprincipalreport/barriers-to-equity.htm.[18]

OECD Observer Staff. Ten Steps to Equity in Education . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, January 2008, pp. 1-8.[19]

Atchison, B., Diffey, L., Rafa, A., and Sarubbi, M. Equity in Education: Key Questions to Consider . Education Commission of the States, June, 2017, pp. 1-6.[20]

OECD Observer Staff. Ten Steps to Equity in Education . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, January 2008, pp. 1-8.[21]

More education articles

Don’t Prevent Summer Slide—Build Student Strengths Instead

MacKenzie Scott’s Yield Giving Awards Waterford.org a $10 Million Grant

Your Right to Equality in Education

Getting an education isn't just about books and grades - we're also learning how to participate fully in the life of this nation. (We're tomorrow's leaders after all!)

But in order to really participate, we need to know our rights - otherwise we may lose them. The highest law in our land is the U.S. Constitution, which has some amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. Many federal and state laws give us additional rights, too.

The Bill of Rights applies to young people as well as adults. And what I'm going to do right here is tell you about EQUAL TREATMENT .

DO ALL KIDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN EQUAL EDUCATION?

Yes! All kids living in the United States have the right to a free public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. Even if you are in this country illegally, you have the right to go to public school. The ACLU is fighting hard to make sure this right isn't taken away.

In addition to this constitutional guarantee of an equal education, many federal, state and local laws also protect students against discrimination in education based on sexual orientation or disability, including pregnancy and HIV status.

In fact, even though some kids may complain about having to go to school, the right to an equal educational opportunity is one of the most valuable rights you have. The Supreme Court said this in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case when it struck down race segregation in the public schools.

If you believe you or someone you know is being discriminated against in school, speak up! Talk to a teacher, the principal, the head of a community organization or a lawyer so they can investigate the situation and help you take legal action if necessary.

ARE TRACKING SYSTEMS LEGAL?

Yes, as long as they really do separate students on the basis of learning ability and as long as they give students the same basic education.

Many studies show, however, that the standards and tests school officials use in deciding on track placements are often based on racial and class prejudices and stereotypes instead of on real ability and learning potential. That means it's often the white, middle-class kids who end up in the college prep classes, while poor and non-white students, and kids whose first language isn't English, end up on "slow" tracks and in vocational-training classes. And often, the lower the track you're on, the less you're expected to learn - and the less you're taught.

Even if you have low grades or nobody in your family ever went to college, if you want to go to college, you should demand the type of education you need to realize your dreams. And your guidance counselor should help you get it! Your local ACLU can tell you the details of how to go about challenging your track placement.

CAN STUDENTS BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN PUBLIC SCHOOL BASED ON THEIR SEX?

Almost never. Public schools may not have academic courses that are just for boys - like shop - or just for girls - like home economics. Both the Constitution and federal law require that boys and girls also be provided with equal athletic opportunities. Many courts have held, however, that separate teams for boys and girls are allowed as long as the school provides students of both sexes the chance to participate in the particular sport. Some courts have also held that boys and girls may always be separated in contact sports. The law is different in different states; you can call your local ACLU affiliate for information.

CAN GIRLS BE KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL IF THEY GET PREGNANT?

No. Federal law prohibits schools from discriminating against pregnant students or students who are married or have children. So, if you are pregnant, school officials can't keep you from attending classes, graduation ceremonies, extracurricular activities or any other school activity except maybe a strenuous sport. Some schools have special classes for pregnant girls, but they cannot make you attend these if you would prefer to be in your regular classes.

CAN SCHOOLS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY STUDENTS?

School officials shouldn't be able to violate your rights just because they don't like your sexual orientation. However, even though a few states and cities have passed laws against sexual orientation discrimination, public high schools have been slow to establish their own anti-bias codes - and they're slow to respond to incidents of harassment and discrimination. So while in theory, you can take a same-sex date to the prom, join or help form a gay group at school or write an article about lesbian/gay issues for the school paper, in practice gay students often have to fight hard to have their rights respected.

WHAT ABOUT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES?

Although students with disabilities may not be capable of having exactly the same educational experiences as other students, federal law requires that they be provided with an education that is appropriate for them. What is an appropriate education must be worked out individually for each student. For example, a deaf student might be entitled to be provided with a sign language interpreter.

In addition to requiring that schools identify students with disabilities so that they can receive the special education they need in order to learn, federal law also provides procedures to make sure that students are not placed in special education classes when they are not disabled. If you believe you're not receiving an appropriate education, either because you are not in special classes when you need to be, or because you are in special classes when you don't need to be, call the ACLU!

And thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students who are HIV positive have the same rights as every other student. People with HIV are protected against discrimination , not only in school but in many other public places such as stores, museums and hotels.

People with HIV aren't a threat to anyone else's health, because the AIDS virus can't be spread through casual contact. That's just a medical fact. Your local ACLU can provide information on how to fight discrimination against people with HIV.

CAN I GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IF I DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH?

Yes. It is the job of the public schools to teach you to speak English and to provide you with a good education in other subjects while you are learning. Students who do not speak English have the right to require the school district to provide them with bilingual education or English language instruction or both.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." --Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972

We spend a big part of our life in school, and our voices count. Join the student government! Attend school meetings! Petition your school administration! Talk about your rights with your friends! Let's make a difference!

Produced by the ACLU Department of Public Education. 125 Broad Street, NY NY 10004. For more copies of this or any other Sybil Liberty paper, or to order the ACLU handbook The Rights of Students or other student-related publications, call 800-775-ACLU or visit us on the internet at https://www.aclu.org .

Related Issues

• Racial Justice
• Mass Incarceration
• Smart Justice
• Women's Rights

Stay Informed

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

An Introduction to Equality of Opportunity

Main navigation.

Freedom and equality are foundational values that we draw upon when envisioning a better society. Equality of opportunity is a social ideal that combines concern with freedom and equality, and this social ideal provides a vision of how we ought to live together.

At first glance, the value of equality can seem to demand uniformity that seems dystopian. For instance, if everyone were forced to wear the same clothes, pursue the same hobbies and have the same number of children, we would think this was intolerable. However, we should be careful not to reject equality entirely on this basis. Equality is still attractive if we limit its scope to some areas. For instance, equality before the law and equal rights to vote seem to be at the heart of our convictions about how we should live together. Inequality in these areas seems as intolerable as sameness in dress, family size or in our choice of recreational activities.

Freedom or opportunity may explain where and when equality seems most important. Our equal rights to a fair trial, to vote in elections, to association, speech and religion are each an equal right to a sphere of freedom. Part of what we value in this mixture is the protection from interference and having others dictate our lives to us and the other part of what we value is that we enjoy this protection on equal terms. In the sphere of religious worship, for example, individuals decide what religion they will worship. Unequal freedom, where some have freedom of religion and others do not, strikes us as wrong because it is unequal. Whereas Equal Unfreedom, where we are all slaves or lack basic rights, strikes us as wrong because it is unfree. A combination of freedom and equality, then, promises to describe a fitting social ideal for people who disagree about important, religious, moral and political questions, and yet want to live together in mutual respect.

Equality of Opportunity is one such combination and it has been a rich source of academic and political debate, a political slogan, and a widely held conviction about how human beings should live together. At its most basic, Equality of Opportunity requires that all human beings are equal in the sphere of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is usually opposed to slavery, hierarchy and caste society, where social positions, life prospects and individual freedoms are determined by membership of some group that you are born into, such as the aristocracy. Our acknowledgement of the importance of freedom and equality motivate the theory and practice of Equality of Opportunity. But before we go any further we should ask, “What is Equality of Opportunity?”

What is Equality of Opportunity?

When we ask what equality of opportunity is we could be asking two questions. First, we could be asking about the concept of equality of opportunity. If so, we are asking for the idea in its most general form. We are asking what kind of features must a statement have to count as a statement of equality of opportunity rather than a statement of something else. Second, we could be asking for the correct conception of equality of opportunity. The term 'conception' refers to a specific interpretation of a notion or idea. It is a particular way of understanding the kind of equality and the kinds of opportunities that are most valuable or more important. While there is only one concept of equality of opportunity, there are many different conceptions.

The concept of Equality of Opportunity has been examined by philosopher Peter Westen. Westen shows that an opportunity is a three-way relationship between a person, some obstacles, and a desired goal. However, a person only has an opportunity if she has a chance of achieving that goal. One cannot have an opportunity if one faces insurmountable obstacles that make it impossible to secure the goal. For instance, one cannot have an opportunity to become the president of the United States if one is not a natural born citizen. Many people, therefore, have no opportunity to become president of the United States. A person can have an opportunity even in the face of many, quite serious, obstacles. So, a natural born US citizen has the opportunity to become president, but she faces serious obstacles, such as accruing the relevant number and distribution of votes, as well as winning primaries. So, to have an opportunity means to face no insurmountable obstacles with respect to some important or desired goal, but what about having an equal opportunity?

In order for opportunities to be equal within a group, each member of that group must face the same relevant obstacles, none insurmountable, with respect to achieving the same desirable goal. In our example, all natural born citizens of the US have an equal opportunity when irrelevant goals, such as race, gender and religious affiliation are removed and when relevant obstacles, such as being democratically elected, remain.

Some critics have doubted the importance of mentioning equality when thinking about opportunities within a group. They argue that the only equality here is universalism, meaning that the opportunity is had by all. We can see why one might be drawn to the idea that equality plays little role in this ideal since we could say that everyone should have an opportunity to become president and this seems to do the job as well as saying that everyone should have an equal opportunity to become president. Equality appears to be doing no work, and this may lead us to question whether this expresses the value of equality.

However, this analysis misses something of significance, which is the fact that all people should have the same opportunity, and not merely an opportunity. While everyone could have an opportunity, and each face different irrelevant and relevant obstacles, equality of opportunity requires that no one face any irrelevant obstacles. If women were prohibited from becoming president, or if they had to win a greater proportion of the votes to be elected than men, then they would face an irrelevant obstacle that men do not. Thus, men and women would not enjoy equal opportunity with respect to the good of political representation in this society. This aspect of equality of opportunity is important for a social ideal because it expresses part of the moral value of equality.

At this point we do well to contrast equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity requires only that people be free from certain obstacles to pursue their own happiness and success. As such, Equality of Opportunity is not opposed to different outcomes of the conscientious, but fair pursuit of jobs, health, wealth, education and other goods that people value, so long as everyone faces the same obstacles. Sometimes this idea is known as the level-playing field because its main concern is that no one is unfairly advantaged before they even start out. It is in stark opposition to games that are rigged in favor of some over others. By contrast, Equality of Outcome insists that everyone do equally well with respect to some of the goods that individuals value, regardless of their effort, talents, and whether they wish to pursue it. This sort of equality can seem undesirable, but it can also be understood as one that is impossible to achieve because people are unequal in so many of the respects that affect outcomes, such as natural talent, health, their attitudes to hard work and in their interests and preferences. This can lead us to favor equal opportunities and to allow the inequality of outcomes. However, we should note that equal outcomes may still be very important indicators of inequality of opportunity, and that equal outcomes may be appropriate for children and others who lack responsible agency.

The bare concept of Equality of Opportunity as a relation between agents, obstacles and goals, leaves a lot to be filled out. There are many different ways in which we could all face the same obstacles with respect to the same goals. By varying the different goals and obstacles we vary the conception of Equality of Opportunity and different views will offer different guidance, and some will be more attractive than others. Different goals can make a difference in the following way. Opportunity for undesirable or irrelevant goals, such as opportunities to be mugged or to count grass, will not be included. Some goals may be trivial and it may not matter whether people have different opportunities with respect to those goals. For instance, opportunities to tie your shoe laces or grow a tree in your garden are less important than opportunities to find meaningful work or get a good education. We will have to think hard about exactly which ones do matter and which do not. In addition, we must think carefully about the kinds of obstacles that are morally relevant and the ones that are morally irrelevant with respect to the goal. For instance, we might think that race, religion and sexuality should not affect one’s opportunities to go to college, but that hard-work and ability to learn should. As such, ability to learn would be an obstacle that is relevant to the distribution of opportunity to go to college, but sexuality, religion and race would not. Which obstacles are morally relevant will depend on a more substantive account of what matters morally in each case. Different accounts of what are relevant and what goals matter are offered by rival conceptions of equality of opportunity.

Conceptions of Equality of Opportunity can be more or less demanding. The obstacles may be more or less difficult to overcome or the goals may be more or less difficult to achieve. For instance, if we think that obstacles such as social class, in addition to race, gender, sexuality and religious belief, are irrelevant to the goal that is desired, then we will have to try much harder to minimize differences in social class or minimize the effect social class has on the distribution of these goods. We could also specify the nature of the obstacle in different ways, such as formal or legal racial discrimination rather than explicit or implicit bias. The view can also be more or less demanding in terms of the goals we specify. So, for instance, we might think that everyone should have an equal opportunity to reach a basic standard of living or that everyone should have an equal opportunity to reach a high or equal standard of living. These views would support different policies and may require much more of our institutions, and greater individual effort, than others. They may also reflect the values of individual freedom and equal respect better or worse.

We will now briefly focus on two influential conceptions of Equality of Opportunity and show how they differ in their demandingness. We then go on to explain the special relationship that conceptions of Equality of Opportunity have with education and schooling.

Different Views of Equality of Opportunity

Formal Equality of Opportunity is arguably the least demanding conception of Equality of Opportunity. It focuses on the formal rules that stand in the way of achieving particular goals, such as employment and admission to schools.  Different types of formal equality of opportunity can focus on many or few goals. What unites these views is a focus on formal discriminatory rules as an irrelevant obstacle to some role. Policies that are related to this conception include requirements that advertisements for jobs do not specify racial, religious or gender characteristics. They must be perfectly general such that anyone can apply without violating the formal rule. This vision of a free and equal society can be satisfied merely by ensuring that formal rules are properly general. So long as there are no formal rules that stand in the way of some individuals’ achievement of some goal those individuals have equal opportunity. The view is therefore compatible with private discrimination, implicit bias, and unequal distributions of resources.

On the other hand, Equality of Opportunity for Welfare is perhaps the most demanding conception of Equality of Opportunity. It focuses on welfare, or how well a person’s life actually goes, and not minimal welfare but equal welfare. Individual choice is the only relevant obstacle. So, the only thing that should stand in the way of an individual’s achievement of equal welfare should be their own voluntary choices. In other words, a person should be no worse off than others through no fault or choice of their own. If a person chooses to take risks or gambles, any resulting inequality would not be problematic, but if a person is a victim of bad luck, such as a natural disaster or disability, then any resulting inequality would need to be remedied for equality of opportunity to be fully realized.

This view is highly demanding and would require a radical redistribution of wealth to both those who are less naturally talented and to those who are otherwise disadvantaged through no fault of their own, for example, through upbringing, through natural bad luck as well as social class, racism, sexism and religious discrimination. Addressing these inequalities may require investing in schooling, sports facilities and social networks as well as healthcare and assistance for the disabled and heavily regulated jobs markets.

It should be noted that the more demanding the view the greater the encroachment on some putatively valuable forms of individual freedom. For instance, in order to ensure that wealth, social background and natural luck do not act as an obstacle for the poor it may be necessary to tax the earnings of the well-off. Some will claim that this violates the entitlements of the rich to their resources, and is therefore too high a price to pay. This may lead those people to accept a less demanding conception of Equality of Opportunity. Others will claim that taxing the wealthy is an acceptable price to pay to ensure that poor people have substantively equal opportunities to secure good jobs, adequate healthcare and education and to have means to support their families and live a decent life.

There are other conceptions of Equality of Opportunity that are only moderately demanding. The two extreme views above, however, help us to see and make sense of dominant ideologies on the left and the right, and therefore historical public political disagreements. We can characterize much of contemporary political argument as being about what the best conception of Equality of Opportunity is, which partly explains why it is such an important idea to understand.

Defenders of small government and individual responsibility on the right may be drawn to something resembling the conception of Formal Equality of Opportunity because going further requires interference with individual entitlements and a bigger state. They may go further than Formal Equality of Opportunity and instead favor the Meritocratic Conception of Equality of Opportunity, which requires redistribution to ensure that hard work and talent, and not discrimination and favoritism, determine hiring practices.  Those who believe in meritocracy may consider some taxation to be a price worth paying for fairer hiring practices.

Defenders of more substantive equal chances, who care about equalizing school quality and school funding, as well as providing for health care, will be drawn to more demanding ideals that more closely approximate Equality of Opportunity for Welfare. They may be put off by the demandingness of the conception of Equality of Opportunity for Welfare, and instead favor the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity, which condemns inequalities in social background as obstacles to achieving valuable goals in life. Such a view will require redistribution to ensure that hard-working and talented individuals from the working class have the same chance of success as similarly hard-working and talented individuals from the middle and upper-classes. This kind of view may advocate increased per pupil funding for the working-class. Evaluating the appropriateness of these ideals will be determined both by how well they express our commitment to freedom and equality, and whether they lead to sacrifice of other values that we view as more or less important than that commitment.

These different conceptions of Equality of Opportunity offer us very different guidance and assessment of our societies. The contemporary USA undoubtedly satisfies some conceptions more than others. In this way, we can see that which view is the best conception of Equality of Opportunity will determine how much work we have to do to make progress and in which direction we need to go, whether that is breaking down formal barriers, eradicating nepotism and informal discrimination, or something more demanding like mitigating wealth inequality and the inequalities that follow from social class distinctions and natural disadvantages.

Applying the Ideas to Education

The focus of this project is on the application of conceptions of Equality of Opportunity to education. Though the types of policies and reforms that will be favored depend on the conception of Equality of Opportunity that is most defensible, we can say that educational institutions will have a central role to play in better realizing equality of opportunity. This is because education is valuable for a wide range of goals that we think are important, such as employment, health, wealth, welfare and citizenship. Moreover, almost all contemporary societies compel school attendance for all young children and so education can be offered to all and across many of the irrelevant obstacles, such as race, sexuality, religious affiliation, social class and natural talent. Of course, it may be that the highest gains could be had by focusing on pre-K education, or that non-educational levers would be most effective if politically feasible, but, to some extent, we have to think about what is best given the current institutional arrangements. As such, educational institutions are one lever that we can use to try to redress imbalances and inequalities and to help members of disadvantaged groups overcome those obstacles. Education, and schooling in particular, may be a much more politically feasible lever than pure redistribution or cash transfers and other more controversial public policies such as minimum wage legislation, affirmative action and further intervention in markets. Focusing on reform of educational policy, therefore, may be the best thing to focus on today. Nevertheless, reforming society through education can be an extremely difficult undertaking and background inequality and poverty can restrict even its efficacy. We should bear in mind, however, that some conceptions of equality of opportunity may be particularly inappropriate when applied to children. For instance, Equality of Opportunity for Welfare focuses on individual choices, because it emphasizes responsibility, but we don’t usually hold children responsible for the choices they make because their capacities are so under-developed. Also, Meritocratic Equality of Opportunity may seem to be ill-suited to educational institutions because educational institutions are supposed to cultivate merit. In applying conceptions of Equality of Opportunity to education, we must show an awareness of these and other concerns.

To illustrate more clearly some of the benefits and concerns of using education as a lever for achieving equality of opportunity, I want to explore one particular conception of equality of opportunity. Let’s assume that we accept the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity as determining an important part of how we should live together and hold that social class should not affect who gets jobs, but that the most meritorious candidate should get the job. Failure to address this issue would be a failure to take into account that social class should not affect job prospects.

There are broadly two types of strategy we could adopt, each of which has its own pitfalls and each of which uses educational institutions. The first strategy is to focus resources on trying to correct inequalities by providing extra schooling to those who are disadvantaged by social class. This aims to address the inequality of opportunity that is caused by institutions other than educational ones. The second strategy is to focus on attempting to correct inequalities in the social background, which may include inequality in educational opportunity and access to good schools, as well as unemployment and poverty in general.

We know that family background can greatly affect the development of capabilities and skills, and ambitions to go to college and get high-status jobs. Knowing this, and being committed to fair equality of opportunity, we could attempt to redress the issues around unequal childhoods by offering extra schooling to children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. This could either be achieved by targeting additional resources, tutoring, and extra classes at those who are poorer within the school, or it could be achieved by providing greater resources to those schools that educate a greater proportion of poorer children.

However, operating at this level treats the symptoms rather than the cause and, in the society that allows private schooling and tolerates huge wealth inequalities, additional investment in the education of poorer children can become an arms race that the government cannot win. Put simply, the better-off could always invest more and more into the education of their children and will do so because they want their children to secure places at the elite colleges and in the top professions. If rich parents invest more and more in their children’s education, the government must attempt to keep up if it is going to succeed in equalizing opportunity. As the government spends more and more to narrow the gap, education budgets, and taxation must increase, but it is very difficult to sustain ever-increasing budgets and taxation consistent with winning democratic elections. This threatens the political feasibility of such measures, though significant improvements may be made in the process.

An alternative strategy, which treats the causes of social class as an obstacle to equality of opportunity, is available. Looking to education we may wish to ensure that all schools are equally well-resourced. As we saw above, one way of doing this is to devote increasing resources to poorer schools. An alternative is to limit the resources that can be spent on private education, or to abolish elite private schooling all together, as it threatens equality of opportunity. However, such measures will likely be insufficient, even if feasible and effective. This is because parent-child interactions as innocent as reading bedtime stories can enhance child development unequally. Interfering in the family is both politically difficult to justify and may be morally suspect as it compromises the values that the family embodies and promotes.

A radical alternative is available, but it requires the eradication of social class and anything other than minimal wealth inequalities. In such a society, no one would be so much better off than others that they have more free time, resources, better housing and health care so that their children develop to a greater extent or more quickly than others. This would be to address the causes of inequality of opportunity, but it would likely be highly unpopular with the electorate and some will argue that an economy where workers are paid roughly equally for different work, will be painfully inefficient. Whether this is true cannot be proved here, but each of these strategies may be rejected on the grounds of being ineffective, infeasible or of compromising more important values, such as the value of the family or economic efficiency. Nevertheless, the first strategy appears to be the most promising and our commitment to equality of opportunity of some sort suggests that where we fall short of respecting freedom and equality in our society today, the educational institutions will be our first and most promising levers.

In addition, we need to think about the goal that we are trying to achieve within education, not only the goal that we care about for Equality of Opportunity in general, i.e. the conception that we think is correct. Disagreement about this concerns whether we should be concerned with equality of educational outcomes, equality of opportunities, or merely adequacy, and is partly motivated by the problems with meritocracy and responsibility noted above.

Different standards of education might be appropriate for different types of equality of opportunity goals. For instance, with respect to jobs, we might be very concerned that equally hard-working and naturally talented students achieve equal outcomes on standardized tests, since being the most qualified candidate usually gets you the job. However, being a good citizen perhaps is independent of how well informed you are relative to others, so long as you are well-informed about various candidates and about how to spot a bad argument. Moreover, with respect to young children, we might think that outcomes, not opportunities are best in some areas, such as basic reading skills. What we want, with respect to literacy, is not that children have equal opportunities to read, but that they actually learn to read, even if this comes at great cost. We should note that achieving equal outcomes will be differently costly for different individuals due to ranges of ability and the quickness with which children pick up certain skills. At the most extreme end of this spectrum are severe cognitive disabilities, which may render it very difficult or impossible to achieve equal outcomes. As such, a desirable view of equality of opportunity may have to answer special sorts of questions around the appropriate education for those who have severe disabilities. Whatever the correct answers, we can only make progress on these questions by thinking seriously about the issues many of which are presented here in a way that is widely accessible.

Our focus is on the application of conceptions of Equality of Opportunity to education, but there are many other goods that people value and should have equal opportunity to pursue. For instance, most people value healthcare as it is important no matter what their ambitions and life plans are. Access to good doctors and basic medical treatment could be evaluated in terms of equality of opportunity. So, if some people face greater obstacles than others in getting to see a good doctor. If basic healthcare is expensive, then poorer people will face greater obstacles than the rich. If few doctors are willing to work in rural areas, then those in rural areas will face greater obstacles than those in urban areas. These unequal obstacles may be condemnable, depending on the conception of Equality of Opportunity that is most desirable. Moreover, rather than focusing on particular goods, such as education and health, we may prefer to focus on happiness itself, since it seems to be the fundamental value that people care about. Such a focus would enable us to condemn obstacles that stand in the way of health or education only insofar as those goods affect the happiness of those individuals. This makes an important difference if people wish to pursue health or education to different extents. One person’s happiness may hinge on her access to education far more than another’s persons. We can say the same about health.

The intention of this brief introduction to equality of opportunity and education was to introduce beginners to the ideal of equality of opportunity, its place within contemporary political debates and its history. At this stage we might ask: why should anyone care about equality of opportunity? This takes us back to the start of the introduction. If you believe that all of us are equal in some important ways and if you think that freedom to pursue one’s plans without interference from others is important, then equality of opportunity is very important indeed.

Arguing about equality of opportunity is really an argument about how best to understand the kind of society we should be striving for, one where free and equal persons live together. Although other ideals may also be worth striving for, equality of opportunity offers important guidance and a standpoint for criticism of contemporary societies, their politicians and our own personal conduct. It enables us to judge some change as progress or backsliding. Educational institutions, in particular, are well situated to make those changes and failure to utilize them for this end can be judged to have been a further opportunity missed.

What can be found on this website is a summary of different academic debates about equality of opportunity and education and an annotated bibliography of some of the key books and articles on the topic. I start with a beginners reading list below, and go on to explain the crux of some key debates. The debates are divided into the following sections. The first section addresses the concept of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The second section considers different conceptions of equality of opportunity and debates about their relative merits. The third section covers debates about education and educational policy, including: school choice and the family, higher education, and whether adequacy or equality should be the principle for distributing educational resources and the aim of schooling.

Arneson, Richard. “Equality Of Opportunity”. Edited by Edward N Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, 2002. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/equal-opportunity/ . Google Scholar

Brighouse, Harry, and Kenneth Howe. Educational Equality. Continuum, 2010. Google Scholar

Gutmann, Amy. Democratic Education. Princeton University Press, 1998. Google Scholar

Jencks, Christopher. “Whom Must We Treat Equally For Educational Opportunity To Be Equal?”. Ethics, Ethics, 1988, 518-533. Google Scholar

Kittay, Eva Feder. “At The Margins Of Moral Personhood”. Ethics, Ethics, 116, no. 1 (2005): 100-131. Google Scholar

Kymlicka, Will. In Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Scholar

McKinnon, Catriona. Issues In Political Theory. Oxford University Press, 2012. Google Scholar

Parfit, Derek. “Equality And Priority”. Ratio, Ratio, 10, no. 3 (1997): 202-221. Google Scholar

Swift, Adam. Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide For Students And Politicians. Polity, 2013. Google Scholar

Williams, Bernard. “The Idea Of Equality”. In Philosophy, Politics, And Society, 110-131. Philosophy, Politics, And Society. London: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Google Scholar

Section 1: Equality of Opportunity and Alternatives »

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Civil Rights

Equality In Education Essay Examples

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Civil Rights , Education , Students , Children , Teaching , Society , Democracy , Family

Words: 1200

Published: 12/30/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Education is an important factor in the development of a society. Evidently, the benefits of education go beyond the obvious advantage of improving life chances. Education empowers people not only with the skills, knowledge, and means of succeeding in life but also with the hope of a better productive life. Education is thus an important tool in the realization of a prosperous and developing community. It many societies, education serve as a panacea to solving rampant problems like hunger, overpopulation, preventable diseases, and abusive marriages. Yet in many parts of the world, educational access is still limited to small section of the society. While the developed world has made progress in terms of gender equality in education, many developing nations are still plagued by disparity of education between girls and boys.

"Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of the conditions of men the balance-wheel of the social machinery." Horace Mann. The view that was espoused in education until the late 1880s was one, which majorly saw the development and success for the majority of the people. According to Parkinson (1995), Benjamin Franklin compiled the first most famous success manuals in 1757. His key guiding principles continued to guide educational experience for the next hundreds of years. His key success principles included moral virtue, industry, thrift, and perseverance. The function of school according to the article was t provide a common education for all of the children.

Equality in education became more realistic to the less fortunate in the society, especially the handicaps, when Kenneth Clark, in 1960s criticized the schools for being “an instrument for social and economic class distinction in American society”. Perkinson (1995). This condition became curable in 1970s when compulsory education that provided special supplementary aid, counsel, instruction, and attention to the culturally deprived was harnessed. This became the only avenue for the less fortunate students to use the schools to make up for their “wants deprived”. The education for all handicaps law brought to light the prior students’ inequalities, equalizing all students’ provisions up to this day.

Education requires unity of purpose. Often, education students do require an ordinate amount of time by teachers and subordinate staff in order to meet their needs. However, often we forget that other non-identified students require more time to meet their needs. In this case, where other students require special attention to meet their needs, appropriate education plan might be set to meet these students’ needs. While this effort is considered, it should not be left to the expense of the parents to seek a working program for their students who may not fit into the special program for the students who require lots of attention. As the special education, students’ needs are considered individually, the regular education students’ needs are considered largely as group.

Now in time there is a long enough history of education to ask whether this grand experiment has been successful. Has education been the great equalizer in helping children become participants within our democratic society? Has special education allowed students to have equal opportunity to educational resources? Perhaps through an inclusive model of education some of the resources allocated for special education have been utilized in a regular education environment where more students would potentially benefit. (Soltis 1998)

After all, a grand-analysis completed Soltis (1998) indicate that students with high incidence disabilities want the same books, activities, grading criteria, homework, and grouping practices as their classmates. Their peers without disabilities desire the same. Both students with and without capabilities value teachers slowing down instructions when needed, explaining concepts and assignments clearly and teaching materials as well as learning strategies of the same material in a different way to ensure equal benefits to every member of the class. Therefore, there exists the need for equal education in the mainstream. All students have to benefit from all aspects of education initially considered “special” and mainly for a section of students.

However, equal education demands have been hit by several setbacks. Placement of students in their set groups according to the demands of their special needs for the general education resulted into a strenuous system, where groups were forced to expand according to group needs and sizes thus improper age and need balance arose in an attempt to balance status quo and individual needs. It also resulted into larger and unmanageable sizes of classes in different groups. The system has also been struggling to find the graduates to offer classes under various special categories thus making it difficult to meet every students needs (Kenneth, Haller & Jonas 1988).

The struggle between serving the needs of the individuals versus the societal collective needs has been a great pain to education. There has been a thin boundary between the society and individuals needs, thus the course of education and the criteria in which education can be best fulfilling to the individuals remains a gamble. However, there exist important payoffs for one or both sides when conflicts persist. There are advantages associated with widening the criteria as well as disadvantages. These issues when not well addressed always are attributed to system failure.

One of the ways of mitigating inequality in education is by ensuring racial preference in colleges. Through this, racial and other minority discrimination in education will be minimized gradually. Students need not to be gauged and admitted based on only one function of their education system. With an affirmative action as a tool, somewhat better racial mix achievements will be realized ensuring equality in the system.

As poverty remains mayhem to most low-income communities, education will still not be fully realized in such societies. A study has revealed that poor kids start kindergarten behind middle-class kids and further behind every summer away from school while their counterpart groups learn at the same rate in school. Often, the schools have bore the blames for this. More support services to pre-school, kindergarten, as well as increasing more school days and years to give poor kids, a chance to catch up should be considered. (Vaughn 1999) This formula works best for every school but first, the exists a need to help the poor students.

Given the social dynamics and the role of education in our societies, we need to advocate for equal, fair, and just education for all. Given the rationale that those in need of education are situated differently in addition to having different abilities and demands, each student should be treated differently with valuable dignity. It should be at the mantle of every responsible citizen to ensure the realization of equality in education.

Perkinson, H. J. (1995) The imperfect Panacea, American Faith in Education. McGraw Hill

Klingner, Janette K. & Vaughn, Sharon (1999). Students perception in conclusion classrooms: implications for students with Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children. 63, 23. Strike, Kenneth A., Haller, Emil J., and Soltis, Jonas F. (1988) The Ethics of School Administration. Teachers College Press. Feinberg, W., Soltis, J. F. (1998) School and Society. Teachers College Press.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1215

This paper is created by writer with

ID 256452206

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Credibility argumentative essays, first aid term papers, skin cancer term papers, pop culture term papers, humanism term papers, comfort zone term papers, big bang theory term papers, deontology term papers, pythagoras term papers, proclamation term papers, civil law term papers, functions of journalism research paper, different stages of the allegory of the cave essay sample, racial stereotypes effect on academic admissions policies essay examples, court of appeals of the state of idaho essay, good moscow olympic games and cold war research paper example, sample term paper on the curriculum project phases iv vi, good example of argumentative essay on medical marijuana, good causes of the fire hazard in pope county in the year 2012 research paper example, free second language phonology essay example, example of literature review on romeo and juliet and a man for all seasons, free essay on current issue, research methods report samples, good essay on the story of qiu ju and ermo, free north south and east doors of the baptistery of the florence duomo essay sample, project 1 creation and analysis of a data set research paper sample, free development into late adulthood creative writing sample, computer basics course work samples, good report on objectives, free big data research paper example, example of senior drivers must pass an annual test for eyesight and physical ability before research paper, free research paper about how tv shows and disney movies affect womens perception of love and life, good example of essay on the measurement of classical conditioning can be performed by employing a number, good example of group therapy for alcoholism and the dynamics of alcoholics anonymous research paper, good art and architecture argumentative essay example, example of critical thinking on just walk on by, franz boas essays, shiro essays, meno essays, many young people essays, cormac essays, valerie essays, potok essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

5 Essays to Learn More About Equality

“Equality” is one of those words that seems simple, but is more complicated upon closer inspection. At its core, equality can be defined as “the state of being equal.” When societies value equality, their goals include racial, economic, and gender equality . Do we really know what equality looks like in practice? Does it mean equal opportunities, equal outcomes, or both? To learn more about this concept, here are five essays focusing on equality:

“The Equality Effect” (2017) – Danny Dorling

In this essay, professor Danny Dorling lays out why equality is so beneficial to the world. What is equality? It’s living in a society where everyone gets the same freedoms, dignity, and rights. When equality is realized, a flood of benefits follows. Dorling describes the effect of equality as “magical.” Benefits include happier and healthier citizens, less crime, more productivity, and so on. Dorling believes the benefits of “economically equitable” living are so clear, change around the world is inevitable. Despite the obvious conclusion that equality creates a better world, progress has been slow. We’ve become numb to inequality. Raising awareness of equality’s benefits is essential.

Danny Dorling is the Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography at the University of Oxford. He has co-authored and authored a handful of books, including Slowdown: The End of the Great Acceleration—and Why It’s Good for the Planet, the Economy, and Our Lives . “The Equality Effect” is excerpted from this book. Dorling’s work focuses on issues like health, education, wealth, poverty, and employment.

“The Equality Conundrum” (2020) – Joshua Rothman

Originally published as “Same Difference” in the New Yorker’s print edition, this essay opens with a story. A couple plans on dividing their money equally among their children. However, they realize that to ensure equal success for their children, they might need to start with unequal amounts. This essay digs into the complexity of “equality.” While inequality is a major concern for people, most struggle to truly define it. Citing lectures, studies, philosophy, religion, and more, Rothman sheds light on the fact that equality is not a simple – or easy – concept.

Joshua Rothman has worked as a writer and editor of The New Yorker since 2012. He is the ideas editor of newyorker.com.

“Why Understanding Equity vs Equality in Schools Can Help You Create an Inclusive Classroom” (2019) – Waterford.org

Equality in education is critical to society. Students that receive excellent education are more likely to succeed than students who don’t. This essay focuses on the importance of equity, which means giving support to students dealing with issues like poverty, discrimination and economic injustice. What is the difference between equality and equity? What are some strategies that can address barriers? This essay is a great introduction to the equity issues teachers face and why equity is so important.

Waterford.org is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving equity and education in the United States. It believes that the educational experiences children receive are crucial for their future. Waterford.org was founded by Dr. Dustin Heuston.

“What does equality mean to me?” (2020) – Gabriela Vivacqua and Saddal Diab

While it seems simple, the concept of equality is complex. In this piece posted by WFP_Africa on the WFP’s Insight page, the authors ask women from South Sudan what equality means to them. Half of South Sudan’s population consists of women and girls. Unequal access to essentials like healthcare, education, and work opportunities hold them back. Complete with photographs, this short text gives readers a glimpse into interpretations of equality and what organizations like the World Food Programme are doing to tackle gender inequality.

As part of the UN, the World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization focusing on hunger and food security . It provides food assistance to over 80 countries each year.

“Here’s How Gender Equality is Measured” (2020) – Catherine Caruso

Gender inequality is one of the most discussed areas of inequality. Sobering stats reveal that while progress has been made, the world is still far from realizing true gender equality. How is gender equality measured? This essay refers to the Global Gender Gap report ’s factors. This report is released each year by the World Economic Forum. The four factors are political empowerment, health and survival, economic participation and opportunity, and education. The author provides a brief explanation of each factor.

Catherine Caruso is the Editorial Intern at Global Citizen, a movement committed to ending extreme poverty by 2030. Previously, Caruso worked as a writer for Inquisitr. Her English degree is from Syracuse University. She writes stories on health, the environment, and citizenship.

You may also like

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Essay on Equality In Education

Students are often asked to write an essay on Equality In Education in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Equality In Education

What is equality in education.

Equality in education means everyone gets the same chance to learn and grow. It’s like making sure every player on a sports team gets to play, no matter what they look like or where they come from.

Why It’s Important

When schools are fair, all kids can reach their dreams. Think of it as giving every student the same type of soil and water to help them grow into strong plants.

Challenges to Achieve It

Sometimes, not all kids get the books or help they need. Some schools have less money, which can make learning tough for students there.

Solutions for Equality

To fix this, we can give more support to schools that need it. This means better books, safe classrooms, and good teachers for every student, everywhere.

250 Words Essay on Equality In Education

Why is it important.

When all students have equal opportunities to learn, they can all do their best. This helps everyone, not just the students, because educated people can make smarter choices and help their communities. It’s not fair if only some students can get a good education while others are left behind.

Many things can make it hard for students to have equal chances in school. Some schools do not have enough money for supplies or to fix buildings. Sometimes, children with disabilities are not given the tools they need. Also, kids who move from one country to another may struggle if they don’t know the language well.

Steps Towards Better Equality

To make education more equal, schools need enough money to give every student what they need to learn. Teachers should be trained to help students who learn in different ways. Also, schools should make sure that kids who speak other languages or have disabilities get extra help so they can keep up with their classmates.

In conclusion, equality in education is about giving every student the same chance to shine. It’s about making sure that no one is left out because of where they come from or what challenges they face. When schools support all students, everyone wins.

500 Words Essay on Equality In Education

Equality in education means that every student gets the same chance to learn and succeed in school. It doesn’t matter where they come from, what language they speak, whether they are a boy or a girl, or if they have any special needs. Everyone should be able to go to school, have good teachers, and get help if they need it.

Why is Equal Education Important?

Challenges to equal education.

Sadly, not all kids get the same chances in school. Some schools do not have enough books or computers. Sometimes, children who speak different languages or have disabilities do not get the extra help they need. Also, in some places, girls are not encouraged to study as much as boys. These problems make it hard for some kids to do well in school.

How Can We Make Education More Equal?

Governments and schools can do many things to make learning fair. They can make sure all schools have the same quality of resources like books, science labs, and sports fields. Teachers can also get training to help students who learn in different ways. Plus, schools can have programs that support kids who are falling behind.

Equality for All Kinds of Learners

Support outside the classroom.

Learning does not just happen in school. It also happens at home and in the community. Parents and neighbors can help by making sure kids have a quiet place to study and by encouraging them to do their best. Sometimes, older students or volunteers can tutor younger ones to help them understand their lessons.

In conclusion, equality in education is about giving every student the same chance to learn and be successful. It is important because it helps everyone have the opportunity to follow their dreams and improve the world around them. To make education more equal, we need to make sure all schools have the resources they need, teachers are trained to help all kinds of learners, and communities support their young people. When we work together, we can make sure that every child has a fair chance in school and in life.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Gender equality and education

Gender equality is a global priority at UNESCO. Globally, 122 million girls and 128 million boys are out of school. Women still account for almost two-thirds of all adults unable to read.

UNESCO calls for attention to gender equality throughout the education system in relation to access, content, teaching and learning context and practices, learning outcomes, and life and work opportunities. The  UNESCO Strategy for gender equality in and through education (2019-2025)  focuses on a system-wide transformation to benefit all learners equally in three key areas: better data to inform action, better legal and policy frameworks to advance rights and better teaching and learning practices to empower. 

What you need to know about education and gender equality

"her education, our future" documentary film.

Released on 7 March for 2024 International Women’s Day, “Her Education, Our Future” is a documentary film following the lives of Anee, Fabiana, Mkasi and Tainá – four young women across three continents who struggle to fulfill their right to education. 

This documentary film offers a spectacular dive into the transformative power of education and showcases how empowering girls and women through education improves not only their lives, but also those of their families, communities and indeed all of society. 

Global Accountability Dashboard

The Global Accountability Dashboard is a one stop resource that monitors country progress against key indicators on gender-transformative education, spotlights actions taken by governments and their partners, and provides an evidence hub of initiatives and good practices from 193 countries.

The Dashboard is supported by the Global Platform for Gender Equality and Girls’ and Women’s Empowerment in and through Education , a multi-stakeholder partnership emerging from the 2022 Transforming Education Summit. It complements and deepens the Summit’s Dashboard of Country Commitments and Action to Transform Education. 

Key figures

of which 122 million are girls and 128 million are boys

of which 56% are women

for every 100 young women

Empowering communities: UNESCO in action

Keeping girls in the picture

Everyone can play a role in supporting girls’ education

UNESCO’s new drive to accelerate action for girls’ and women’s education

2022 GEM Report Gender Report: Deepening the debate on those still left behind

Capacity building tools

• From access to empowerment: operational tools to advance gender equality in and through education
• Communication strategy: UNESCO guidance on communicating on gender equality in and through education
• Communication tools
• Keeping girls in the picture: youth advocacy toolkit
• Keeping girls in the picture: community radio toolkit

Monitoring SDG 4: equity and inclusion in education

Resources from UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report.

Related items

• Gender equality
• Policy Advice
• Girls education
• See more add

SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Equality education and gender equality: overview, gender stereotypes, the importance of educating girls.

In 2015 United Nations General Assembly Summit adopted seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, which aim at achieving peace and prosperity for humankind and the whole planet. Two of those seventeen goals are quality education and gender equality. Quality education is aimed at providing equitable quality education and learning opportunities for everyone.

Meanwhile, gender equality aims at ending discrimination and violence towards all girls and women and providing them with equal opportunities for life as there are for men. There is no way to say that some of the seventeen goals are more important than others; however, the ones concentrated on improving education have the power to accelerate the achievement of the others. The matters of high-quality education that can be accessed by any person regardless of their origin are the ones that should attract more attention. One of these matters is to provide equal opportunities for education for both genders since it directly affects their lives and gender equality in the future growth of society.

Providing every person with equitable quality education means giving all people the opportunity to get knowledge regardless of their origin, social status, or economic conditions. Getting equal high-quality education allows people to achieve academic success, grow mentally, improve their analytical abilities and critical thinking, and open their minds. A good education can lead people to become professionals in multiple spheres that can change the world for the better.

In modern society, it may be hard to accept that gender inequality is still present these days. However, being one of the SDGs shows that achieving gender equality is a common problem. While gender equality means equal rights for both genders in most cases, it refers to women because “women suffer from gender inequalities almost in most cultures” (Papa, 2020, p. 1689). Every girl and woman should be able to manage her life without being bounded, shamefaced, or afraid.

Achieving gender equality and providing equitable quality education should join hands since these are coordinately important parts of common growth. Providing all girls with high-quality education expands their worldview, prepares them for adult life, and opens up the possibility of equal employment. If women have the same employment opportunities as men, they can not only have successful jobs but also participate in politics, amend laws, and bring diversity to the way the world is building.

Gender stereotypes often refer to men as strong and powerful beings, whereas women are considered weak stay-at-home cleaners and cooks. The contrast in how boys and girls are treated starts in childhood because the parents automatically differentiate between storytelling, activities, and toys. Boys are usually more allowed to play outside and are rewarded for being active, while girls are generally expected to stay inside and play games that resemble housekeeping. Under the influence of stereotypes, girls suffer from a lack of education which, eventually, “curtails women’s voice and agency in the household, at work, and in institutions” (Wodon et al., 2018, p. 2). Since women have been expected to put their entire time into improving men’s day-to-day lives, they often cannot advance themselves.

If stereotypes influence people, they are more likely to close their eyes to the importance of educating girls. Nine in ten girls in the world graduate from primary schools, and only three in four of them complete lower secondary education (Wodon et al., 2018). Lack of education may result in situations such as being victims of physical or mental abuse or early childbearing for girls. Statistics show that each additional year of secondary education lowers the risk of marrying as a child and unwanted pregnancy by six percentage (Wodon et al., 2018). More often than not, if a person did not get proper education, they will have a limited horizon and will not think ahead and analyze.

The quality of education for girls can affect their employment and their ability to support themselves financially. Research shows that if women had at least six years of education, their average payment could grow by about 9 percent (Wodon et al., 2018). With nine years of school, the growth would be about 21 percent, and with twelve years, their earnings could increase by 44 percent (Wodon et al., 2018). With a good education, women have a larger range of jobs to choose from and the opportunity to be independent. Thus, they will not have to depend on their families and will be able to choose a life partner without concentrating on financial benefits.

Another aspect of educating girls is establishing social contact, which is an essential part of nation-building. For adults, it would be easier to have healthy relationships with other people if they had friends in school, especially during tertiary education (Wodon et al., 2018). When girls are forced to leave school, their social circle decreases, thus, decreasing their range of vision and making it harder to trust people when they become adults. With no friends or people to rely on, girls and women are more likely to become victims of abuse since there is no one to help them (Wodon et al., 2018). If people do not have the opportunity to go to school, they cannot learn how to interact with others and eventually may become outcasts.

Both girls and boys have to be able to get proper education so they could become open-minded women and men of varied attainments. To bring the world to prosperity and make society healthy both physically and mentally, there cannot be a place for inequality and discrimination towards anyone. High-quality education must be accessible since it will raise the number of professionals in different spheres to help achieve Sustainable Development Goals.

Papa, R. (Ed.). (2020). Handbook on promoting social justice in education . Springer.

Wodon, Q., Montenegro, C. E., Nguyen, H., & Onagoruwa, A. (2018). Missed opportunities: The high cost of not educating girls. World Bank . Web.

Some important points/ideas that might be useful in Presentation.

• Quality education is aimed at providing equitable quality education and learning opportunities for everyone: providing learning opportunities for everyone
• Gender equality aims at ending discrimination and violence towards all girls and women and providing them with equal opportunities for life as there are for men: ending discrimination and violence towards women
• Provide equal opportunities for education for both genders since it directly affects their lives and gender equality in the future growth of society: equal education opportunities affect gender equality in the future growth of society
• If women have the same employment opportunities as men, they can not only have successful jobs but also participate in politics, amend laws, and bring diversity to the way the world is building: women can participate in politics and bring diversity to the way the world is building
• The contrast in how boys and girls are treated starts in childhood because the parents automatically differentiate between storytelling, activities, and toys: boys and girls are treated differently since early childhood
• Since women have been expected to put their entire time into improving men’s day-to-day lives, they often cannot advance themselves: women were not given the opportunity to advance themselves
• Lack of education may result in situations such as being victims of physical or mental abuse or early childbearing for girls: lack of education results in abuse towards women
• With a good education, women have a larger range of jobs to choose from and the opportunity to be independent. Thus, they will not have to depend on their families and will be able to choose a life partner without concentrating on financial benefits: with a good education women have an opportunity to become financially independent
• When girls are forced to leave school, their social circle decreases, thus, decreasing their range of vision and making it harder to trust people when they become adults: not finishing school decreases the quality of social contacts in the future
• High-quality education must be accessible since it will raise the number of professionals in different spheres to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals: equal education for both genders helps to achieve the SDGs
• The Relationship Between Gender Inequality and Women’s Economic Independence
• Combating Gender Inequality
• Trinidad and Tobago's Sustainability Analysis
• Sustainability: Global Challenges and Solutions
• Sustainable Development Goals in the UAE
• Gender Bias in K-Pop: Gender Bias in Korean Society
• Battered Woman Syndrome in the Provoked Film
• Education for Emirati Females' Employment
• The Representation of Saudi Women in the Media
• Manifestations of Gender Discrimination in Insurance
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, July 15). SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sdgs-equality-education-and-gender-equality/

"SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality." IvyPanda , 15 July 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/sdgs-equality-education-and-gender-equality/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality'. 15 July.

IvyPanda . 2022. "SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality." July 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sdgs-equality-education-and-gender-equality/.

1. IvyPanda . "SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality." July 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sdgs-equality-education-and-gender-equality/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "SDGs – Equality Education and Gender Equality." July 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sdgs-equality-education-and-gender-equality/.

Intro Essay: The Civil Rights Movement

To what extent did founding principles of liberty, equality, and justice become a reality for african americans during the civil rights movement.

• I can explain the importance of local and federal actions in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
• I can compare the goals and methods of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLS), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Malcolm X and Black Nationalism, and Black Power.
• I can explain challenges African Americans continued to face despite victories for equality and justice during the civil rights movement.

Essential Vocabulary

Continuing the Heroic Struggle for Equality: The Civil Rights Movement

The struggle to make the promises of the Declaration of Independence a reality for Black Americans reached a climax after World War II. The activists of the civil rights movement directly confronted segregation and demanded equal civil rights at the local level with physical and moral courage and perseverance. They simultaneously pursued a national strategy of systematically filing lawsuits in federal courts, lobbying Congress, and pressuring presidents to change the laws. The civil rights movement encountered significant resistance, however, and suffered violence in the quest for equality.

During the middle of the twentieth century, several Black writers grappled with the central contradictions between the nation’s ideals and its realities, and the place of Black Americans in their country. Richard Wright explored a raw confrontation with racism in Native Son (1940), while Ralph Ellison led readers through a search for identity beyond a racialized category in his novel Invisible Man (1952), as part of the Black quest for identity. The novel also offered hope in the power of the sacred principles of the Founding documents. Playwright Lorraine Hansberry wrote A Raisin in the Sun , first performed in 1959, about the dreams deferred for Black Americans and questions about assimilation. Novelist and essayist James Baldwin described Blacks’ estrangement from U.S. society and themselves while caught in a racial nightmare of injustice in The Fire Next Time (1963) and other works.

World War II wrought great changes in U.S. society. Black soldiers fought for a “double V for victory,” hoping to triumph over fascism abroad and racism at home. Many received a hostile reception, such as Medgar Evers who was blocked from voting at gunpoint by five armed whites. Blacks continued the Great Migration to southern and northern cities for wartime industrial work. After the war, in 1947, Jackie Robinson endured racial taunts on the field and segregation off it as he broke the color barrier in professional baseball and began a Hall of Fame career. The following year, President Harry Truman issued executive orders desegregating the military and banning discrimination in the civil service. Meanwhile, Thurgood Marshall and his legal team at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meticulously prepared legal challenges to discrimination, continuing a decades-long effort.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund brought lawsuits against segregated schools in different states that were consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka , 1954. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that “separate but equal” was “inherently unequal.” Brown II followed a year after, as the court ordered that the integration of schools should be pursued “with all deliberate speed.” Throughout the South, angry whites responded with a campaign of “massive resistance” and refused to comply with the order, while many parents sent their children to all-white private schools. Middle-class whites who opposed integration joined local chapters of citizens’ councils and used propaganda, economic pressure, and even violence to achieve their ends.

A wave of violence and intimidation followed. In 1955, teenager Emmett Till was visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was lynched after being falsely accused of whistling at a white woman. Though an all-white jury quickly acquitted the two men accused of killing him, Till’s murder was reported nationally and raised awareness of the injustices taking place in Mississippi.

In Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks (who was a secretary of the Montgomery NAACP) was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger on a segregated bus. Her willingness to confront segregation led to a direct-action movement for equality. The local Women’s Political Council organized the city’s Black residents into a boycott of the bus system, which was then led by the Montgomery Improvement Association. Black churches and ministers, including Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rev. Ralph Abernathy, provided a source of strength. Despite arrests, armed mobs, and church bombings, the boycott lasted until a federal court desegregated the city buses. In the wake of the boycott, the leading ministers formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) , which became a key civil rights organization.

Rosa Parks is shown here in 1955 with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the background. The Montgomery bus boycott was an important victory in the civil rights movement.

In 1957, nine Black families decided to send their children to Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Governor Orval Faubus used the National Guard to prevent their entry, and one student, Elizabeth Eckford, faced an angry crowd of whites alone and barely escaped. President Eisenhower was compelled to respond and sent in 1,200 paratroops from the 101st Airborne to protect the Black students. They continued to be harassed, but most finished the school year and integrated the school.

That year, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that created a civil rights division in the Justice Department and provided minimal protections for the right to vote. The bill had been watered down because of an expected filibuster by southern senators, who had recently signed the Southern Manifesto, a document pledging their resistance to Supreme Court decisions such as Brown .

In 1960, four Black college students were refused lunch service at a local Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, and they spontaneously staged a “sit-in” the following day. Their resistance to the indignities of segregation was copied by thousands of others of young Blacks across the South, launching another wave of direct, nonviolent confrontation with segregation. Ella Baker invited several participants to a Raleigh conference where they formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and issued a Statement of Purpose. The group represented a more youthful and daring effort that later broke with King and his strategy of nonviolence.

In contrast, Malcolm X became a leading spokesperson for the Nation of Islam (NOI) who represented Black separatism as an alternative to integration, which he deemed an unworthy goal. He advocated revolutionary violence as a means of Black self-defense and rejected nonviolence. He later changed his views, breaking with the NOI and embracing a Black nationalism that had more common ground with King’s nonviolent views. Malcolm X had reached out to establish ties with other Black activists before being gunned down by assassins who were members of the NOI later in 1965.

In 1961, members of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) rode segregated buses in order to integrate interstate travel. These Black and white Freedom Riders traveled into the Deep South, where mobs beat them with bats and pipes in bus stations and firebombed their buses. A cautious Kennedy administration reluctantly intervened to protect the Freedom Riders with federal marshals, who were also victimized by violent white mobs.

Malcolm X was a charismatic speaker and gifted organizer. He argued that Black pride, identity, and independence were more important than integration with whites.

King was moved to act. He confronted segregation with the hope of exposing injustice and brutality against nonviolent protestors and arousing the conscience of the nation to achieve a just rule of law. The first planned civil rights campaign was initiated by SNCC and taken over mid-campaign by King and SCLC. It failed because Albany, Georgia’s Police Chief Laurie Pritchett studied King’s tactics and responded to the demonstrations with restraint. In 1963, King shifted the movement to Birmingham, Alabama, where Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor unleashed his officers to attack civil rights protestors with fire hoses and police dogs. Authorities arrested thousands, including many young people who joined the marches. King wrote “Letter from Birmingham Jail” after his own arrest and provided the moral justification for the movement to break unjust laws. National and international audiences were shocked by the violent images shown in newspapers and on the television news. President Kennedy addressed the nation and asked, “whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities . . . [If a Black person]cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?” The president then submitted a civil rights bill to Congress.

In late August 1963, more than 250,000 people joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in solidarity for equal rights. From the Lincoln Memorial steps, King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. He stated, “I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’”

After Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, President Lyndon Johnson pushed his agenda through Congress. In the early summer of 1964, a 3-month filibuster by southern senators was finally defeated, and both houses passed the historical civil rights bill. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, banning segregation in public accommodations.

Activists in the civil rights movement then focused on campaigns for the right to vote. During the summer of 1964, several civil rights organizations combined their efforts during the “ Freedom Summer ” to register Blacks to vote with the help of young white college students. They endured terror and intimidation as dozens of churches and homes were burned and workers were killed, including an incident in which Black advocate James Chaney and two white students, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, were murdered in Mississippi.

In August 1963, peaceful protesters gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial to draw attention to the inequalities and indignities African Americans suffered 100 years after emancipation. Leaders of the march are shown in the image on the bottom, with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the center.

That summer, Fannie Lou Hamer helped organize the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) as civil rights delegates to replace the rival white delegation opposed to civil rights at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City. Hamer was a veteran of attempts to register other Blacks to vote and endured severe beatings for her efforts. A proposed compromise of giving two seats to the MFDP satisfied neither those delegates nor the white delegation, which walked out. Cracks were opening up in the Democratic electoral coalition over civil rights, especially in the South.

Fannie Lou Hamer testified about the violence she and others endured when trying to register to vote at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. Her televised testimony exposed the realities of continued violence against Blacks trying to exercise their constitutional rights.

In early 1965, the SCLC and SNCC joined forces to register voters in Selma and draw attention to the fight for Black suffrage. On March 7, marchers planned to walk peacefully from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery. However, mounted state troopers and police blocked the Edmund Pettus Bridge and then rampaged through the marchers, indiscriminately beating them. SNCC leader John Lewis suffered a fractured skull, and 5 women were clubbed unconscious. Seventy people were hospitalized for injuries during “Bloody Sunday.” The scenes again shocked television viewers and newspaper readers.

The images of state troopers, local police, and local people brutally attacking peaceful protestors on “Bloody Sunday” shocked people across the country and world. Two weeks later, protestors of all ages and races continued the protest. By the time they reached the state capitol in Montgomery, Alabama, their ranks had swelled to about 25,000 people.

Two days later, King led a symbolic march to the bridge but then turned around. Many younger and more militant activists were alienated and felt that King had sold out to white authorities. The tension revealed the widening division between older civil rights advocates and those younger, more radical supporters who were frustrated at the slow pace of change and the routine violence inflicted upon peaceful protesters. Nevertheless, starting on March 21, with the help of a federal judge who refused Governor George Wallace’s request to ban the march, Blacks triumphantly walked to Montgomery. On August 6, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act protecting the rights to register and vote after a Senate filibuster ended and the bill passed Congress.

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act did not alter the fact that most Black Americans still suffered racism, were denied equal economic opportunities, and lived in segregated neighborhoods. While King and other leaders did seek to raise their issues among northerners, frustrations often boiled over into urban riots during the mid-1960s. Police brutality and other racial incidents often triggered days of violence in which hundreds were injured or killed. There were mass arrests and widespread property damage from arson and looting in Los Angeles, Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, and dozens of other cities. A presidential National Advisory Commission of Civil Disorders issued the Kerner Report, which analyzed the causes of urban unrest, noting the impact of racism on the inequalities and injustices suffered by Black Americans.

Frustration among young Black Americans led to the rise of a more militant strain of advocacy. In 1966, activist James Meredith was on a solo march in Mississippi to raise awareness about Black voter registration when he was shot and wounded. Though Meredith recovered, this event typified the violence that led some young Black Americans to espouse a more military strain of advocacy. On June 16, SNCC leader Stokely Carmichael and members of the Black Panther Party continued Meredith’s march while he recovered from his wounds, chanting, “We want Black Power .” Black Power leaders and members of the Black Panther Party offered a different vision for equality and justice. They advocated self-reliance and self-empowerment, a celebration of Black culture, and armed self-defense. They used aggressive rhetoric to project a more radical strategy for racial progress, including sympathy for revolutionary socialism and rejection of capitalism. While its legacy is debated, the Black Power movement raised many important questions about the place of Black Americans in the United States, beyond the civil rights movement.

After World War II, Black Americans confronted the iniquities and indignities of segregation to end almost a century of Jim Crow. Undeterred, they turned the public’s eyes to the injustice they faced and called on the country to live up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and to continue the fight against inequality and discrimination.

Reading Comprehension Questions

• What factors helped to create the modern civil rights movement?
• How was the quest for civil rights a combination of federal and local actions?
• What were the goals and methods of different activists and groups of the civil rights movement? Complete the table below to reference throughout your analysis of the primary source documents.

Educational Inequality in Russia

Cite this chapter.

• Anna Smolentseva 4  

5600 Accesses

4 Citations

Soviet policy towards total literacy and equality of access to education for all was quite successful. A great number of people from previously underrepresented groups (such as workers and the rural population) gained opportunities to acquire an education and raise themselves in the social hierarchy using education as a social elevator.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Education in Transition: Structure, Expansion and Inequality

Educational Inequality in Migrant Children in China: From Visible Exclusion to Invisible Discrimination

Republic of South Africa

Baranov, A.A., & Ivanova, N.G. (2003). Vliyanie sotsial’noi differentsiatsii naselenia na obrazovatel’nye orientatsii gorozhan [An impact of social differentiation on educational orientations for urban population]. Sotsic [Sociological Studies], 2.

Google Scholar  

Dubin, B.V., Gudkov L.D., Levinson, A.G., Leonova, A.S. & Stuchevskaya, O.I. (2004). Dostupnost’ vysshego obrazovania: sotsial’nye i institutsional’nye aspekty [Accessibility of higher education: social and institutional aspects]. In. S.V. Shishkin (Ed.), Dostupnost’ vysshego obrazovania v Rossii [Accessibility of Higher Education in Russia]. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

Ekonomika obrazovania v zerkale statistiki. Informatsionnyi biulleten’ [Economics of Education in a Mirror of Statistics. Information Bulletin]. (2004). Moscow: Higher School of Economics, 1(3).

Federal’naya programma razvitiya obrazovania [Federal Program of Development of Education] (2000).

Federal’naya tselevaya programma razvitiya obrazovania na 2006-2010 [Federal Program of Development of Education for 2006-2010] (2005) [On line]. Available: http://mon.gov.ru/edu-politic/priority/2048/

Gerber, T.P, & Hout, M. (1995). Educational stratification in Russia during the Soviet period. The American Journal of Sociology, 101 (3), 611-660.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gerber, T.P. (2000). Educational stratification in contemporary Russia: Stability and change in the face of economic and institutional crisis. Sociology of Education, 73 (4), 219-246.

Klyucharev, G.A. & Kofanova, E.N. (2004). O dinamike obrazovatel’nogo povedenia sostoyatel’nykh i maloimuschukh rossian [On the dynamics of educational behavior of wealthy and poor Russians]. Sotsic [Sociological Studies], 11.

Klyuchevye pokazateli Prioritetnogo natsional’nogo proekta “Obrazovanie” [Key indicators of the National Priority Project “Education”] (2005). [On line]. Available: http://mon.gov.ru/proekt/ideology/pokazateli.doc

Konstantinosky, D.L. & Shubkin, V.N. (1977). Molodezh’ i obrazovanie [Youth and Education]. Moscow: Nauka.

Konstantinovsky, D.L. (1999). Dinamika neravenstva [The Dynamics of Inequality]. Moscow: Editoral URSS.

Kontseptsiya modernizatsii rossiiskogo obrazovania na period do 2010 goda [Conception of Modernization of Russian Education for a period up to 2010]. (2001).

Krukhmaleva, O.V., Smolentseva, A.Y., & Ushakova, M.V. (2000). Novye obrazovatel’nye uchrezhdenia v Rossii [New educational institutions in Russia]. Moscow: NIIVO.

Lukin, V.P. (2006). Prava cheloveka i modernizatsia rossiiskogo obrazovania. Special’nyi doklad [Human Rights and Modernization of the Russian Education. Special Report] [On line]. Moscow: Human Rights Ombudsman in Russia. Available: www.ombudsman.gov.ru/doc/spdoc/0106.shtml .

Monitoring po obespecheniyu dostupnosti doshkol’nogo obrazovania [Monitoring of Accessibility of Pre-School Education] [On line]. (2003). Moscow: State Research Center for Information Technologies and Telecommunications. Available: www.depedu.yar.ru/educational_institutions/preschool/report.shtml

Natsional’naya Doktrina obrazovania [National Doctrine on Education] (2000).

NISP [Independent Institute for Social Policy]. Sotsial’naya differentsiatsia vysshego obrazovania. Opisanie proekta i glavnye rezul’taty. [Social differentiation of Higher Education. Project description and key results]. [On line]. Available: http://www.socpol.ru/research_projects/proj15.shtml

Obrazovanie kak factor sotsial’noi differentsiatsii i mobil’nosti (“kruglyi stol”) [Education as a factor of social differentiation and mobility (“Round table”)]. (2003). Sotsic [Sociological Studies], 5.

Obrazovanie v Rossii: 2003. Statsbornik [Education in Russia. 2003: Statistics] (2003). Moscow: Goskomstat.

Roschina, Ya.M. (2004). Komu v Rossii dostupno vysshee obrazovanie? [Who has access to higher education in Russia?]. In S.V. Shishkin (Ed.), Dostupnost’ vysshego obrazovania v Rossii [Accessibility of Higher Education in Russia]. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

Rutkevich, M.N. (2002). Sotsiologia obrazovania i molodezhi: Izbrannoe (1965-2002) [Sociology of Education and Youth: Selected Papers (1965-2002)]. Moscow: Gardariki.

Savitskaya, E.V. (2004). Tsennost’ i dostupnost’ vysshego pofessional’nogo obrazovania v Rossii [Value and accessibility of higher vocational education in Russia]. Voprosy Statistiki [Issues of Statistics], 9, 45-50.

Seliverstova, I.V. (2005). Dostupnost’ doshkol’nogo obrazovania: vliyanie territorial’nogo factora [Access to pre-school education: An impact of territorial barriers]. Sotsic [Sociological Studies], 2.

Shishkin, S.V. (Ed.). (2004). Dostupnost’ vysshego obrazovania v Rossii [Accessibility of Higher Education in Russia]. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

Shubkin, V.N. (1970). Sotsiologicheskie opyty [Sociological Essays]. Moscow: Mysl’.

Smolentseva, A. (2005). Will there be free higher education in Russia? International Higher Education, 40.

Titaev, K.D. (2005). Pochem ekzamen dlya naroda? Etyud o korruptsii v vysshem obrazovanii [How much is the exam? Essay on corruption in higher education]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologia [Economic Sociology], 6 (2), 69-82.

Transparency International (2005). Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 [On line]. Available: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005 .

UNICEF (2004). Innocenti Social Monitor 2004. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Vasenina, I.V. & Sorokina, N.D. (2002). Vysshee obrazovanie v sovremennom mire (Higher Education in Contemporary World). In Chelovek i sovremennyi mir [Man and Contemporary World]. Moscow: Infra.

Veikher, A.A. & Kremenitskaya, I.V. (2004). Izmenenie stepeni dostupnosti vysshego obrazovania v rossiiskikh usloviyakh: prevraschenie chasti vysshego obrazovania iz professional’nogo v obschee [Change in acessibility of higher education in Russia: A partial transformation of general higher education into a professional one]. In S.V. Shishkin, (Ed.), Dostupnost’ vysshego obrazovania v Rossii [Accessibility of Higher Education in Russia]. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

Voznesenskaya, E.D., Cherednichenko, G.A. & Dymarskaya O.Ya. (2004). Dostupnost’ obrezovania kak sotsial’naya problema [Accessibility of higher education as a social problem]. In S.V. Shishkin, (Ed.), Dostupnost’ vysshego obrazovania v Rossii [Accessibility of Higher Education in Russia]. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

Vysshee i poslevuzovskoe obrazovanie v Rossii: 2004. [Higher and Postgraduate Education in Russia: 2004. Statistical book] (2004). Moscow: Center for the research and statistics of science.

Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii: prestizh i dostupnost’ [Higher education in Russia: prestige and accessibility]. (2005). Survey data received by FOM. [On line] Available: http://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/societas/culture/obrazovanie/high_education/tb052214

Wong, Raymond (2001). Egalitarianism versus social reproduction: Changes in educational stratification in five Eastern European countries [On line]. Paper to be presented at the Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility (RC28) of the International Sociological Association at Mannheim, Germany, April 26-28. Available: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/rc28/papers/Wong_isa.zip .

World Bank (2004). RF: Doklad ob otsenke bednosti [Russian Federation: Report on poverty][On line]. Report No. 28923-RU. Available: http://194.84.38.65/mdb/upload/PAR_062304_Rus.pdf

Zaborovskaya, A.C. & Shishkin, S.V. (2005). Obrazovanie kak resurs sodeistvia sokrascheniyu bednosti i bar’ery v dostupe k nemu [Education as a source of reducing poverty and barriers to access to education]. In L.N. Ovcharova (Ed.), Dokhody i sotsial’nye uslugi: Neravenstvo, uyazvimost’, bednost’ [Income and Social Services: Inequality, Vulnerability, Poverty]. Moscow: State University-Higher School of Economics.

Zaborovskaya, A.S., Klyachko, T.L., Korolev, I.B., Chernets, V.A., Chirikova A.E., Shilova, L.S. & Shishkin, S.V. (2004). Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii: pravila i real’nost’ [Higher Education in Russia: Rules and Reality]. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

Zakon “O vysshem i poslevuzovskom professional’nom obrazovanii” [Law on Higher and Postgraduate Education]. (1996, 2004).

Zakon “Ob obrazovanii” [Law on Education] (1992, 1996, 2004).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Complex Studies in Education, Moscow State University, Russia

Anna Smolentseva ( Senior Research Fellow )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Post-Compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning in the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, USA

Richard Teese ( Professor and Director ) & Sue Helme ( Research Fellow ) ( Professor and Director ) &  ( Research Fellow )

University of Burgundy, Burgundy, France

Marie Duru-Bellat ( Professor ) ( Professor )

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, USA

Stephen Lamb ( Principal Research Fellow ) ( Principal Research Fellow )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Smolentseva, A. (2007). Educational Inequality in Russia. In: Teese, R., Lamb, S., Duru-Bellat, M., Helme, S. (eds) International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5916-2_19

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5916-2_19

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-1-4020-5915-5

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-5916-2

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Hispanic-serving colleges and universities see hope in a White House initiative

Melissa Camacho poses for photos at the City College of San Francisco’s Mission Center in San Francisco, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

• Copy Link copied

Higher education advocates in Latino communities say they are optimistic about a new federal effort to support hundreds of local colleges and universities.

Hispanic-serving institutions, or HSIs, which are not-for-profit schools with a full-time equivalent undergraduate student enrollment that is at least a quarter Hispanic, are vital to the goals of equality in educational and economic opportunities, according to the White House. That is the impetus behind President Joe Biden’s recent executive order establishing an initiative to increase funding to HSIs and creating a board of advisors on HSIs.

With Hispanic people accounting for almost three-quarters of the nation’s population gain , according to U.S. Census Bureau population estimates from 2022 to 2023, higher education leaders are urging the president to spread the word about the new initiative, given its potential to help Hispanic students catch up to peers from some other backgrounds.

“This is very important for the country to have this type of new development at the national level,” said Antonio R. Flores, president and CEO of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, a nonprofit advocacy group.

“We know the implications of this are also enormous for the nation” because Latinos are a fast-growing demographic, “and this is reflected in higher education enrollment,” said Flores, whose group hopes the White House will hold a formal ceremony in September to promote the HSI initiative.

Biden’s order is intended to strengthen the ability of HSIs to provide high-quality education, benefit from existing federal programs, and increase the educational and economic mobility of their students.

The more than 500 HSIs in the U.S. and Puerto Rico serve more than 4.7 million students every year, according to federal data. Many students are low-income, and nearly a third are eligible for Pell grants, which are federal scholarships for students in need.

Unlike historically Black or Native American tribal colleges and universities, which are given their designations based on their missions, any college can receive the HSI label and related federal money if its Latino enrollment reaches at least 25% of the student body.

Prominent HSIs include the University of California at Riverside, which has had the designation since 2008; California State University at San Bernardino, which has had it since 1994; and the University of Texas at Austin, which earned its designation in 2020. Notable HSI alumni include actress and activist Eva Longoria, union organizer and activist Dolores Huerta and Arturo Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report this year found that HSIs have extensive facility and digital infrastructure needs, and struggle to meet those needs due to insufficient state funding and rising construction costs.

Lizette Galaviz, a political science major at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, said the school does a good job of meeting Hispanic students’ financial aid needs. Since 2022, the school has covered tuition and mandatory fees for students from families whose income is $125,000 or less.

Galaviz said because of the financial aid she receives from the school, she and many of her classmates will graduate with little or no debt. But despite the generous aid, the school has a lot of room for improvement, including with its research capabilities, she said.

“Enhancing the infrastructure and resources that we have would be something that I would like to see,” Galaviz said. “I think educational equity is very important. It is no secret that the Rio Grande Valley is one of the most impoverished areas.”

These institutions are critical in widening the pipeline of Latinos going into STEM fields, according to White House officials.

HSIs “play a critical role in ensuring Latinos have access to the middle class and can fulfill their aspirations,” White House domestic policy advisor Neera Tanden said in a statement to The Associated Press. “The president’s executive order will strengthen these critical institutions and build their capacity to provide economic mobility for all their students.”

Hispanic people, who can be of any race, are the nation’s second-largest demographic. Their population grew last year by about 1.2 million, to 65.2 million, meaning Hispanic people make up almost a fifth of the total population. according to census estimates.

Anne-Marie Núñez, executive director of the Natalicio Institute for Hispanic Student Success at the University of Texas, El Paso, said the executive order is just one step toward better-serving students at HSIs which, like HBCUs and tribal colleges, are under-resourced and lack infrastructure .

Both Núñez and Flores said the 21-member advisory board should include Hispanic leaders from various sectors. Núñez said it is important that the rural universities and the Puerto Rican community, which is often overlooked at the federal level, is not forgotten when selections happen.

“This is a positive development, not just for HSIs but for the nation,” Núñez said. “If this order is implemented well, it should broaden opportunities for HSI students and faculty to create career pathways and to advance economic and societal well-being.”

Melissa Camacho, who is studying business administration at the City College of San Francisco, said she thinks resources are lacking for Hispanic students who aren’t native English speakers. Even at the Mission Center, a satellite campus of her college where most students are Hispanic and Spanish speakers, some information about support programs is printed or offered in English only, she said.

“In reality, the majority of students do not know what opportunities exist,” Camacho said. “The support is there, they just don’t tell us.”

Camacho did find a program that helps students navigate the process of transferring to a four-year university, as well as a student-run club for that helps native Spanish speakers navigate class registration, financial aid and relevant government policy changes.

“There are a lot of students like me who want to continue their education, but we do not have the information and we get discouraged,” said Camacho, who knew little about the new presidential HSI initiative. “If there were more people who told us there are scholarships available, we could show that we want to continue school.”

The Associated Press receives financial support from the Sony Global Social Justice Fund to expand certain coverage areas. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

• Resources Home
• All Publications
• Digital Resources
• The BERA Podcast
• Research Intelligence
• BERA Journals
• Ethics and guidance
• BERA Blog Home
• About the blog
• Blog special issues
• Blog series
• Submission policy
• Opportunities Home
• Awards and Funding
• Communities Home
• Special Interest Groups
• Early Career Researcher Network
• Events Home
• BERA Conference 2024
• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Past Conferences
• BERA Membership

BERA in the news

BERA Announces the 2024 BERA Equality in Education award recipient

The BERA Equality in Education Award recognizes an individual whose work has sought to address wider issues of inequality and discrimination in education.  The nominee’s work will not only have advanced issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in a local and/or national and/or international context, but there will be evidence that this work has contributed towards creating sustainable structural change in systems and structures that perpetuate inequality and discrimination

We are delighted to announce that the BERA Equality in Education Award for 2024 has been awarded to Mrs  Chantelle Haughton . Chantelle Haughton has been a tireless advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion within the educational landscape. Her work has driven meaningful, sustainable structural change and her contributions have had a profound impact, fostering a more inclusive environment where every learner has the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background.

Chantelle Haughton is the Director and Founder of DARPL (Diversity and Anti-Racist Professional Learning). Chantelle is a principal lecturer in Early Years Education at Cardiff Metropolitan University and a National Teaching Fellow. Chantelle chairs the Welsh Government’s Childcare, Early Years, Playwork Governance Group for the Anti-racist Wales Action Plan. Chantelle was chair’s brief and member of the Ministerial Working Group for Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Histories and Cynefin in the Curriculum for Wales. Chantelle is co-chair of the Black Leadership Group Wales, and vice chair of Early Years Network Wales. Chantelle was chair of Black History Wales Management Committee (2020–22) and a former vice chair of BAMEed Wales.

Please join us in congratulating Chantelle Haughton on this well-deserved recognition!

We look forward to seeing the continued influence of Chantelle’s work as it inspires further progress toward a more equitable educational system for all. We are pleased to announce Chantelle will be joining BERA Council from September 2024 as the Wales Representative.

Chantelle will accept her award in person at the BERA Awards Ceremony on 26 Nov 2024. You can register below to attend.

2024 BERA Equality in Education Award Winner

DARPL Founder-Director and Principal Lecturer at Cardiff Metropolitan University

Chantelle Haughton is the Director and Founder of DARPL (Diversity and Anti-Racist Professional Learning). Chantelle is a principal lecturer in Early Years Education at Cardiff Metropolitan University and a National Teaching Fellow. Chantelle...

BERA Insights: In conversation with… Lani Florian, BERA AGM and Awards Ceremony

26 Nov 2024 1:00 pm - 7:00 pm

This event will mark the culmination of BERA's 50th anniversary celebrations alongside our more formal AGM. We will finish with a drinks reception, canapés and the ceremonial cutting of a...

Upcoming event In Person

More related content

News 30 Aug 2024

News 12 Aug 2024

News 2 Aug 2024

News 1 Jul 2024