The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking
PMCID: PMC10445953
PMID: 37645089
Abstract
Background : COVID-19 had a major global impact on education, prompting concerns about its unequal effects and some impetus to reboot equity strategies. Yet, policy processes exhibit major gaps between such expectations and outcomes, and similar inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish how education researchers, drawing on policy concepts and theories, explain and seek to address this problem. Methods : A qualitative systematic review (2020-21), to identify peer reviewed research and commentary articles on education, equity, and policymaking, in specialist and general databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence). We did not apply additional quality measures. We used an immersive and inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how policy theory articles inform it. Results : 140 texts (109 articles included; 31 texts snowballed) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking. Limiting inclusion to English-language produced a bias towards Global North articles. Our comparison with a review of health equity research highlights distinctive elements in education. First, education equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although some countries and international organisations have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique ‘neoliberal’ approaches that dominate policymaking at the expense of ‘social justice’. Third, more studies provide ‘bottom-up’ analysis of ‘implementation gaps’. Fourth, more studies relate inequity to ineffective policymaking to address marginalised groups. Conclusions : Few studies use policy theories to explain policymaking, but there is an education-specific literature performing a similar role. Compared to health research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on technical design issues. There is high certainty that current neoliberal policies are failing, but low certainty about how to challenge them successfully.
Full Text
We present a qualitative systematic review of education equity policy research. The review describes the contested nature and slow progress of education equity agendas, how education research tries to explain it, and how the use of policy process research might help. The reviewed research was published before the global pandemic. However, the impact of COVID-19 is impossible to ignore because it has highlighted and exacerbated education inequity (defined simply as unfair inequalities). New sources include the unequal impact of ‘lockdown’ measures on physical and virtual access to education services (from pre-primary to higher education), often exacerbated by rewritten rules on examinations (
Kippin & Cairney, 2021). The COVID-19 response has also highlighted the socio-economic context where only some populations have the ability to live and learn safely.
This new international experience
could prompt a major reboot of global and domestic education equity initiatives. It is
tempting to assume that high global attention to inequalities will produce a ‘window of opportunity’ for education equity initiatives. However, policymaking research warns against the assumption that major and positive policy change is likely. Further, equity policy research shows that policy processes contribute to a major gap between vague expectations and actual outcomes (
Cairney & St Denny, 2020). Crises could prompt policy choices that
exacerbate the problem. Indeed, the experience of health equity policy is that the COVID-19 response actually
undermined a long-term focus on the social and economic causes of inequalities (
Cairney
).
Therefore, advocates and researchers of education policy reforms need to draw on policymaking research to understand the processes that constrain or facilitate equity-focused initiatives. In particular, we synthesise insights from ‘mainstream’ policy theories to identify three ever-present policymaking dynamics (see
Cairney, 2020: 229–34). First, most policy change is minor, and major policy changes are rare. Second, policymaking is not a rationalist ‘evidence based’ process. Rather, policymakers deal with ‘bounded rationality’ (
Simon, 1976) by seeking ways to ignore almost all information to make choices. Third, they operate in a complex policymaking environment of which they have limited knowledge and control. Without using these insights to underpin analysis, equity policy research may tell an incomplete story of limited progress and address ineffectively the problem it seeks to solve.
We designed this study as a partner to the review of the international health equity strategy
Health in All Policies (HiAP) (
Cairney
) to produce reviews of equity research in different policy sectors. The pursuit of major policy change, to foster more equitable processes and outcomes, is impossible to contain within one sector, and comparison is crucial to our understanding of intersectoral policymaking (explored in
Cairney
). Indeed, the HiAP review reveals a tendency for researchers to use policy theories instrumentally, and superficially, to that end. They seek practical lessons to help advocate more effectively for policy change in multiple policy sectors and improve intersectoral coordination to implement HiAP. As
Cairney
describe, most policy theories were not designed for that purpose. Rather, they are more useful to (1) identify the limits to change in policy and policymaking, then (2) encourage equity advocates to engage with complex political dilemmas rather than seek simple technical fixes to implementation gaps.
The HiAP story is relatively coherent and self-contained, identifying the World Health Organization (WHO) ‘starter’s kit’ and playbook. HiAP research supports that agenda (
Cairney
). In education, initiatives led by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have some comparable elements. However, there are (1) more international players with high influence, including key funders such as the World Bank and agenda setters such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and (2) more important reference points for domestic studies. In particular, US studies are relatively self-contained – examining the connection between federal, state, and local programmes –
and the US model of education equity is a reference point for international studies.
Equity is an ambiguous and contested term. In political systems, actors exercise power to resolve policy ambiguity in their favour: to determine who is responsible for problem definition and who benefits from that definition. This contestation over meaning plays out in different ways in different sectors. The HiAP story contains the same basic treatment of equity as the avoidance of unfair health inequalities caused by ‘social determinants’ such as unequal incomes and wealth, access to high quality education, secure and well-paid jobs, good housing, and safe environments. This approach is part of a political project to challenge a focus on individual lifestyles and healthcare services. Few HiAP studies interrogate this meaning of equity before identifying a moral imperative to pursue it, although most find that policymakers do not share their views (
Cairney
).
In education, the exercise of power is a central feature of research: equity is highly contested, there is no equivalent agreement that all inequalities are unfair, and fewer studies examine the ‘social determinants’ of education inequalities. Far more studies criticise how policymakers (a) ignore ‘social determinants’ and (b) defend a more limited definition of equity as the equal opportunity to access a high-quality public service (the meaning of terms such as ‘quality’ are also contested – see
Ozga
).
Common descriptions of neoliberalism refer to two related factors.
First, policymaking based on a way of thinking that favours individualism and non-state solutions, and therefore prioritises individual over communal or state responsibility, market over state action, and/or quasi-markets for public services (a competition to deliver services, designed and regulated by governments). For example,
Rizvi (2016: 5) describes ‘a mode of thinking that disseminates market values and metrics to every sphere of life and constructs human beings and relations largely in economic terms’. A neoliberal approach to education equity would emphasise individual student motivation, quasi-market incentives such as school vouchers, and limited state spending in favour of private for-profit provision.
Second, giving relative priority to policies to ensure economic growth, with education treated as facilitating a ‘global knowledge economy’ rather than a wider social purpose (
Rizvi & Lingard, 2010: 39–41;
Wiseman & Davidson, 2021: 2–3).
Education studies are more likely to centre race and racism, often using ‘critical policy analysis’ (research to defend marginalised populations when analysing policy problems and proposing solutions). These issues are not
absent in HiAP research (
Baum
;
Bliss
;
Corburn
; see also
D’Ambruoso
;
Selvarajah
). However, the included education studies have a greater focus on
minoritization (the social construction of minority groups, and the rules to treat them in a different way from a dominant majority) and the equity initiatives that – intentionally and unintentionally – fail to address race and racism.
How do these studies describe the ‘mechanisms’ of policy change that are vital to equity strategies (although
Cairney
show that very few studies answer this question)?
We answer that full set of questions elsewhere, in relation to inequalities policies across the EU (
Cairney
). Here, we focus on making sense of the general project in the specific sector of education, To that end, we use a period of immersion to learn from this field, rather than impose too-rigid questions and quality criteria that would limit interdisciplinary and intersectoral dialogue.
First, we initially use a flexible interpretation of Q1 to guide article inclusion. As
Cairney
describe, our reviews set a lower bar for inclusion than comparable studies, based on previous work showing that a wide search parameter and low inclusion bar (in relation to relevance, not quality) does not produce an unmanageable number of articles to read fully. High inclusion helps us to generate a broad narrative of the field, identify a sub-set of the most policy theory-informed articles, and examine how the sub-set enhances that narrative.
Second, we initially searched fewer databases than
Cairney
. This strategy allowed us to use snowballing to generate core references identified by authors of included articles. This process is crucial to researchers relatively new to each discipline, and unsure if the search for particular theories or concepts makes sense. We also searched each database sequentially to use feedback from each search to refine the next and pursue a sense of saturation. Initially, we used the education-specific database Institute of Education Services (ERIC) in 2020 (search ran from 18/10/20 to 20/12/20). We used these search terms: ‘education’, ‘equity’, and ‘policy’, with no additional filters, then searched manually for articles providing one or more references to (a) the ‘policy cycle’ (or a particular stage, such as agenda setting or implementation), (b) a mainstream
policy theory, such as multiple streams, the advocacy coalition framework, punctuated equilibrium theory, or
concept, such as variants of new institutionalism, or (c) critical policy analysis (we used
Cairney, 2020 for a list of mainstream theories and concepts, summarised on
Cairney’s blog; see also
Durnova & Weible, 2020 on mainstream and critical approaches).
We used similar criteria for inclusion as
Cairney
. The article had to be published in a peer reviewed journal in English (research and commentary articles), and provide at least one reference to a conceptual study of policymaking in its bibliography. To prioritise immersion, we erred on the side of inclusion if articles cited education policymaking texts (e.g. rather than the original policy theory source). This focus on articles alone seems more problematic in education, so we used snowballing to identify 31 exemplar texts described as foundational. Education research has its own frames of reference regarding: ‘policy sociology’ (half of the included articles feature Ball, e.g.,
Ball, 1993;
Ball, 1998;
Ball
), policy borrowing (e.g.,
Rizvi & Lingard, 2010;
Steiner-Khamsi, 2006;
Steiner-Khamsi, 2012), policy implementation (e.g.,
Spillane
), and performance management (e.g.,
Ozga
). Most articles describe concepts such as policy transfer without relying on the mainstream policy theory literature (
Cairney, 2020), but, for example,
Rizvi & Lingard (2010) and
Steiner-Khamsi (2012) perform this function.
Third, this initial approach – inclusion, immersion, snowballing – allowed us to establish the often-limited relevance of articles with a trivial reference to policy concepts. We could then pursue a more restrictive approach to subsequent searches: using the same search terms (education*, equit*, policymak*) and no additional filters, but erring towards manual exclusion when the article had a superficial discussion of policymaking. Searches of Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence database (01/06/21 – 02/06/21), Scopus (29/03/21 – 23/04/21), and Web of Science (05/05/21 – 27/05/21), found 26 additional texts before we reached saturation.
Table 1 and
Figure 1 summarise these search results.
Kippin carried out the initial ERIC screening, producing a long list – erring on the side of inclusion – based on the title, abstract, bibliographies, and a manual search to check for the non-trivial use of ‘policymaking’ in the main body of the text. Cairney performed a further inclusion check on the long list, based on a full reading of the article (to extract data as part of the review), referring some articles back to double check for exclusion. Cairney and Kippin double-screened 17 borderline cases during the final eligibility phase (using full-text analysis). In this stage, we excluded 10 borderline cases but included seven that provided a comparable study of policymaking without citing mainstream policy theories. In total, 83 articles are included from ERIC (
Figure 1). The same process yielded three articles (one excluded) from Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence databases, 13 (two) from Scopus, and 10 (two) from Web of Science.
We consolidated this process into fewer categories after learning from the HiAP review –
Cairney
– that too few articles addressed our questions on the ‘mechanisms’ of policy change (Q3), transferable lessons (Q4), or space/ territory (Q5). We also gathered information on three questions whose answers were not conducive to spreadsheet coding:
On what policy concepts and theories do they draw (and cite)? Compared to HiAP, we found (a) a greater focus on critical policy analysis to problematise how policymakers define problems and seek solutions, and (b) almost no equivalent to the instrumental use of policy theories (except
Eng, 2016).
Fifth, we used an inductive qualitative approach to analyse each text, generate themes (Results), and relate them to policy theory insights (Discussion). The rules associated with this method are less prescriptive than with its quantitative equivalent, suggesting that we (a) describe each key judgement (as above), and (b) foster respect for each author’s methods and aims (
Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007: xv). The unusually generous word limits in ORE allow us to devote considerable space to key articles. To that end, in a separate Word document, we produced a (300-400 word) summary of the ‘story’ of each article: identifying its research question, approach, substantive findings, and take-home messages; and, connecting each article to emergent themes, including the contestation to define education equity, and the uneasy balance between centralised and decentralised approaches to policymaking. We condensed and used most summaries to construct a series of thematic findings (Results), then integrated the sub-set of mainstream theory-informed articles with our synthesis of policy theory insights (Discussion).
The complete search protocol is stored on the OSF (
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BYN98) (
Cairney & Kippin, 2021).
Education equity policy is contested, producing multiple competing agendas. Yet, most articles identify a tendency for one approach to dominate in relation to (1) global equity initiatives and (2) the impact of international agendas on domestic policy. Therefore, we first describe the wider international context in which most articles are situated. Throughout, we use a comparison with HiAP (
Cairney
) to note the relative absence of a single equity agenda in education.
On the one hand, as with HiAP, there is a well-established global agenda championed by an UN organisation. UNESCO’s approach to education is often similar to the WHO approach to HiAP (see
Cairney
). Broad comparable aims include:
Treat education as a human right, backed by legal and political obligations (
UNESCO, 2021b).
Foster inclusion and challenge marginalisation ‘on the basis of socially-ascribed or perceived differences, such as by sex, ethnic/social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic condition, ability’ (
UNESCO, 2021a).
Foster gender equality, to address major gaps in access to education (
UNESCO, 2021c).
Boost early education (0–8 years) as the biggest influence on human development and most useful investment (
Marope & Kaga, 2015;
UNESCO, 2021d).
Boost the mutually-reinforcing effect of education and health (
UNESCO, 2021e).
Boost global capacity (
UNESCO, 2021f).
The primary purpose of education: (a) as training for work, as part of an economic ‘human capital’ narrative (supported by ‘donor’ organisations such as the World Bank, and country government organisations such as United States Agency for International Development, USAID); or (b) to foster student emancipation, wellbeing, and life opportunities (supported by education researchers and practitioners) (
Faul, 2014;
Vongalis-Macrow, 2010).
The meaning of ‘education for all’: shifting since 1990 to treating education solely as schooling (and prioritising targets for primary schools), and changing the meaning of ‘for all’, “from encompassing all countries to developing countries only; from ‘all’ to children only; and from being a responsibility of all members of the international community to being a responsibility of governments to their citizens alone” (
Faul, 2014: 13–14;
Gozali
: 36).
Narratives of inclusion: including the UNESCO Salamanca statement on inclusive special needs education, global commitments to education for girls, and some focus on the ‘social determinants’ of learning related to class, race, ethnicity and marginalisation, or the need for multicultural education to challenge racism and xenophobia (
Engsig & Johnstone, 2015;
Faul, 2014: 15;
Lopez, 2017).
Narratives of high ‘quality’ education: including a greater focus on reading and mathematics, with limited support for ‘the role of education in broad social issues and its intrinsic value’ (
Faul, 2014: 16).
As
Faul (2014: 16) describes, approaches to these questions fall into two broad categories:
1. An economic approach supported by performance management (fostered by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and countries such as the US).
It measures learning in relation to test-measured outcomes, facilitated by techniques associated with new public management (NPM), privatization and the mantra of ‘evidence based’ policy.
Klees & Qargha (2014: 324–5) argue that this ‘cheap fix’ approach exacerbates inequalities while pretending to reduce them. The analysis of results is contested in areas such as ‘performance pay for teachers, low-cost private schools, teacher training, conditional cash transfers, and most other studies of impact’ (2014: 329; see also
Tobin
: 583 on large scale assessments).
2.
A human rights and social determinants approach (fostered by UNICEF and UNESCO). A ‘rights-based, social justice argument calls for universal investment in quality education regardless of its impact’ (
Klees & Qargha, 2014: 330). UNICEF (a) supports an approach to address the ‘deeply entrenched structural inequalities and disparities’ which keep ‘children out of school’, but (b) often vaguely, while diluting its language by referring to cost-effectiveness (2014: 326–7; 330–1).
The former approach dominates international policymaking, prioritising literacy and numeracy, and measuring access in narrow ways (e.g., ‘gender parity’ as ‘equal numbers of boys and girls in school’, 2014: 17). The latter receives rhetorical support without being backed by concrete measures (and UNESCO policy statements come with descriptions of limited progress). There is also a tendency towards technocracy, with limited democratic and participatory processes to help define policy (
Klees & Qargha, 2014: 331).
Consequently, narratives of long-term development describe progress in global education, but unequal progress, with a warning against one-size-fits-all approaches to access (
Reimers
).
Klees & Qargha (2014: 321–3) identify a gap between global rhetoric and actual practices regarding Education for All (EFA, which preceded SDG4). The Universal Primary Education (UPE) commitment has existed since the 1960s, but there is no prospect of the equivalent for secondary education (2014: 322), suggesting that: ‘these efforts have not been sufficiently serious’ (2014: 325–6). The gap relates partly to the alleged trade-offs, such as with efficiency or quality, that undermine support for equity (2014: 324). There are also many international organisation initiatives (including USAID on reading skills; World Bank Learning for All, Brookings Institution Global Compact for Learning) and initiatives funded by corporate or philanthropic bodies, each with their own definitions, motivations, and measures (
Tarlau & Moeller, 2020).
This story infuses most comparative studies. For example,
Vaughan’s (2019: 494–6) discussion of financial support for gender-based education equity identifies shifts in focus, including: on women’s rights (up to 1990), equal access to schools (1990–2010), and ‘gender-based violence’ and other social factors that undermine equality (a patchy focus since 2010). A rise in attention has generated new opportunities for women’s rights groups and social movements to influence policy (2019: 500–8), but has not prompted a shift from the dominant economic frames of equity supported by ‘multilaterals, bilateral agencies, national governments and more recently, private sector organisations’ (2019: 494). These organisations measure ‘gender disparities in access, attendance, completion and achievement’, drawing ‘heavily on human capital perspectives concerned with the economic significance of getting girls into school, particularly in terms of poverty reduction’ (2019: 509; 496). This focus on a ‘business case’ for policy minimises attention to the marginalisation of girls within schools and the need to reform systems to ‘properly change how schooling relates to gender inequalities in the labour market, political participation, and levels of violence against women’ (2019: 509–10; 496).
Literature reviews – commissioned by development agencies on ‘developing countries’ – also identify patchy evidence and limited progress (
Kingdon
and
Novelli
are for the UK Department for International Development;
Best
is for Australian Agency for International Development).
Kingdon
‘rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries’ finds that the putative benefits of (neoliberal international donor-driven) education decentralisation ‘do not accrue in practice’, particularly in rural areas (in e.g., Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Indonesia, Ghana) (2014: 2; 28–9).
Best
find that ‘Almost two-thirds of all developing countries have participated in a national, regional or international assessment programme’, but find minimal evidence of their impact.
Novelli
describe the amplification of problems in ‘conflict affected contexts’, where security actors overshadow humanitarian actors and education specialists are marginalised. In that context, global agendas on access to school have a ‘one size fits all’ feel (e.g., Nepal), the prioritisation of post-conflict economic growth and education efficiency/ decentralization often exacerbates material and educational inequalities (e.g., El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras), a focus on equity in relation to citizenship often distracts from inequitable allocations of resources (e.g., Sri Lanka), and the insistence on free primary education obliges large private sector expansion (e.g., Rwanda).
Many organisations seek to measure and promote improved performance in education systems and schools as the main vehicle for equity. The OECD is particularly influential (
Grek, 2009: 24;
Grek, 2020;
Rizvi & Lingard, 2010: 128–36). It has a wide remit, engaging with multiple definitions of equity and ways to achieve it, despite being associated with a focus on education system performance management via international testing programmes such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). Key reports describe education equity in relation to human rights and socio-economic factors; education is a basic necessity that boosts health, wellbeing, citizenship, and economies (
Field
: 11; 33;
OECD, 2008: 1). The OECD (
OECD (2008);
OECD (2012); (
Field
: 11; 31, drawing on
Levin, 2003) relates equity to:
Fairness (social background should not obstruct education potential),
inclusion (everyone should reach a minimum standard), and
opportunity (to receive education and succeed at school) (
OECD, 2008: 2).
The imperative to address unfair inequalities. There remains a gap between ambitions and outcomes, and major inequalities of attainment endure in relation to poverty, migration, and minoritization (
Field
: 3;
OECD, 2008: 2).
Costs. Inequalities have individual costs (relating to income, citizenship, and the ability to learn) and social costs (including economic stagnation and public service costs) (
OECD, 2012: 3;
Field
: 33).
It also sets international policy agendas, identifying the ability of (a)
good school performance, and (b) the
distribution of education spending (in favour of early years over higher education) to mitigate against socio-economic inequality (
Field
: 22; 39;
OECD, 2012: 9; 3;
OECD, 2008: 2; 6–7;
OECD, 2015: 1–2).
Overall, the OECD relates inequitable outcomes to ‘deprived backgrounds’ and ‘weak schooling’ (
Field
: 26). It recognises the ‘lack of fairness’ caused by the unequal impact of ‘socio-economic background’ on school completion and attainment (2012: 9), and has
some HiAP-style emphasis on cross-sectoral working and supportive social security: ‘education policies need to be aligned with other government policies, such as housing or welfare, to ensure student success’ (2012: 10). However, it does not share with HiAP the sense that all unequal outcomes are unfair and require state intervention, since some relate to individual motivation and potential (
Levin, 2003: 5, cited in
Field
: 31).
Levin (2003: 8) describes a balance between ‘equality of opportunity’ and equitable outcomes in skills attainment and employability. Nor do they support the HiAP focus on ‘upstream’ whole-population measures (
Cairney
). Rather, equity is the fair distribution of good education services, on the expectation that education can largely solve inequities relating to a minimum threshold of attainment (
Field
: 26). This focus on ‘helping those at the bottom move up’ is ‘workable from the standpoint of policy’ (
Field
: 31; 46–51;
Levin, 2003: 5).
Foster the equitable distribution of budgets. Prioritise funding for high quality early education, free or reduced-fee education, and reducing regional disparities (
Field
: 23; 122–6;
OECD, 2012: 3–11; 117–8;
OECD, 2008: 5;
OECD, 2015).
Foster multiculturalism and antiracism. Foster a ‘multicultural curriculum’ and improve support such as ‘language training’ for immigrant students (
Field
: 150–1;
OECD, 2008: 2). Challenge the disproportionate streaming of ‘minority groups’ into special education (2007: 20).
Reform school practices. Make evidence-informed choices to address equity and ‘avoid system level policies conducive to school and student failure’ (
OECD, 2012: 10).
For example, first,
repeating a school year is ineffective and exacerbates inequalities (
Field
: 16–18;
OECD, 2008: 4–5). Second, early
tracking and selection (assigning students to different classes based on actual or expected attainment) exacerbates inequalities without improving overall performance (2008: 4; 2012: 11). Poor selection practices reduce the quality of education and ‘peer-group’ effects, increase stigma, and are based on unreliable indicators of future potential (
Field
: 59). Third,
parental choice on where to send their children can exacerbate inequalities related to demand (e.g., some have more resources to gather information and to pay for transport) and supply (e.g., the discriminatory rules for entry) (2008: 3;
Field
: 15; 62–4; see also
Heilbronn, 2016).
Seek effective school governance to ‘
help disadvantaged schools and students improve’ (
OECD, 2012: 11). Develop capacity in school leadership, provide ‘adequate financial and career incentives to attract and retain high quality teachers in disadvantaged schools’ (2012: 12), reject the idea that ‘disadvantaged schools and students’ should have lower expectations for attainment (2012: 12), and take more care to foster links with parents and communities to address unequal parental participation (2012: 12). (
Field
: 19;
OECD, 2012: 11–12;
OECD, 2008: 5).
Avoid the inequitable consequences of performance management and league tables. Measurement and targets can be useful to identify (a) unequal early-dropout rates and rates of attainment at school leaving age, and (b) school performance in reducing inequalities (
OECD, 2008: 7). However, the publication of crude league tables of schools exacerbates uninformed debate (2008: 7;
Field
: 131).
While UNESCO is not
absent from our review, the majority of articles identified in this review are country studies that engage with reference points associated with the World Bank (neoliberal policy and policymaking) and OECD (performance management). Governments tend to describe reforms to improve equity via (a) access to higher quality schooling and (b) reaching a minimum attainment threshold on leaving school. They respond to the pressures associated with international league tables that compare performance by country and compare school performance within each country (using measures such as PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) –
Grek, 2009: 27;
Schuelka, 2013).
Consequently, equity policies focusing on social determinants, social justice, and inclusion, struggle to compete. They are overshadowed by more politically salient debates on the relationship between economic growth/ competitiveness and education, including the idea that we can quantify the relative performance of each country’s education system and use the data to improve each system (
Grek, 2009: 27;
Rizvi & Lingard, 2010: 133–6). Almost all of these policies shelter under the umbrella term ‘equity’.
The included articles discuss a wide range of equity-related issues, in relation to: mixed-sex schools (
Zufiaurre
), the proportion of girls in education or work (
Ham
;
Yazan, 2014), the representativeness of school leaders or parental involvement in relation to ‘race, gender, ethnicity, and social class’ (
Bertrand
;
Marshall & McCarthy, 2002: 498;
Porras, 2019), language training for immigrant populations (
Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016: 367;
Hara, 2017), the inclusion of the ‘Roma minority in Europe’ (
Alexiadou, 2019: 422), the fairness of teacher grading (
Novak & Carlbaum, 2017), school behavioural and expulsion measures (
Welsh & Little, 2018), access to health and physical education (
Penney, 2017), challenges to sex discrimination (
Meyer
) or heteronormative schooling (
Leonardi, 2017), and encouraging equal access to vocational, further and higher education in relation to race, gender, socio-economic status or spatial justice, such as by developing regional college provision (
Gill & Tranter, 2014: 279;
Pinheiro
) or encouraging ‘student voice’ (
Angus
). They describe initiatives that focus narrowly on school access and teaching ‘quality’ (
DeBray
;
Donaldson
;
Hanna & Gimbert, 2011;
Louis
), human rights to preschool education (
Mtahabwa, 2010), or the distribution of scarce resources (
De Lisle, 2012;
Spreen & Vally, 2010).
However, most articles contribute to two themes. The first is the distinction between equity as ‘horizontal’ (treat equally-resourced people equally) or ‘vertical’ (treat unequally-resourced people unequally) in relation to access to opportunities, processes, or outcomes (
Gilead, 2019: 439;
Rodriguez, 2004). Policy actors identify how reasonable it is for the state to intervene directly, or foster individual motivation backed by market driven measures to drive up school quality.
Gilead (2019: 439) compares three common ways to describe equitable resource allocation, noting that the first two seem inadequate while the third receives inadequate support:
US studies treat equity as an often used but ill-defined and contested term. Ambiguity makes it difficult to clarify the implications for policy, and the intentional or unintentional lack of clarity exacerbates inequalities (
Bulkley, 2013;
Chu, 2019). Contestation relates to horizontal versus vertical definitions:
‘Horizontal equity is concerned with providing equal treatment and provisions to all schools and students whereas vertical equity is concerned with ensuring that students with greatest needs or in disadvantaged conditions will receive more resources … The horizontal perspective of equity is similar to … a “thin” equity that prioritizes individuals’ equal access to educational resources and opportunities. In contrast, a “strong” equity recognizes the historical, socioeconomic, and racial inequities in education and calls for a structural, transformative approach to stop and uproot inequity’ (
Chu, 2019: 5, citing Cochran-Smith
et al., 2017; see also
Halverson & Plecki, 2015)
This distinction helps identify a spectrum of support for government intervention: ensuring procedural fairness in schools while assuming a meritocracy; redressing inequalities to encourage fairer competition; and, redistributing educational resources to ensure that no one dips below a performance threshold (
Bulkley, 2013: 11;
Kornhaber
).
Bulkley’s (2013: 10) interviews of education researchers, advocates, and practitioners highlight disagreement on:
How to set expectations for equity of outcomes: Debates on the appropriate outcomes in relation to attainment – ‘equity as equal outcomes, equity as meeting a threshold, and equity as making progress’ – include a threshold to allow social, economic, and political participation, plus a judgement on how much equalization of achievement is possible or desirable (
Bulkley, 2013: 12; 18). Outcomes can refer to reducing gaps in attainment or the link between attainment and employment. Thresholds include graduating high school or being college-ready.
One way to address this ambiguity is to exercise power – via professional discourse and political processes – to resolve contestation in favour of one definition. However,
Chu (2019: 3) finds that state governments define equity vaguely. There is
some government action to set expectations, but many are clarified in practice. This lack of care to define a social justice-oriented agenda minimises the challenge to individualist notions of education built on neoliberalism, market mechanisms, and performance management (
Bishop & Noguera, 2019;
Evans, 2009;
Hemmer
;
Horn, 2018;
Lenhoff, 2020;
Trujillo, 2012;
Turner & Spain, 2020).
Australian studies critique a tendency to connect (a) giving ‘everyone a chance at the same outcomes’ regardless of wealth or culture, to (b) access to schooling, rather than (c) the social determinants of unequal outcomes (
Loughland & Thompson, 2015;
Taylor, 2004: 440). The wider context is a highly stratified society exacerbated by private versus public education: disadvantaged students go to state schools while others go to the better funded and performing private sector, with fee-paying schools also subsidised by the federal government (
Loughland & Sriprakash, 2016: 238;
Morsy
: 446). The education system is designed to encourage unequal outcomes via competition and performance management.
Loughland & Sriprakash (2016: 238) describe a PISA-driven agenda which contributes to ‘a performative framework for equity’ conflating ‘quality and equity’ (2016: 238).
In other words, policymakers
pretend that the highest quality education is available to all (
Clarke, 2012: 184). Federal government descriptions of a ‘sector-blind’ policy, funding all schools, avoids discussing redistribution to address disparities in social background and achievement, linking education to individual success and economic competitiveness rather than collective wellbeing (
Taylor, 2004).
Morsy
describe a strategy to depoliticise education equity to maintain inequalities of power and outcomes: (1) emphasising governmental neutrality, the technical aspects of policy, and the value of market mechanisms; (2) prioritising individual effort and success; and (3) describing the welfare state as political and markets as natural. Overall, equity is about competition and performance, not social inclusion (2016: 239–40). This approach exemplifies an international tendency to use performance measures and league tables to describe education inequalities as natural, fostering the ‘stigma of failure at institutional and individual levels’ that exacerbates wider social inequalities (
Power & Frandji, 2010: 394, describing England and France).
In that context, we can only make sense of the overall impact of equity agendas by relating them to the more-supported policies that exacerbate inequalities in practice. In particular,
Reid (2017) shows how the neglect of spatial injustice exacerbates the racial and ethnic inequalities that Australian governments allegedly seek to reduce: there is lack of access to high quality schooling in rural areas, which have relatively high Indigenous populations. There has been a “national emphasis since 2007 on ‘closing the gap’ in education, health and economic outcomes for Indigenous Australians”, with ‘education policy aimed at raising educational attainment by improving early education programs, preschool attendance, improving primary schooling, and providing financial incentives to attract experienced and successful teachers to the most disadvantaged schools’ (2017: 89). However, the wider policy context worsens ‘the effects of dominant sociological issues of race, class, gender and geography’ (2017: 89;
Molla & Gale, 2019).
Gill & Tranter (2014: 291) suggest that policymaker and media agendas exacerbate such problems by drawing incorrect conclusions from data. They describe the perception – derived wrongly from the rise of middle-class women going to university – that girls are more likely than boys to overcome class-based disadvantage. There is a long-term government and media concern about working class boys being marginalised in education – the ‘new’ disadvantaged in relation to ‘retention rates, expulsion and suspension rates, lower levels of literacy and social and cultural outcomes’ – without considering (say) their greater ability to receive the same employment opportunities with fewer qualifications (
Gill, 2005: 108–110; compare with
Martino & Rezai-Rashti, 2013 on Canada). In contrast, gender equity movements focus on the unspoken sources of inequity in relation to gendered roles in public and private, expectations in education and employment, and gendered violence (
Marshall, 2000).
Studies of federal and provincial policies in Canada highlight the lack of practical meaning of ‘equity policy’ rhetoric. Canada exemplifies a contrast between (1) practices that exacerbate inequalities and (2) the vague rhetoric of equity that masks their effects. Practices include fiscal inequalities, where unequal funding for schools from private funds relates inversely to socioeconomic need (
Winton, 2018); some districts are relatively able to raise revenue in the market and use it to improve schools in that district (2009: 160). A government commitment to equity of achievement – in relation to class, race, and gender – remains unconnected to finance and geography.
Further, equity policies related to anti-racism and multiculturalism are diluted by other agendas.
George
identify in British Columbia and Ontario a tendency for policy documents to describe individual rather than structural determinants of racism.
Paquette (2001) describes failed bids in British Columbia to produce policies that reduce inequalities in relation to race, ethnicity, gender, and/or disability, in a context of (a) constrained government spending and (b) a commitment to standardised testing to gauge individual and school performance.
Segeren & Kutsyuruba (2012: 2) describe ‘a noticeable retrenchment with respect to equity policies’ in the Ontario Ministry of Education, with equity subsumed ‘under the banner of school safety, discipline, harassment, and bullying’.
Authorities foster symbolic measures to look like they are addressing education inequity (in relation to a threshold of attainment) (
Hamlin & Davies, 2016). For example, Toronto’s global multicultural image helps mask important variations of experience (2016: 189). Further,
Gulson & Webb (2013: 173) connect the ‘underachieving’ of black students in a Toronto district with thwarted attempts to respond, such as proposals for a black-focused curriculum or to set up Afrocentric schools. The governance mechanisms exist to support this proposal, but it has faced intense local opposition (2013: 171).
There is also a tendency towards rhetoric to address the transition to HE that exacerbates inequalities in education ‘on the basis of ethnicity, ability/disability, gender, sexuality, and religion’ (
Tamtik & Guenter, 2019: 41). There is a suite of potential approaches to inequalities, including: to foster inclusion, the value of difference, recognition, and a removal of barriers to education such as discrimination against students and cultural isolation; and, hiring and promoting staff from a wider pool (2019: 43). However, most universities focus on minimum standards of attainment, while few relate fairness to redistributing resources.
In Cyprus, a focus on access to schools, combined with limited school action, fails to address ‘the actual experience of marginalisation, disadvantage or discrimination’ and ‘points to cultural domination, non-recognition and disrespect’ (
Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2014: 159).
In Denmark,
Engsig & Johnstone (2015: 472) identify the contradictions of educational ‘inclusion’ policies with two different aims: (1) social inclusion and student experience (the UNESCO model, adapting to students), and (2) mainstreaming in public education coupled with an increased focus on excellence and quality, via high stakes student testing to meet targets (the US model, requiring students to adapt).
In Sweden and Norway,
Pettersson
describe the strategies favouring a neoliberal focus on equal access. In Sweden, it contributed to school choice agendas that increased segregation (
Varjo
: 482–3). A comparison with Finland suggests that such measures can still be highly regulated by government (2018: 489–92).
In Chile, advocates for markets argue that they increase access, for disadvantaged students, to high quality schools (
Zancajo, 2019). However, empirical evidence highlights the opposite. Socioeconomic status influences the ability and willingness to exploit school choice, while private school selection practices maintain segregation (2019: 3).
Verger
review of public private partnerships (PPP) suggests that Chile’s results are generalisable: ‘PPPs generate a trade-off among social equity and academic achievement. Thus, if the aim of educational policy is to promote inclusion and equity, the implementation of most of the PPP programmes analysed in this paper would not be advisable’ (2020: 298).
Eng (2016: 676–7) highlights the major disconnect between: (1) research showing that social determinants are more important to attainment than school performance; and, (2) the US public and policymaker tendency to see this issue in terms of individual merit and school or teacher performance.
Eng’s (2016: 683–6) recommendation is to emphasise the benefits of a ‘systems approach’ and ‘collective action’ to counter ‘individualistic thinking’.
More generally, research recommendations include to: avoid narrow definitions of equity associated with school performance and testing; foster more inclusive and deliberative dialogue between school leaders, teachers, and communities to co-produce meanings of equity; recognise how multiple forms of inequality and marginalisation reinforce each other; ‘treat race as an urgent marginalising factor’ and gather specific data to measure racialised outcomes (
George
) rather than hiding behind ‘colour blind’ or ‘race neutral’ strategies (
Felix & Trinidad, 2020;
Li, 2019;
McDermott
); and, provide proper resources to address sex discrimination (
Meyer
).
In that context,
Thorius & Maxcy (2015: 118) describe ‘six transformational goals’ for ‘equity-minded policy’: ‘(a) equitable development and distribution of resources, (b) shared governance and decision making, (c) robust infrastructure (e.g., efficient use of space and time), (d) strong relationships with families and community members, (e) cultures of continuous improvement, and (f) explicit emphases on equity’. Multiple studies use such goals to set standards for policy reforms.
Finland has an international reputation for pursuing equity via lifelong learning and a comprehensive schooling system, supported by a Nordic welfare state (
Grek, 2009: 28; 33;
Lingard, 2010: 139–40;
Niemi & Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015). Equity means ‘minimising the influence of social class, gender, or ethnicity on educational outcomes’ while making sure that everyone achieves a
threshold of basic education and skills via:
resistance to neoliberal, market-based reforms that foster individualism and competition (
Chong, 2018: 502–5).
Consequently, it has enjoyed high praise from: the OECD for minimising the number of people leaving school without adequate skills (
Field
: 26),
and researchers who welcome a focus on social determinants (although the focus on a threshold contrasts with HiAP –
Cairney
).
Farley
examine how ‘leadership standards … represent evolving conceptions of equity and justice’. The context is a drive in the US for schools led by ‘equity-oriented change agents’ (2019: 4). It is undermined by a tendency for equity and justice to be defined in different ways in professional standards and training, with too few connections to social justice research and too many individualist conceptions of achievement gaps (2019: 9). Problems of inequity are ‘wicked’ and ‘relentless’, and not amenable to simplistic solutions based on ‘equal access to resources, curriculum, or opportunities’ (2019: 15). Rather,
Farley
laud
Ladson-Billings’ (2008);
Ladson-Billings’ (2013) idea of an ‘education debt’ in which all members of society should consider their contribution to inequalities and challenge the sense that the ‘attainment gap’ is inevitable (see also
Horn, 2018: 387). They seek
recognition approaches that ‘characterize injustice as both structural and as an inherent failure of society to recognize and respect social groups’, including ‘the way that individual actors can oppress groups via exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence’ (
Farley
: 10):
Similarly,
Feldman & Winchester (2015: 69–71) distinguish between (a) the limited-impact formal measures that establish legal rights, and (b) policy designs grounded in practice and continuous discussion – ‘courageous conversations’- over many years. Crucially, policy does not have a settled definition. Equity is to be negotiated in practice as part of an inclusive approach to policymaking, backed by the commitment of school districts to ‘owning past inequity, including highlighting inequities in system and culture’ and ‘foregrounding equity, including increasing availability and transparency of data’ (
Rorrer
: 328).
Felix & Fernandez Castro (2018: 1) examine the Student Equity Plans that Californian community colleges are obliged to produce, to identify how they operationalise equity. This focus is significant since there is highly unequal access to elite universities in favour of white populations (
Baker, 2019), and public and private research universities spend double per student than community colleges (
Felix & Fernandez Castro, 2018: 3). The latter ‘enrol a larger proportion of low-income, first-generation, and racially minoritized students [70% of students of colour]… a disproportionate number of students who have faced constant disadvantage and inequality throughout their educational trajectory’ (2018: 3), and their dropout rates are far higher (2018: 3–4).
In that context, are colleges race-conscious, and do they hold practitioners and institutions – rather than students – responsible for the pursuit of equitable outcomes? Few (28/178) plans ‘explicitly targeted Black and Latinx students with culturally relevant, data-driven, evidence-based strategies’, partly because funding incentives for equity plans only appeared in 2014 (2018: 2) and because California rejected (via general election ballot) ‘affirmative action’ policies (
Baker, 2019;
Felix & Trinidad, 2020: 466). Instead, there is a tendency to produce ‘equity for all’ messages to address disadvantaged groups related to ‘race/ethnicity, gender, veteran status, foster youth, socioeconomic status, and ability status’ (
Felix & Fernandez Castro, 2018: 7–9; 24). This outcome relates strongly to ‘interest convergence’: when white people only agree to policies benefiting racialised minorities if they too benefit (
Felix & Trinidad, 2020: 470). Or, schemes have a faulty logic, such as the ill-fated financial incentive to complete 100 hours of community work ($4,000 towards college tuition) which supports the relatively affluent students who can afford to work without pay (
Wells & Lynch, 2014)
Similarly,
McDermott
use US case studies of ‘student assignment policy’ to show that ‘race-neutral policies seem to generate the opposite dynamic’. The context is of historic problems with desegregation policies designed to address the unequal quality of schools available to white and black students. They prompted a trend towards ‘race-neutral politics’, focusing on addressing socio-economic issues rather than race, to make policy changes less vulnerable to legal and political challenge by the white majority. Policy helps to reduce overt bigotry but also hide and exacerbate racialised disparities because: (a) a focus on less-advantaged and needier students allows white parents to oppose their inclusion without referring to race, (b) people can oppose ‘busing’ children to school with reference to cost, and (c) people seeking ‘enclave’ schools can refer to the common sense of neighbourhood schools rather than keeping out black children (2015: 541–3).
Multiple studies highlight measures taken in the name of equity which fail to reduce inequalities. In New Zealand, removing HE fees without addressing inequalities of debt or ability to attend, while providing superficial support to tailor schooling to Maori culture, produces the veneer of equity but unequal outcomes (
Barker & Wood, 2019). In many sub-Saharan African states, unequal access to high quality HE is exacerbated by multiple and intersecting sources of disadvantage and marginalisation, despite the pursuit of equity initiatives by UNESCO, the World Bank, the African Union, the African Development Bank, and the Association of African Universities (
Singh, 2011).
Some studies draw on
Sen (1999);
Sen (2009) and
Nussbaum (2000) to highlight a ‘capabilities approach’. It fosters a learning environment more tailored to people’s needs and more able to empower them to learn (
Wahlström, 2014). It incorporates the unequal ability of people to take up opportunities to learn when they are subject to differences in power, culture, and resources.
Molla & Gale (2015: 383) apply this approach to HE ‘revitalization’ in Ethopia, driven by ‘social equity goals’ and ‘knowledge-driven poverty reduction’ (encouraged by the World Bank). They found that equity policies included a commitment to address previous ethnic injustices, targets and resources to enable disadvantaged groups to enrol, lower entry requirements for disadvantaged groups, and expansion from 2 to 32 universities and from 20k to 250k students by 2012 (using the private sector to fund expansion) (2015: 385–6). Yet, ‘the problem of inequality has persisted along the lines of ethnicity, gender, rurality and socio-economic background’ (2015: 383). For example, women represent 26.6% of enrolled undergraduate (20% postgraduate taught, 17% PhD), concentrated in non-STEM subjects, and with higher attrition rates linked strongly to sexual harassment and assault by male teachers and students (2015: 388; compare with
Wadesango
on schools in South Africa). There are also geographical variations in school completion/HE eligibility, and ‘over 70% of students in Ethiopian HE come from families in the top income quartile and from urban areas’ (2015: 387).
Molla & Gale (2015: 383) identify the lack of attention to ‘a deprivation of opportunities and freedom’. A focus on capabilities emphasises the role of education in wellbeing and freedom: the ability to read, write, think, and deliberate contributes to self and external respect and access to further opportunities. It highlights the barriers to that freedom, including ‘structural constraints (embedded in policies, curricula, pedagogical arrangements, social relations and institutional practices) that limit agency freedom and deny social groups recognition and respect’ (
Molla & Gale, 2015: 389–90). Progress requires agency to ‘convert’ resources and opportunities into processes and outcomes: ‘repressive cultural values of society and public policy inactions influence people’s subjective preferences and constrain their real opportunities to choose, and thereby create and sustain inequality’ (2015: 390). This is about the fairness of allocation
and the
relevance of opportunities to each person or group, subject to their levels of repression, poverty, and geography.
Hajisoteriou & Angelides (2020) describe competing definitions of education equity as neoliberal versus social justice, which interact to produce often-contradictory approaches. They describe global policymaking as two-headed: ‘beyond the rise of hyber-liberalism, xenophobia and socio-economic inequity, globalisation has also humanistic and democratic elements” (2020: 282). Globalisation has helped produce ‘global policies of social justice and equity’ as well as increased migration, and ‘may play a substantial role in the development of minority and immigrant rights, while also moving citizenship debates beyond the idea of the nation state’ (2020: 278; 282). There is also a dominant discourse on human capital and global economic competitiveness, combined with NPM techniques:
It extends to the classroom, pressuring teachers “to become classroom ‘technicians’ whose quality is defined in terms of testable content knowledge instead of professional knowledge”, limiting their ability to promote a social justice approach to education as ‘critical thinkers, active professionals and thus agents of change’ (2020: 283;
Klees & Qargha, 2014: 323).
Many country and regional studies make the similar argument that ‘central neoliberal technologies of accountability, competition, privatization, marketization, managerialism, and performativity’ undermine equity initiatives (
Clarke, 2012: 176). However, the effect is not uniform (
Novak & Carlbaum, 2017: 673). There is a spectrum of cases in which neoliberal ideas are dominant or resisted.
For example, neoliberalism is the established order in
the US, and studies suggest that a market-driven narrative undermines a social determinants focus (
Chu, 2019). Further, studies of
Australia and New Zealand present a similar assumption that neoliberal approaches have long dominated education policies.
Clarke (2012: 172) describes a tendency for Australian governments to embrace neoliberal approaches to globalisation, emphasising individualism and markets, and situating education policy and the measurement of a country’s educational performance in that context (2012: 175). A focus on education for the economy dominates, with social justice programmes treated as bolt-ons and band-aids (2012: 176; see also
Angus
: 563;
Loughland & Sriprakash, 2016: 230;
Morsy
;
Taylor, 2004: 439–40). Worryingly low trust in, and respect for, teachers reflects New Zealand’s contradictory ‘neoliberal education policy which has pushed for simultaneous devolution and control, marketisation and competition for more than 30 years’ (
Barker & Wood, 2019: 239).
Canadian experiences are
somewhat different, since
Mindzak (2015: 112) relates the lack of US-style charter schools (run by private boards) to a ‘commitment to equity’ built on ‘an overarching belief in the moral rightness of public systems of education in Canada’, a tendency for more equitable funding for schools (across and within provinces), and a wider commitment to the welfare state. Further, ‘Toronto has rejected many exported reforms from the United States, such as high-stakes standardized examinations, school sanctions for low performance, value-added evaluations of teachers, and charter school and voucher programmes’ (
Hamlin & Davies, 2016: 190). Regional and country studies describe the threat of neoliberalism to a more communitarian history, and the inherent contradictions in Canadian policy rhetoric. Most identify the alleged-but-unfulfilled expectation that market-led initiatives (vouchers and school choice) would reduce education inequalities, some highlight their contribution to the neglect of anti-racist policies, and some describe multiculturalism as a tool of economic policy (e.g.,
Fallon & Paquette, 2009;
Gulson & Webb, 2013;
Martino & Rezai-Rashti, 2013;
Paquette, 2001;
Segeren & Kutsyuruba, 2012;
Winton, 2018).
Similarly, Nordic
discussions describe the threat of neoliberalism to social democratic values built on trust and social capital (and comprehensive non-selective education), but with Scandinavian countries further down the road than Finland (
Chong, 2018: 502).
Engsig & Johnstone (2015: 472) argue that the focus on student higher-stakes testing to aid performance management-driven quality improvement (coupled with a reduction in funding per student) was ‘directly inspired’ by US policy (2015: 472).
Varjo
compare how Finnish and Swedish local education authorities deal with major changes to the Nordic model, combining decentralization, market-based reforms, and some evidence of greater segregation ‘along ethnic and socio-economic lines’ following the introduction of school choice policies. In Finland, decentralization is in the context of the maintenance of comprehensive schooling and no tradition of ‘mandatory national testing … school inspections and school league tables’ (2018: 486). School assessments remain unpublished to prevent media stories of the ‘weakest’ schools (2018: 489).
In contrast, Swedish governments encouraged a larger private sector: 26% of students in 2015 attended government-subsidised private schools, with a marked spread by geography (50% in large cities, 3% in rural areas) and class (55% in highest and 5% in lowest socio-economic decile). They fostered school choice via vouchers for students (although elite schools have long queues) (2018: 486–8). It contributed to a data-led competition between state and private schools (2018: 489). There is also evidence of rural student commutes to cities but not the other way, prompting some rural schools to sell themselves as more welcoming to local immigrant populations (2018: 490–1). The reforms also produced tensions between the
trust in versus
audit of teachers when checking how fairly they grade national student tests (
Novak & Carlbaum, 2017: 673). The choice to introduce an Inspectorate and regrading programme contributed to a government and media narrative on ‘teachers’ assessments as incorrect, unfair and as jeopardizing the credibility of the grading system, thus justifying increased central control and authority over teacher assessments’ (2017: 673;
Wahlström, 2014).
Camphuijsen
identify comparable developments of ‘test-based accountability (TBA)’ in Norway, which previously seemed ‘immune’ to neoliberal agendas since it maintained a social democratic welfare state and comprehensive education system with strict limits on private schools and school choice. Indeed, while an OECD report in 1988 questioned its ability to hold a decentralised school system to account, reforms were largely resisted by ‘key political actors, parliamentarians and the main teacher’s union’ (2020: 5). Things changed following the ‘PISA shock’: poor performances in PISA 2000 and 2003 ruined Norway’s self-image as ‘the best school in the world’, highlighted inequitable outcomes, and showed that 17% of students left school without basic competencies (2020: 7). The reform-push coincided with rising NPM and outcome-based management (encouraged by the OECD). Further, TBA’s longevity was assured when it became all things to all people: an equity measure for some, and for others ‘a means of scapegoating teachers, school leaders and local authorities’ (2020: 12).
In each country, while state spending per capita on education may be crucial, few studies provide detailed and systematic accounts of the role of unequal spending across regions. One exception is
Garritzmann
who produce new ‘data on regional per capita public education spending in 282 regions in 15 OECD countries over two decades (1990–2010)’ to identify a wide range of unequal regional spending. They find that left-wing governments are more likely to increase education spending, at a national level and in regions with significant powers. As such, the countries most conducive to regional government impacts are Canada, the US, Germany, and the UK, followed by all Swiss, most Belgian, and few Italian regions (2021: 20).
There are generally fewer studies of Global South experiences. Most accounts highlight the impact of unequal global power relationships, where a small number of international organisations and Global North countries promote neoliberal global agendas with a major impact on policy in Global South countries. For example,
Spreen & Vally (2010: 429) contrast domestic South African equity initiatives versus the international neoliberal agendas that focus more on economic frames (2010: 429). The initial context was a post-Apartheid period built on hope that a new system would encourage more equity via a focus on rights, boosted by an idealised notion of education and teachers, without considering what it takes to transform policy and outcomes, the implementation challenges, and the path dependence of the old system. When attention shifted to fundamental reforms, policymakers oversaw ‘a careful balancing act between contradictory political imperatives, chiefly social justice and economic development’ (2010: 435–7). There was ‘growing criticism and pressure to increase quality, improve access, equity and accountability’ (2010: 431), prompting policymakers to rely on economic and management experts, not the knowledge of local communities and the vulnerable populations most deserving of government support (2010: 445). While much explanation comes from global economic pressure, and international organisation agendas, this approach was also a choice by domestic policymakers to connect education to economic growth rather than poverty. Like ‘most western countries’, economic crisis also prompted a focus on austerity (2010: 429–30).
Policy studies highlight a strong connection between policy ambiguity and policymaking processes, with the latter commonly described in relation to complex systems or environments that are out of the control of policymakers (
Cairney, 2020). While governments or international organisations may decide how to define equity, they do not have the power to simply turn their definitions into policy outcomes. Outcomes seem to ‘emerge’ from local interactions, often in the absence of central control. Further, since policy is so interconnected, the impact of one agenda can amplify or undermine another (
Cairney
).
The classic way to describe such dynamics is ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ approaches to implementation studies (
Cairney, 2020: 30). In HiAP studies, researchers tend to apply a top-down lens to describe ‘implementation gaps’ (
Cairney
). In education research, local sense-making among ‘street level’ (
Lipsky, 1980) practitioners matters. Studies provide insights on policymaking by treating participants as legitimate policy actors rather than obstacles to delivering a top-down agenda. Nevertheless, there is some debate on the extent to which central or local direction is more conducive to equity.
Chu (2019: 3) describes initiatives over five decades to address ‘equity, or inequity, on the basis of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, able-ness, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status’. Yet, there remain ‘persisting and exacerbating disparities in educational opportunity and outcome between more privileged students and students from marginalized and minoritized groups’.
Chu (2019) relates this gap to vague ambitions and contradictory policies. State governments define equity vaguely in t
Sections
"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-84\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"We present a qualitative systematic review of education equity policy research. The review describes the contested nature and slow progress of education equity agendas, how education research tries to explain it, and how the use of policy process research might help. The reviewed research was published before the global pandemic. However, the impact of COVID-19 is impossible to ignore because it has highlighted and exacerbated education inequity (defined simply as unfair inequalities). New sources include the unequal impact of \\u2018lockdown\\u2019 measures on physical and virtual access to education services (from pre-primary to higher education), often exacerbated by rewritten rules on examinations (\\nKippin & Cairney, 2021). The COVID-19 response has also highlighted the socio-economic context where only some populations have the ability to live and learn safely.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-29\", \"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"This new international experience\\ncould prompt a major reboot of global and domestic education equity initiatives. It is\\ntempting to assume that high global attention to inequalities will produce a \\u2018window of opportunity\\u2019 for education equity initiatives. However, policymaking research warns against the assumption that major and positive policy change is likely. Further, equity policy research shows that policy processes contribute to a major gap between vague expectations and actual outcomes (\\nCairney & St Denny, 2020). Crises could prompt policy choices that\\nexacerbate the problem. Indeed, the experience of health equity policy is that the COVID-19 response actually\\nundermined a long-term focus on the social and economic causes of inequalities (\\nCairney\\n).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-31\", \"ref-159\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Therefore, advocates and researchers of education policy reforms need to draw on policymaking research to understand the processes that constrain or facilitate equity-focused initiatives. In particular, we synthesise insights from \\u2018mainstream\\u2019 policy theories to identify three ever-present policymaking dynamics (see\\nCairney, 2020: 229\\u201334). First, most policy change is minor, and major policy changes are rare. Second, policymaking is not a rationalist \\u2018evidence based\\u2019 process. Rather, policymakers deal with \\u2018bounded rationality\\u2019 (\\nSimon, 1976) by seeking ways to ignore almost all information to make choices. Third, they operate in a complex policymaking environment of which they have limited knowledge and control. Without using these insights to underpin analysis, equity policy research may tell an incomplete story of limited progress and address ineffectively the problem it seeks to solve. \"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\", \"ref-31\", \"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"We designed this study as a partner to the review of the international health equity strategy\\nHealth in All Policies (HiAP) (\\nCairney\\n) to produce reviews of equity research in different policy sectors. The pursuit of major policy change, to foster more equitable processes and outcomes, is impossible to contain within one sector, and comparison is crucial to our understanding of intersectoral policymaking (explored in\\nCairney\\n). Indeed, the HiAP review reveals a tendency for researchers to use policy theories instrumentally, and superficially, to that end. They seek practical lessons to help advocate more effectively for policy change in multiple policy sectors and improve intersectoral coordination to implement HiAP. As\\nCairney\\n describe, most policy theories were not designed for that purpose. Rather, they are more useful to (1) identify the limits to change in policy and policymaking, then (2) encourage equity advocates to engage with complex political dilemmas rather than seek simple technical fixes to implementation gaps.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"The HiAP story is relatively coherent and self-contained, identifying the World Health Organization (WHO) \\u2018starter\\u2019s kit\\u2019 and playbook. HiAP research supports that agenda (\\nCairney\\n). In education, initiatives led by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have some comparable elements. However, there are (1) more international players with high influence, including key funders such as the World Bank and agenda setters such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and (2) more important reference points for domestic studies. In particular, US studies are relatively self-contained - examining the connection between federal, state, and local programmes \\u2013\\nand the US model of education equity is a reference point for international studies.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Equity is an ambiguous and contested term. In political systems, actors exercise power to resolve policy ambiguity in their favour: to determine who is responsible for problem definition and who benefits from that definition. This contestation over meaning plays out in different ways in different sectors. The HiAP story contains the same basic treatment of equity as the avoidance of unfair health inequalities caused by \\u2018social determinants\\u2019 such as unequal incomes and wealth, access to high quality education, secure and well-paid jobs, good housing, and safe environments. This approach is part of a political project to challenge a focus on individual lifestyles and healthcare services. Few HiAP studies interrogate this meaning of equity before identifying a moral imperative to pursue it, although most find that policymakers do not share their views (\\nCairney\\n).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-128\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"In education, the exercise of power is a central feature of research: equity is highly contested, there is no equivalent agreement that all inequalities are unfair, and fewer studies examine the \\u2018social determinants\\u2019 of education inequalities. Far more studies criticise how policymakers (a) ignore \\u2018social determinants\\u2019 and (b) defend a more limited definition of equity as the equal opportunity to access a high-quality public service (the meaning of terms such as \\u2018quality\\u2019 are also contested \\u2013 see\\nOzga\\n).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-143\", \"ref-144\", \"ref-200\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Common descriptions of neoliberalism refer to two related factors.\\nFirst, policymaking based on a way of thinking that favours individualism and non-state solutions, and therefore prioritises individual over communal or state responsibility, market over state action, and/or quasi-markets for public services (a competition to deliver services, designed and regulated by governments). For example,\\nRizvi (2016: 5) describes \\u2018a mode of thinking that disseminates market values and metrics to every sphere of life and constructs human beings and relations largely in economic terms\\u2019. A neoliberal approach to education equity would emphasise individual student motivation, quasi-market incentives such as school vouchers, and limited state spending in favour of private for-profit provision.\\nSecond, giving relative priority to policies to ensure economic growth, with education treated as facilitating a \\u2018global knowledge economy\\u2019 rather than a wider social purpose (\\nRizvi & Lingard, 2010: 39\\u201341;\\nWiseman & Davidson, 2021: 2\\u20133).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-11\", \"ref-19\", \"ref-41\", \"ref-42\", \"ref-156\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Education studies are more likely to centre race and racism, often using \\u2018critical policy analysis\\u2019 (research to defend marginalised populations when analysing policy problems and proposing solutions). These issues are not\\nabsent in HiAP research (\\nBaum\\n;\\nBliss\\n;\\nCorburn\\n; see also\\nD\\u2019Ambruoso\\n;\\nSelvarajah\\n). However, the included education studies have a greater focus on\\nminoritization (the social construction of minority groups, and the rules to treat them in a different way from a dominant majority) and the equity initiatives that \\u2013 intentionally and unintentionally - fail to address race and racism.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"How do these studies describe the \\u2018mechanisms\\u2019 of policy change that are vital to equity strategies (although\\nCairney\\n show that very few studies answer this question)?\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-31\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"We answer that full set of questions elsewhere, in relation to inequalities policies across the EU (\\nCairney\\n). Here, we focus on making sense of the general project in the specific sector of education, To that end, we use a period of immersion to learn from this field, rather than impose too-rigid questions and quality criteria that would limit interdisciplinary and intersectoral dialogue.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"First, we initially use a flexible interpretation of Q1 to guide article inclusion. As\\nCairney\\n describe, our reviews set a lower bar for inclusion than comparable studies, based on previous work showing that a wide search parameter and low inclusion bar (in relation to relevance, not quality) does not produce an unmanageable number of articles to read fully. High inclusion helps us to generate a broad narrative of the field, identify a sub-set of the most policy theory-informed articles, and examine how the sub-set enhances that narrative.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\", \"ref-26\", \"ref-300\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"Second, we initially searched fewer databases than\\nCairney\\n. This strategy allowed us to use snowballing to generate core references identified by authors of included articles. This process is crucial to researchers relatively new to each discipline, and unsure if the search for particular theories or concepts makes sense. We also searched each database sequentially to use feedback from each search to refine the next and pursue a sense of saturation. Initially, we used the education-specific database Institute of Education Services (ERIC) in 2020 (search ran from 18/10/20 to 20/12/20). We used these search terms: \\u2018education\\u2019, \\u2018equity\\u2019, and \\u2018policy\\u2019, with no additional filters, then searched manually for articles providing one or more references to (a) the \\u2018policy cycle\\u2019 (or a particular stage, such as agenda setting or implementation), (b) a mainstream\\npolicy theory, such as multiple streams, the advocacy coalition framework, punctuated equilibrium theory, or\\nconcept, such as variants of new institutionalism, or (c) critical policy analysis (we used\\nCairney, 2020 for a list of mainstream theories and concepts, summarised on\\nCairney\\u2019s blog; see also\\nDurnova & Weible, 2020 on mainstream and critical approaches).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\", \"ref-7\", \"ref-8\", \"ref-9\", \"ref-144\", \"ref-167\", \"ref-168\", \"ref-165\", \"ref-128\", \"ref-26\", \"ref-144\", \"ref-168\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"We used similar criteria for inclusion as\\nCairney\\n. The article had to be published in a peer reviewed journal in English (research and commentary articles), and provide at least one reference to a conceptual study of policymaking in its bibliography. To prioritise immersion, we erred on the side of inclusion if articles cited education policymaking texts (e.g. rather than the original policy theory source). This focus on articles alone seems more problematic in education, so we used snowballing to identify 31 exemplar texts described as foundational. Education research has its own frames of reference regarding: \\u2018policy sociology\\u2019 (half of the included articles feature Ball, e.g.,\\nBall, 1993;\\nBall, 1998;\\nBall\\n), policy borrowing (e.g.,\\nRizvi & Lingard, 2010;\\nSteiner-Khamsi, 2006;\\nSteiner-Khamsi, 2012), policy implementation (e.g.,\\nSpillane\\n), and performance management (e.g.,\\nOzga\\n). Most articles describe concepts such as policy transfer without relying on the mainstream policy theory literature (\\nCairney, 2020), but, for example,\\nRizvi & Lingard (2010) and\\nSteiner-Khamsi (2012) perform this function.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"T1\", \"f1\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"Third, this initial approach \\u2013 inclusion, immersion, snowballing \\u2013 allowed us to establish the often-limited relevance of articles with a trivial reference to policy concepts. We could then pursue a more restrictive approach to subsequent searches: using the same search terms (education*, equit*, policymak*) and no additional filters, but erring towards manual exclusion when the article had a superficial discussion of policymaking. Searches of Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence database (01/06/21 \\u2013 02/06/21), Scopus (29/03/21 \\u2013 23/04/21), and Web of Science (05/05/21 \\u2013 27/05/21), found 26 additional texts before we reached saturation.\\nTable 1 and\\nFigure 1 summarise these search results.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"f1\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"Kippin carried out the initial ERIC screening, producing a long list - erring on the side of inclusion - based on the title, abstract, bibliographies, and a manual search to check for the non-trivial use of \\u2018policymaking\\u2019 in the main body of the text. Cairney performed a further inclusion check on the long list, based on a full reading of the article (to extract data as part of the review), referring some articles back to double check for exclusion. Cairney and Kippin double-screened 17 borderline cases during the final eligibility phase (using full-text analysis). In this stage, we excluded 10 borderline cases but included seven that provided a comparable study of policymaking without citing mainstream policy theories. In total, 83 articles are included from ERIC (\\nFigure 1). The same process yielded three articles (one excluded) from Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence databases, 13 (two) from Scopus, and 10 (two) from Web of Science.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"We consolidated this process into fewer categories after learning from the HiAP review -\\nCairney\\n - that too few articles addressed our questions on the \\u2018mechanisms\\u2019 of policy change (Q3), transferable lessons (Q4), or space/ territory (Q5). We also gathered information on three questions whose answers were not conducive to spreadsheet coding: \"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-48\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"On what policy concepts and theories do they draw (and cite)? Compared to HiAP, we found (a) a greater focus on critical policy analysis to problematise how policymakers define problems and seek solutions, and (b) almost no equivalent to the instrumental use of policy theories (except\\nEng, 2016).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-301\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"Fifth, we used an inductive qualitative approach to analyse each text, generate themes (Results), and relate them to policy theory insights (Discussion). The rules associated with this method are less prescriptive than with its quantitative equivalent, suggesting that we (a) describe each key judgement (as above), and (b) foster respect for each author\\u2019s methods and aims (\\nSandelowski & Barroso, 2007: xv). The unusually generous word limits in ORE allow us to devote considerable space to key articles. To that end, in a separate Word document, we produced a (300-400 word) summary of the \\u2018story\\u2019 of each article: identifying its research question, approach, substantive findings, and take-home messages; and, connecting each article to emergent themes, including the contestation to define education equity, and the uneasy balance between centralised and decentralised approaches to policymaking. We condensed and used most summaries to construct a series of thematic findings (Results), then integrated the sub-set of mainstream theory-informed articles with our synthesis of policy theory insights (Discussion).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-28\"], \"section\": \"Methods\", \"text\": \"The complete search protocol is stored on the OSF (\\nhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BYN98) (\\nCairney & Kippin, 2021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"The policymaking context: how international organisations frame equity\", \"text\": \"Education equity policy is contested, producing multiple competing agendas. Yet, most articles identify a tendency for one approach to dominate in relation to (1) global equity initiatives and (2) the impact of international agendas on domestic policy. Therefore, we first describe the wider international context in which most articles are situated. Throughout, we use a comparison with HiAP (\\nCairney\\n) to note the relative absence of a single equity agenda in education.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"On the one hand, as with HiAP, there is a well-established global agenda championed by an UN organisation. UNESCO\\u2019s approach to education is often similar to the WHO approach to HiAP (see\\nCairney\\n). Broad comparable aims include:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-183\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"Treat education as a human right, backed by legal and political obligations (\\nUNESCO, 2021b).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-182\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"Foster inclusion and challenge marginalisation \\u2018on the basis of socially-ascribed or perceived differences, such as by sex, ethnic/social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic condition, ability\\u2019 (\\nUNESCO, 2021a).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-184\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"Foster gender equality, to address major gaps in access to education (\\nUNESCO, 2021c).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-105\", \"ref-185\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"Boost early education (0\\u20138 years) as the biggest influence on human development and most useful investment (\\nMarope & Kaga, 2015;\\nUNESCO, 2021d).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-186\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"Boost the mutually-reinforcing effect of education and health (\\nUNESCO, 2021e).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-187\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"Boost global capacity (\\nUNESCO, 2021f).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-53\", \"ref-191\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nThe primary purpose of education: (a) as training for work, as part of an economic \\u2018human capital\\u2019 narrative (supported by \\u2018donor\\u2019 organisations such as the World Bank, and country government organisations such as United States Agency for International Development, USAID); or (b) to foster student emancipation, wellbeing, and life opportunities (supported by education researchers and practitioners) (\\nFaul, 2014;\\nVongalis-Macrow, 2010).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-53\", \"ref-65\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nThe meaning of \\u2018education for all\\u2019: shifting since 1990 to treating education solely as schooling (and prioritising targets for primary schools), and changing the meaning of \\u2018for all\\u2019, \\u201cfrom encompassing all countries to developing countries only; from \\u2018all\\u2019 to children only; and from being a responsibility of all members of the international community to being a responsibility of governments to their citizens alone\\u201d (\\nFaul, 2014: 13\\u201314;\\nGozali\\n: 36).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-49\", \"ref-53\", \"ref-101\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nNarratives of inclusion: including the UNESCO Salamanca statement on inclusive special needs education, global commitments to education for girls, and some focus on the \\u2018social determinants\\u2019 of learning related to class, race, ethnicity and marginalisation, or the need for multicultural education to challenge racism and xenophobia (\\nEngsig & Johnstone, 2015;\\nFaul, 2014: 15;\\nLopez, 2017).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-53\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nNarratives of high \\u2018quality\\u2019 education: including a greater focus on reading and mathematics, with limited support for \\u2018the role of education in broad social issues and its intrinsic value\\u2019 (\\nFaul, 2014: 16).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-53\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"As\\nFaul (2014: 16) describes, approaches to these questions fall into two broad categories: \"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-85\", \"ref-177\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"\\n1. An economic approach supported by performance management (fostered by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and countries such as the US).\\nIt measures learning in relation to test-measured outcomes, facilitated by techniques associated with new public management (NPM), privatization and the mantra of \\u2018evidence based\\u2019 policy.\\nKlees & Qargha (2014: 324\\u20135) argue that this \\u2018cheap fix\\u2019 approach exacerbates inequalities while pretending to reduce them. The analysis of results is contested in areas such as \\u2018performance pay for teachers, low-cost private schools, teacher training, conditional cash transfers, and most other studies of impact\\u2019 (2014: 329; see also\\nTobin\\n: 583 on large scale assessments).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-85\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"2.\\nA human rights and social determinants approach (fostered by UNICEF and UNESCO). A \\u2018rights-based, social justice argument calls for universal investment in quality education regardless of its impact\\u2019 (\\nKlees & Qargha, 2014: 330). UNICEF (a) supports an approach to address the \\u2018deeply entrenched structural inequalities and disparities\\u2019 which keep \\u2018children out of school\\u2019, but (b) often vaguely, while diluting its language by referring to cost-effectiveness (2014: 326\\u20137; 330\\u20131).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-85\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"The former approach dominates international policymaking, prioritising literacy and numeracy, and measuring access in narrow ways (e.g., \\u2018gender parity\\u2019 as \\u2018equal numbers of boys and girls in school\\u2019, 2014: 17). The latter receives rhetorical support without being backed by concrete measures (and UNESCO policy statements come with descriptions of limited progress). There is also a tendency towards technocracy, with limited democratic and participatory processes to help define policy (\\nKlees & Qargha, 2014: 331).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-141\", \"ref-85\", \"ref-173\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"Consequently, narratives of long-term development describe progress in global education, but unequal progress, with a warning against one-size-fits-all approaches to access (\\nReimers\\n).\\nKlees & Qargha (2014: 321\\u20133) identify a gap between global rhetoric and actual practices regarding Education for All (EFA, which preceded SDG4). The Universal Primary Education (UPE) commitment has existed since the 1960s, but there is no prospect of the equivalent for secondary education (2014: 322), suggesting that: \\u2018these efforts have not been sufficiently serious\\u2019 (2014: 325\\u20136). The gap relates partly to the alleged trade-offs, such as with efficiency or quality, that undermine support for equity (2014: 324). There are also many international organisation initiatives (including USAID on reading skills; World Bank Learning for All, Brookings Institution Global Compact for Learning) and initiatives funded by corporate or philanthropic bodies, each with their own definitions, motivations, and measures (\\nTarlau & Moeller, 2020).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-189\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"This story infuses most comparative studies. For example,\\nVaughan\\u2019s (2019: 494\\u20136) discussion of financial support for gender-based education equity identifies shifts in focus, including: on women\\u2019s rights (up to 1990), equal access to schools (1990\\u20132010), and \\u2018gender-based violence\\u2019 and other social factors that undermine equality (a patchy focus since 2010). A rise in attention has generated new opportunities for women\\u2019s rights groups and social movements to influence policy (2019: 500\\u20138), but has not prompted a shift from the dominant economic frames of equity supported by \\u2018multilaterals, bilateral agencies, national governments and more recently, private sector organisations\\u2019 (2019: 494). These organisations measure \\u2018gender disparities in access, attendance, completion and achievement\\u2019, drawing \\u2018heavily on human capital perspectives concerned with the economic significance of getting girls into school, particularly in terms of poverty reduction\\u2019 (2019: 509; 496). This focus on a \\u2018business case\\u2019 for policy minimises attention to the marginalisation of girls within schools and the need to reform systems to \\u2018properly change how schooling relates to gender inequalities in the labour market, political participation, and levels of violence against women\\u2019 (2019: 509\\u201310; 496).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-82\", \"ref-121\", \"ref-16\", \"ref-82\", \"ref-16\", \"ref-121\"], \"section\": \"Global equity initiatives\", \"text\": \"Literature reviews - commissioned by development agencies on \\u2018developing countries\\u2019 - also identify patchy evidence and limited progress (\\nKingdon\\n and\\nNovelli\\n are for the UK Department for International Development;\\nBest\\n is for Australian Agency for International Development).\\nKingdon\\n \\u2018rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries\\u2019 finds that the putative benefits of (neoliberal international donor-driven) education decentralisation \\u2018do not accrue in practice\\u2019, particularly in rural areas (in e.g., Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Indonesia, Ghana) (2014: 2; 28\\u20139).\\nBest\\n find that \\u2018Almost two-thirds of all developing countries have participated in a national, regional or international assessment programme\\u2019, but find minimal evidence of their impact.\\nNovelli\\n describe the amplification of problems in \\u2018conflict affected contexts\\u2019, where security actors overshadow humanitarian actors and education specialists are marginalised. In that context, global agendas on access to school have a \\u2018one size fits all\\u2019 feel (e.g., Nepal), the prioritisation of post-conflict economic growth and education efficiency/ decentralization often exacerbates material and educational inequalities (e.g., El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras), a focus on equity in relation to citizenship often distracts from inequitable allocations of resources (e.g., Sri Lanka), and the insistence on free primary education obliges large private sector expansion (e.g., Rwanda).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-66\", \"ref-67\", \"ref-144\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-124\", \"ref-124\", \"ref-125\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-95\"], \"section\": \"International agendas on equity, performance, and quality in education\", \"text\": \"Many organisations seek to measure and promote improved performance in education systems and schools as the main vehicle for equity. The OECD is particularly influential (\\nGrek, 2009: 24;\\nGrek, 2020;\\nRizvi & Lingard, 2010: 128\\u201336). It has a wide remit, engaging with multiple definitions of equity and ways to achieve it, despite being associated with a focus on education system performance management via international testing programmes such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). Key reports describe education equity in relation to human rights and socio-economic factors; education is a basic necessity that boosts health, wellbeing, citizenship, and economies (\\nField\\n: 11; 33;\\nOECD, 2008: 1). The OECD (\\nOECD (2008);\\nOECD (2012); (\\nField\\n: 11; 31, drawing on\\nLevin, 2003) relates equity to:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-124\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nFairness (social background should not obstruct education potential),\\ninclusion (everyone should reach a minimum standard), and\\nopportunity (to receive education and succeed at school) (\\nOECD, 2008: 2).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-124\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nThe imperative to address unfair inequalities. There remains a gap between ambitions and outcomes, and major inequalities of attainment endure in relation to poverty, migration, and minoritization (\\nField\\n: 3;\\nOECD, 2008: 2).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-125\", \"ref-57\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nCosts. Inequalities have individual costs (relating to income, citizenship, and the ability to learn) and social costs (including economic stagnation and public service costs) (\\nOECD, 2012: 3;\\nField\\n: 33).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-125\", \"ref-124\", \"ref-126\"], \"section\": \"International agendas on equity, performance, and quality in education\", \"text\": \"It also sets international policy agendas, identifying the ability of (a)\\ngood school performance, and (b) the\\ndistribution of education spending (in favour of early years over higher education) to mitigate against socio-economic inequality (\\nField\\n: 22; 39;\\nOECD, 2012: 9; 3;\\nOECD, 2008: 2; 6\\u20137;\\nOECD, 2015: 1\\u20132).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-95\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-95\", \"ref-33\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-95\"], \"section\": \"International agendas on equity, performance, and quality in education\", \"text\": \"Overall, the OECD relates inequitable outcomes to \\u2018deprived backgrounds\\u2019 and \\u2018weak schooling\\u2019 (\\nField\\n: 26). It recognises the \\u2018lack of fairness\\u2019 caused by the unequal impact of \\u2018socio-economic background\\u2019 on school completion and attainment (2012: 9), and has\\nsome HiAP-style emphasis on cross-sectoral working and supportive social security: \\u2018education policies need to be aligned with other government policies, such as housing or welfare, to ensure student success\\u2019 (2012: 10). However, it does not share with HiAP the sense that all unequal outcomes are unfair and require state intervention, since some relate to individual motivation and potential (\\nLevin, 2003: 5, cited in\\nField\\n: 31).\\nLevin (2003: 8) describes a balance between \\u2018equality of opportunity\\u2019 and equitable outcomes in skills attainment and employability. Nor do they support the HiAP focus on \\u2018upstream\\u2019 whole-population measures (\\nCairney\\n). Rather, equity is the fair distribution of good education services, on the expectation that education can largely solve inequities relating to a minimum threshold of attainment (\\nField\\n: 26). This focus on \\u2018helping those at the bottom move up\\u2019 is \\u2018workable from the standpoint of policy\\u2019 (\\nField\\n: 31; 46\\u201351;\\nLevin, 2003: 5).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-125\", \"ref-124\", \"ref-126\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nFoster the equitable distribution of budgets. Prioritise funding for high quality early education, free or reduced-fee education, and reducing regional disparities (\\nField\\n: 23; 122\\u20136;\\nOECD, 2012: 3\\u201311; 117\\u20138;\\nOECD, 2008: 5;\\nOECD, 2015).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-124\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nFoster multiculturalism and antiracism. Foster a \\u2018multicultural curriculum\\u2019 and improve support such as \\u2018language training\\u2019 for immigrant students (\\nField\\n: 150\\u20131;\\nOECD, 2008: 2). Challenge the disproportionate streaming of \\u2018minority groups\\u2019 into special education (2007: 20).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-125\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nReform school practices. Make evidence-informed choices to address equity and \\u2018avoid system level policies conducive to school and student failure\\u2019 (\\nOECD, 2012: 10).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-124\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-76\"], \"section\": \"International agendas on equity, performance, and quality in education\", \"text\": \"For example, first,\\nrepeating a school year is ineffective and exacerbates inequalities (\\nField\\n: 16\\u201318;\\nOECD, 2008: 4\\u20135). Second, early\\ntracking and selection (assigning students to different classes based on actual or expected attainment) exacerbates inequalities without improving overall performance (2008: 4; 2012: 11). Poor selection practices reduce the quality of education and \\u2018peer-group\\u2019 effects, increase stigma, and are based on unreliable indicators of future potential (\\nField\\n: 59). Third,\\nparental choice on where to send their children can exacerbate inequalities related to demand (e.g., some have more resources to gather information and to pay for transport) and supply (e.g., the discriminatory rules for entry) (2008: 3;\\nField\\n: 15; 62\\u20134; see also\\nHeilbronn, 2016).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-125\", \"ref-57\", \"ref-125\", \"ref-124\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nSeek effective school governance to \\u2018\\nhelp disadvantaged schools and students improve\\u2019 (\\nOECD, 2012: 11). Develop capacity in school leadership, provide \\u2018adequate financial and career incentives to attract and retain high quality teachers in disadvantaged schools\\u2019 (2012: 12), reject the idea that \\u2018disadvantaged schools and students\\u2019 should have lower expectations for attainment (2012: 12), and take more care to foster links with parents and communities to address unequal parental participation (2012: 12). (\\nField\\n: 19;\\nOECD, 2012: 11\\u201312;\\nOECD, 2008: 5).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-124\", \"ref-57\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nAvoid the inequitable consequences of performance management and league tables. Measurement and targets can be useful to identify (a) unequal early-dropout rates and rates of attainment at school leaving age, and (b) school performance in reducing inequalities (\\nOECD, 2008: 7). However, the publication of crude league tables of schools exacerbates uninformed debate (2008: 7;\\nField\\n: 131).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-66\", \"ref-154\"], \"section\": \"The overall international context for our review of education equity policy\", \"text\": \"While UNESCO is not\\nabsent from our review, the majority of articles identified in this review are country studies that engage with reference points associated with the World Bank (neoliberal policy and policymaking) and OECD (performance management). Governments tend to describe reforms to improve equity via (a) access to higher quality schooling and (b) reaching a minimum attainment threshold on leaving school. They respond to the pressures associated with international league tables that compare performance by country and compare school performance within each country (using measures such as PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) \\u2013\\nGrek, 2009: 27;\\nSchuelka, 2013).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-66\", \"ref-144\"], \"section\": \"The overall international context for our review of education equity policy\", \"text\": \"Consequently, equity policies focusing on social determinants, social justice, and inclusion, struggle to compete. They are overshadowed by more politically salient debates on the relationship between economic growth/ competitiveness and education, including the idea that we can quantify the relative performance of each country\\u2019s education system and use the data to improve each system (\\nGrek, 2009: 27;\\nRizvi & Lingard, 2010: 133\\u20136). Almost all of these policies shelter under the umbrella term \\u2018equity\\u2019.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-205\", \"ref-72\", \"ref-202\", \"ref-15\", \"ref-107\", \"ref-137\", \"ref-21\", \"ref-75\", \"ref-1\", \"ref-120\", \"ref-197\", \"ref-133\", \"ref-111\", \"ref-94\", \"ref-62\", \"ref-136\", \"ref-3\", \"ref-44\", \"ref-46\", \"ref-74\", \"ref-104\", \"ref-117\", \"ref-43\", \"ref-166\"], \"section\": \"Policy ambiguity: the competition to define and deliver equity\", \"text\": \"The included articles discuss a wide range of equity-related issues, in relation to: mixed-sex schools (\\nZufiaurre\\n), the proportion of girls in education or work (\\nHam\\n;\\nYazan, 2014), the representativeness of school leaders or parental involvement in relation to \\u2018race, gender, ethnicity, and social class\\u2019 (\\nBertrand\\n;\\nMarshall & McCarthy, 2002: 498;\\nPorras, 2019), language training for immigrant populations (\\nBrezicha & Hopkins, 2016: 367;\\nHara, 2017), the inclusion of the \\u2018Roma minority in Europe\\u2019 (\\nAlexiadou, 2019: 422), the fairness of teacher grading (\\nNovak & Carlbaum, 2017), school behavioural and expulsion measures (\\nWelsh & Little, 2018), access to health and physical education (\\nPenney, 2017), challenges to sex discrimination (\\nMeyer\\n) or heteronormative schooling (\\nLeonardi, 2017), and encouraging equal access to vocational, further and higher education in relation to race, gender, socio-economic status or spatial justice, such as by developing regional college provision (\\nGill & Tranter, 2014: 279;\\nPinheiro\\n) or encouraging \\u2018student voice\\u2019 (\\nAngus\\n). They describe initiatives that focus narrowly on school access and teaching \\u2018quality\\u2019 (\\nDeBray\\n;\\nDonaldson\\n;\\nHanna & Gimbert, 2011;\\nLouis\\n), human rights to preschool education (\\nMtahabwa, 2010), or the distribution of scarce resources (\\nDe Lisle, 2012;\\nSpreen & Vally, 2010).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-61\", \"ref-146\", \"ref-61\"], \"section\": \"Policy ambiguity: the competition to define and deliver equity\", \"text\": \"However, most articles contribute to two themes. The first is the distinction between equity as \\u2018horizontal\\u2019 (treat equally-resourced people equally) or \\u2018vertical\\u2019 (treat unequally-resourced people unequally) in relation to access to opportunities, processes, or outcomes (\\nGilead, 2019: 439;\\nRodriguez, 2004). Policy actors identify how reasonable it is for the state to intervene directly, or foster individual motivation backed by market driven measures to drive up school quality.\\nGilead (2019: 439) compares three common ways to describe equitable resource allocation, noting that the first two seem inadequate while the third receives inadequate support:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-22\", \"ref-37\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"\\n\\n US studies treat equity as an often used but ill-defined and contested term. Ambiguity makes it difficult to clarify the implications for policy, and the intentional or unintentional lack of clarity exacerbates inequalities (\\nBulkley, 2013;\\nChu, 2019). Contestation relates to horizontal versus vertical definitions:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-37\", \"ref-71\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\u2018Horizontal equity is concerned with providing equal treatment and provisions to all schools and students whereas vertical equity is concerned with ensuring that students with greatest needs or in disadvantaged conditions will receive more resources \\u2026 The horizontal perspective of equity is similar to \\u2026 a \\u201cthin\\u201d equity that prioritizes individuals\\u2019 equal access to educational resources and opportunities. In contrast, a \\u201cstrong\\u201d equity recognizes the historical, socioeconomic, and racial inequities in education and calls for a structural, transformative approach to stop and uproot inequity\\u2019 (\\nChu, 2019: 5, citing Cochran-Smith\\net al., 2017; see also\\nHalverson & Plecki, 2015)\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-22\", \"ref-87\", \"ref-22\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"This distinction helps identify a spectrum of support for government intervention: ensuring procedural fairness in schools while assuming a meritocracy; redressing inequalities to encourage fairer competition; and, redistributing educational resources to ensure that no one dips below a performance threshold (\\nBulkley, 2013: 11;\\nKornhaber\\n).\\nBulkley\\u2019s (2013: 10) interviews of education researchers, advocates, and practitioners highlight disagreement on:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-22\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nHow to set expectations for equity of outcomes: Debates on the appropriate outcomes in relation to attainment - \\u2018equity as equal outcomes, equity as meeting a threshold, and equity as making progress\\u2019 - include a threshold to allow social, economic, and political participation, plus a judgement on how much equalization of achievement is possible or desirable (\\nBulkley, 2013: 12; 18). Outcomes can refer to reducing gaps in attainment or the link between attainment and employment. Thresholds include graduating high school or being college-ready.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-37\", \"ref-17\", \"ref-50\", \"ref-77\", \"ref-78\", \"ref-93\", \"ref-179\", \"ref-181\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"One way to address this ambiguity is to exercise power \\u2013 via professional discourse and political processes - to resolve contestation in favour of one definition. However,\\nChu (2019: 3) finds that state governments define equity vaguely. There is\\nsome government action to set expectations, but many are clarified in practice. This lack of care to define a social justice-oriented agenda minimises the challenge to individualist notions of education built on neoliberalism, market mechanisms, and performance management (\\nBishop & Noguera, 2019;\\nEvans, 2009;\\nHemmer\\n;\\nHorn, 2018;\\nLenhoff, 2020;\\nTrujillo, 2012;\\nTurner & Spain, 2020).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-103\", \"ref-174\", \"ref-102\", \"ref-116\", \"ref-102\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"\\n\\n Australian studies critique a tendency to connect (a) giving \\u2018everyone a chance at the same outcomes\\u2019 regardless of wealth or culture, to (b) access to schooling, rather than (c) the social determinants of unequal outcomes (\\nLoughland & Thompson, 2015;\\nTaylor, 2004: 440). The wider context is a highly stratified society exacerbated by private versus public education: disadvantaged students go to state schools while others go to the better funded and performing private sector, with fee-paying schools also subsidised by the federal government (\\nLoughland & Sriprakash, 2016: 238;\\nMorsy\\n: 446). The education system is designed to encourage unequal outcomes via competition and performance management.\\nLoughland & Sriprakash (2016: 238) describe a PISA-driven agenda which contributes to \\u2018a performative framework for equity\\u2019 conflating \\u2018quality and equity\\u2019 (2016: 238).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-38\", \"ref-174\", \"ref-116\", \"ref-138\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"In other words, policymakers\\npretend that the highest quality education is available to all (\\nClarke, 2012: 184). Federal government descriptions of a \\u2018sector-blind\\u2019 policy, funding all schools, avoids discussing redistribution to address disparities in social background and achievement, linking education to individual success and economic competitiveness rather than collective wellbeing (\\nTaylor, 2004).\\nMorsy\\n describe a strategy to depoliticise education equity to maintain inequalities of power and outcomes: (1) emphasising governmental neutrality, the technical aspects of policy, and the value of market mechanisms; (2) prioritising individual effort and success; and (3) describing the welfare state as political and markets as natural. Overall, equity is about competition and performance, not social inclusion (2016: 239\\u201340). This approach exemplifies an international tendency to use performance measures and league tables to describe education inequalities as natural, fostering the \\u2018stigma of failure at institutional and individual levels\\u2019 that exacerbates wider social inequalities (\\nPower & Frandji, 2010: 394, describing England and France).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-140\", \"ref-115\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"In that context, we can only make sense of the overall impact of equity agendas by relating them to the more-supported policies that exacerbate inequalities in practice. In particular,\\nReid (2017) shows how the neglect of spatial injustice exacerbates the racial and ethnic inequalities that Australian governments allegedly seek to reduce: there is lack of access to high quality schooling in rural areas, which have relatively high Indigenous populations. There has been a \\u201cnational emphasis since 2007 on \\u2018closing the gap\\u2019 in education, health and economic outcomes for Indigenous Australians\\u201d, with \\u2018education policy aimed at raising educational attainment by improving early education programs, preschool attendance, improving primary schooling, and providing financial incentives to attract experienced and successful teachers to the most disadvantaged schools\\u2019 (2017: 89). However, the wider policy context worsens \\u2018the effects of dominant sociological issues of race, class, gender and geography\\u2019 (2017: 89;\\nMolla & Gale, 2019).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-62\", \"ref-63\", \"ref-108\", \"ref-106\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"\\nGill & Tranter (2014: 291) suggest that policymaker and media agendas exacerbate such problems by drawing incorrect conclusions from data. They describe the perception \\u2013 derived wrongly from the rise of middle-class women going to university \\u2013 that girls are more likely than boys to overcome class-based disadvantage. There is a long-term government and media concern about working class boys being marginalised in education - the \\u2018new\\u2019 disadvantaged in relation to \\u2018retention rates, expulsion and suspension rates, lower levels of literacy and social and cultural outcomes\\u2019 \\u2013 without considering (say) their greater ability to receive the same employment opportunities with fewer qualifications (\\nGill, 2005: 108\\u2013110; compare with\\nMartino & Rezai-Rashti, 2013 on Canada). In contrast, gender equity movements focus on the unspoken sources of inequity in relation to gendered roles in public and private, expectations in education and employment, and gendered violence (\\nMarshall, 2000).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-198\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"\\n\\n Studies of federal and provincial policies in Canada highlight the lack of practical meaning of \\u2018equity policy\\u2019 rhetoric. Canada exemplifies a contrast between (1) practices that exacerbate inequalities and (2) the vague rhetoric of equity that masks their effects. Practices include fiscal inequalities, where unequal funding for schools from private funds relates inversely to socioeconomic need (\\nWinton, 2018); some districts are relatively able to raise revenue in the market and use it to improve schools in that district (2009: 160). A government commitment to equity of achievement \\u2013 in relation to class, race, and gender \\u2013 remains unconnected to finance and geography.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-59\", \"ref-129\", \"ref-155\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"Further, equity policies related to anti-racism and multiculturalism are diluted by other agendas.\\nGeorge\\n identify in British Columbia and Ontario a tendency for policy documents to describe individual rather than structural determinants of racism.\\nPaquette (2001) describes failed bids in British Columbia to produce policies that reduce inequalities in relation to race, ethnicity, gender, and/or disability, in a context of (a) constrained government spending and (b) a commitment to standardised testing to gauge individual and school performance.\\nSegeren & Kutsyuruba (2012: 2) describe \\u2018a noticeable retrenchment with respect to equity policies\\u2019 in the Ontario Ministry of Education, with equity subsumed \\u2018under the banner of school safety, discipline, harassment, and bullying\\u2019.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-73\", \"ref-68\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"Authorities foster symbolic measures to look like they are addressing education inequity (in relation to a threshold of attainment) (\\nHamlin & Davies, 2016). For example, Toronto\\u2019s global multicultural image helps mask important variations of experience (2016: 189). Further,\\nGulson & Webb (2013: 173) connect the \\u2018underachieving\\u2019 of black students in a Toronto district with thwarted attempts to respond, such as proposals for a black-focused curriculum or to set up Afrocentric schools. The governance mechanisms exist to support this proposal, but it has faced intense local opposition (2013: 171).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-172\"], \"section\": \"1. Critiques of dominant definitions in international and domestic agendas\", \"text\": \"There is also a tendency towards rhetoric to address the transition to HE that exacerbates inequalities in education \\u2018on the basis of ethnicity, ability/disability, gender, sexuality, and religion\\u2019 (\\nTamtik & Guenter, 2019: 41). There is a suite of potential approaches to inequalities, including: to foster inclusion, the value of difference, recognition, and a removal of barriers to education such as discrimination against students and cultural isolation; and, hiring and promoting staff from a wider pool (2019: 43). However, most universities focus on minimum standards of attainment, while few relate fairness to redistributing resources.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-69\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"In Cyprus, a focus on access to schools, combined with limited school action, fails to address \\u2018the actual experience of marginalisation, disadvantage or discrimination\\u2019 and \\u2018points to cultural domination, non-recognition and disrespect\\u2019 (\\nHajisoteriou & Angelides, 2014: 159).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-49\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"In Denmark,\\nEngsig & Johnstone (2015: 472) identify the contradictions of educational \\u2018inclusion\\u2019 policies with two different aims: (1) social inclusion and student experience (the UNESCO model, adapting to students), and (2) mainstreaming in public education coupled with an increased focus on excellence and quality, via high stakes student testing to meet targets (the US model, requiring students to adapt).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-134\", \"ref-188\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"In Sweden and Norway,\\nPettersson\\n describe the strategies favouring a neoliberal focus on equal access. In Sweden, it contributed to school choice agendas that increased segregation (\\nVarjo\\n: 482\\u20133). A comparison with Finland suggests that such measures can still be highly regulated by government (2018: 489\\u201392).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-203\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"In Chile, advocates for markets argue that they increase access, for disadvantaged students, to high quality schools (\\nZancajo, 2019). However, empirical evidence highlights the opposite. Socioeconomic status influences the ability and willingness to exploit school choice, while private school selection practices maintain segregation (2019: 3).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-190\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"\\nVerger\\n review of public private partnerships (PPP) suggests that Chile\\u2019s results are generalisable: \\u2018PPPs generate a trade-off among social equity and academic achievement. Thus, if the aim of educational policy is to promote inclusion and equity, the implementation of most of the PPP programmes analysed in this paper would not be advisable\\u2019 (2020: 298). \"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-48\", \"ref-48\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"\\nEng (2016: 676\\u20137) highlights the major disconnect between: (1) research showing that social determinants are more important to attainment than school performance; and, (2) the US public and policymaker tendency to see this issue in terms of individual merit and school or teacher performance.\\nEng\\u2019s (2016: 683\\u20136) recommendation is to emphasise the benefits of a \\u2018systems approach\\u2019 and \\u2018collective action\\u2019 to counter \\u2018individualistic thinking\\u2019.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-59\", \"ref-56\", \"ref-96\", \"ref-109\", \"ref-111\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"More generally, research recommendations include to: avoid narrow definitions of equity associated with school performance and testing; foster more inclusive and deliberative dialogue between school leaders, teachers, and communities to co-produce meanings of equity; recognise how multiple forms of inequality and marginalisation reinforce each other; \\u2018treat race as an urgent marginalising factor\\u2019 and gather specific data to measure racialised outcomes (\\nGeorge\\n) rather than hiding behind \\u2018colour blind\\u2019 or \\u2018race neutral\\u2019 strategies (\\nFelix & Trinidad, 2020;\\nLi, 2019;\\nMcDermott\\n); and, provide proper resources to address sex discrimination (\\nMeyer\\n).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-176\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"In that context,\\nThorius & Maxcy (2015: 118) describe \\u2018six transformational goals\\u2019 for \\u2018equity-minded policy\\u2019: \\u2018(a) equitable development and distribution of resources, (b) shared governance and decision making, (c) robust infrastructure (e.g., efficient use of space and time), (d) strong relationships with families and community members, (e) cultures of continuous improvement, and (f) explicit emphases on equity\\u2019. Multiple studies use such goals to set standards for policy reforms.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-66\", \"ref-98\", \"ref-119\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"\\n\\n Finland has an international reputation for pursuing equity via lifelong learning and a comprehensive schooling system, supported by a Nordic welfare state (\\nGrek, 2009: 28; 33;\\nLingard, 2010: 139\\u201340;\\nNiemi & Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015). Equity means \\u2018minimising the influence of social class, gender, or ethnicity on educational outcomes\\u2019 while making sure that everyone achieves a\\nthreshold of basic education and skills via:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-36\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \" resistance to neoliberal, market-based reforms that foster individualism and competition (\\nChong, 2018: 502\\u20135).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-57\", \"ref-33\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"Consequently, it has enjoyed high praise from: the OECD for minimising the number of people leaving school without adequate skills (\\nField\\n: 26),\\nand researchers who welcome a focus on social determinants (although the focus on a threshold contrasts with HiAP -\\nCairney\\n).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-52\", \"ref-52\", \"ref-90\", \"ref-91\", \"ref-78\", \"ref-52\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"\\n\\n\\nFarley\\n examine how \\u2018leadership standards \\u2026 represent evolving conceptions of equity and justice\\u2019. The context is a drive in the US for schools led by \\u2018equity-oriented change agents\\u2019 (2019: 4). It is undermined by a tendency for equity and justice to be defined in different ways in professional standards and training, with too few connections to social justice research and too many individualist conceptions of achievement gaps (2019: 9). Problems of inequity are \\u2018wicked\\u2019 and \\u2018relentless\\u2019, and not amenable to simplistic solutions based on \\u2018equal access to resources, curriculum, or opportunities\\u2019 (2019: 15). Rather,\\nFarley\\n laud\\nLadson-Billings\\u2019 (2008);\\nLadson-Billings\\u2019 (2013) idea of an \\u2018education debt\\u2019 in which all members of society should consider their contribution to inequalities and challenge the sense that the \\u2018attainment gap\\u2019 is inevitable (see also\\nHorn, 2018: 387). They seek\\nrecognition approaches that \\u2018characterize injustice as both structural and as an inherent failure of society to recognize and respect social groups\\u2019, including \\u2018the way that individual actors can oppress groups via exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence\\u2019 (\\nFarley\\n: 10):\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-54\", \"ref-147\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"Similarly,\\nFeldman & Winchester (2015: 69\\u201371) distinguish between (a) the limited-impact formal measures that establish legal rights, and (b) policy designs grounded in practice and continuous discussion - \\u2018courageous conversations\\u2019- over many years. Crucially, policy does not have a settled definition. Equity is to be negotiated in practice as part of an inclusive approach to policymaking, backed by the commitment of school districts to \\u2018owning past inequity, including highlighting inequities in system and culture\\u2019 and \\u2018foregrounding equity, including increasing availability and transparency of data\\u2019 (\\nRorrer\\n: 328).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-55\", \"ref-6\", \"ref-55\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"\\n\\n\\nFelix & Fernandez Castro (2018: 1) examine the Student Equity Plans that Californian community colleges are obliged to produce, to identify how they operationalise equity. This focus is significant since there is highly unequal access to elite universities in favour of white populations (\\nBaker, 2019), and public and private research universities spend double per student than community colleges (\\nFelix & Fernandez Castro, 2018: 3). The latter \\u2018enrol a larger proportion of low-income, first-generation, and racially minoritized students [70% of students of colour]\\u2026 a disproportionate number of students who have faced constant disadvantage and inequality throughout their educational trajectory\\u2019 (2018: 3), and their dropout rates are far higher (2018: 3\\u20134).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10445953\", \"pmid\": \"37645089\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ref-6\", \"ref-56\", \"ref-55\", \"ref-56\", \"ref-196\"], \"section\": \"2. Competing definitions and alternative researcher aspirations\", \"text\": \"In that context, are colleges race-conscious, and do they hold practitioners and institutions - rather than students - responsible for the pursuit of equitable outcomes? Few (28/178) plans \\u2018explicitly targeted Black and Latinx students with culturally relevant, data-driven, evidence-based strategies\\u2019, partly because funding incentives for equity plans only appeared in 2014 (2018: 2) and because California rejected (via general election ballot) \\u2018affirmative action\\u2019 policies (\\nBaker, 2019;\\nFelix & Trinidad, 2020: 466). Instead, there is a tendency to produce \\u2018equity for all\\u2019 messages to address disadvantaged groups related to \\u2018race/ethnicity, gender, veteran status, foster youth, socioeconomic status, and ability status\\u2019 (\\nFelix & Fernandez Castro, 2018: 7\\u20139; 24). This outcome relates strongly to \\u2018interest convergence\\u2019: when white people only agree to policies benefiting racialised minorities if they too benefit (\\nFelix & Trinidad, 2020: 470). Or, schemes have a faulty logic, su
Metadata
"{\"recommendation\": \"approve-with-reservations\"}"