It’s Not Education by Zip Code Anymore – But What is It? Conceptions of Equity under the Common Core

Abstract

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a standards-based reform in which 45 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have agreed to participate. The reform seeks to anchor primary and secondary education across these states in one set of demanding, internationally-benchmarked standards. Thereby, all students will be prepared for further learning and work in a competitive global economy regardless of the sociodemographic variation associated with their “zip code,” that is, the location of their neighborhood or school. This article examines the role and meaning of equity within the Common Core at a level beyond “zip code.” It does so using data from interviews with Common Core policy entrepreneurs and qualitative analysis of interview data. Findings are considered against a conceptual framework of equal, equalizing, and expansive views of equity. The findings indicate that policy entrepreneurs hold primarily an equal view of equity, in accord with meritocratic and functional purposes of schooling, more so than equalizing or expansive views. The latter views emphasize compensatory purposes that focus on narrowing achievement gaps. From this analysis, we identify the paradox of equity in education policy: The successful launch of a policy that relies on existing paradigms of standards-based reform and an equal conception of equity helps tether educational outcomes to student background.

Strong Equity: Repositioning Teacher Education for Social Change

“…The first R of strong equity in teacher education/teacher quality is redistribution of resources and opportunities, defined as both providing well-prepared and effective teachers to all schools and students, including those traditionally without access, and redistributing other resources well beyond the education system to those communities. This idea is consistent with Kornhaber, Griffith, and Tyler’s (2014) “expansive,” more humane view of equity, a view which, as we noted earlier, almost none of the respondents in their study of the implementation of the CCSS shared. Strong equity is also consistent with the “broader, bolder” education policy agenda proposed in 2008 by the Economic Policy Institute (n.d.).…”

Equity in Secondary Career and Technical Education in the United States: A Theoretical Framework and Systematic Literature Review

“…In the context of a deeply unequal society like the United States, "equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment" (D. Stone, 2011, p. 42). Some students, particularly those navigating poverty or those with disabilities, may merit more resource investment (Jordan, 2010;Kornhaber et al, 2014). It is just for those students to receive more resources, since a compensatory distribution of resources that leads to their success is advantageous for society as a whole (Rawls, 1999).…”

Race-Neutral Doesn’t Work: Black Males’ Achievement, Engagement, and School Climate Perceptions

“…The law neither directs districts to nor hinders them from creating explicit plans for African American youth, despite their achievement, engagement, and school climate needs warranting a uniform response (see Figure 1). Unfortunately, when federal or state policies that are designed to support those with need are written and applied in a manner that is race-neutral, they are unlikely to produce racial equity (Carter et al, 2017; Kornhaber, Griffith, & Tyler, 2014; Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway, 2011). In sum, the liberal yet race-neutral LCFF appears to merely represent a loosely coupled policy that will fall short of its expressed goal: equity for all high-need children.…”