Can Equal Opportunities Exist within Schools - Literature review Example

Can Equal Opportunities Exist Within Schools? al Affiliation Introduction Equal opportunity is a very important concept to educational policy makers today. Scholars have also taken it up in an attempt to provide the needed body of literature that will guide the formation and implementation of education polices in the United Kingdom. According to Lamb, Lane & Aldous (2013), equal opportunity policies are needed in the education system because of the inequalities that exist in the society. Such inequalities make the achievement of one’s full potential difficult. The big question is always what amounts to equal opportunities. Koutselini, Trigo-Santos & Verkest (2008) answers this questions by arguing that equal opportunity in schools and other learning institutions entails ensuring that each and every individual is given equal chance for career development and learning. To achieve this, individuals must always be accorded the same rights and status in the learning environment. Different laws and education policies provide guidance towards attaining the required level of equality and ensuring that it is sustained for as long as possible. Schools have also come up with their own policies that ensure that equality is promoted through proven action plans. Pring, et al (2009) remark that schools have the duty to promote community cohesion, while at the same time ensuring that they comply with the existing laws that govern the provision of equal opportunities. This treatise looks into the equal opportunity topic by considering exiting literature and practices within the UK education system so as to determine whether equality really exists. Justice versus Equality In the education system, teachers are required to promote equality for all the students by treating them and their needs justly (Cummings, Dyson & Todd, 2011). Equality and justice have always gone hand in hand when in different practical situations. The idea of the two words going hand in hand can be traced to the time of Aristotle. Aristotle explored equality by differentiating distributive justice from corrective justice. Hatcher (2014) remarks that; in determining the kind of relationship that exists between justice and equality, it is imperative to differentiate between distributive and corrective justices. In the distributive justice, people who make the constructive contribution to the society are accorded greater opportunities. In corrective justice, the effort and capability of community members is not considered when the opportunities are being given out. People are treated as equals in the society. Corrective justice tends to restore balance in the society rather than creating order based on effort or contribution. The principle of corrective justice always resonates in the equal opportunity discussions. In the education system, equal opportunities begin with the idea that each and every worker and student has to be respected irrespective of their contribution and status. It entails taking into account the right to be one’s self, right to freedom, dignity and respect. According to Strand (2014), justice in the education system and setting can be seen in the way members of staff relate and work with each other. The senior staff members can only be said to be just if they do not show any kind of prejudice in the course if their work. To do this, they must realize how the prejudices unconsciously determine the way they act within the education setting. Fair treatment of individuals in the learning institutions requires pure judgment, which is free from any form of prejudice. Hatcher (2014) states that; in the situations where one is unable to free his thoughts from the prejudice, his way of thinking will be compromised, and in the end it will prevent them from treating others justly and equally. Just thoughts are free from preconception. Studies have shown that students tend to like just teachers and will end up respecting them even if they are strict. Hidden Agenda Social inequality exists in schools and learning institutions. It is a reality that no one can run away from. Various individual factors such as social-economic background, language, nationality, culture and achievement are known to affect the attainment of education goals in different learning environment and settings. Students are at times put in different groups depending on their ability to accomplish different agenda and tasks in their everyday school undertakings. The grouping is based on the assumption that the learners must undergo a formal curriculum. While doing so, teachers and policy makers do not ask themselves how they can remodel the curriculum to work for the individual learners. Dealing with such scenarios requires a shift of attention and focus to student diversity. It is, however, worth noting that initiatives that have started to deal with the issue have been slowed by the nature of curriculum being used in the country (Strand, 2014). The market oriented curriculum in place does not fully support equal opportunities for the students who have different social, economic, cultural and political backgrounds. This is because it focuses more on the academe achievements and skills. Moreover, it forces the teachers to work with a small number of talented students who will facilitate quick achievement of the learning objectives. There are several hidden aspects of the existing curriculum that affects equality in schools. Currently, a lot of emphasis is being put on content teaching and memorization of what is being taught in the classes. It makes it hard to recognize and appreciate the students’ different learning abilities. Secondly, there is a trend in which the highest achievers dominate the class activities and learning progress. Most of the high achievers are native students. The non-natives end up playing the second fiddle in the classes and this affects their ability to have equal opportunities in the learning environments. Avis, Bathmaker & Parsons (2012) also notes that most school environments are hostile towards students who have special needs. Such hostilities arise from the fact that the lessons and the curriculum are not differentiated. Undifferentiated lessons fail to capture and address the specific needs of each of the students. The existing educational policies have also failed to consider the multicultural diversity in the learning institutions especially when it comes to the training teachers. As a result, they are not able to effectively deal with the different background issues which may affect the provision of equal opportunities in the learning facilities. UK Education System Policies have been developed and implemented to ensure that students and staff members are accorded equal opportunities in the learning facilities. The Department of Education and Science has come up with criteria used to influence the behavior of teachers in the learning facilities with the main goal being the introduction and promotion of equality. The equality legislation was formulated on the basis of two previous projects that had done by the Department of Education and Science. In the year 1991, policies that were designed to help integrate deprived migrant students into the UK education system was published (Strand, 2014). From 1993, efforts were made to implement care in the nursery and primary school settings. These efforts led to the preventive remedial process in the United Kingdom. Between 1998 and 1999, a developmental program addressing remedial development, language skills, social and emotional development, parental commitment and intercultural education was implemented (Lander, 2011). Since 2000, the implementation and use of care program has focused majorly on the migrant children with appropriate methods for dealing with their problems being devised. In 2002, another program meant to promote multiple level instructions was introduced by the Department of Education (Lander, 2011). Each student was to be instructed and guided to follow his or her own path in the learning environment. In some schools, the program allowed for promotion of equality by relying on proven approaches. To others, it was an expensive undertaking which could not be effectively implemented. Labeling and Inclusion Labeling is usually done to allow for the identification of groups and individuals who require funding. Despite the fact the practice is meant to deal with the economic disparities that exist in the society, issues on the morality of the practices have been raised by some people. Scholars like Brooks (2007) and Busher, James, Piela & Palmer (2014) argue that labeling is a practice that has effectively helped deal with the economic inequality that faces students in the learning institutions. To this group, without such practices, inequality in the learning facilities and institutions cannot be appropriately dealt with. Such opinions have been opposed by those who take labeling to be a morally unacceptable practice as it does promote inclusivity. Lander (2007) remarks that grouping of individuals and groups on the basis of their economic capabilities and background ends up creating disparity in the learning facilities and the education system rather than helping deal with the problem. Labels have been associated with the allocation of resource such as the funding for adults in classrooms and placement within special schools. It is argued that labeling helps policy makers to know how to plan the available learning opportunities. It is a framework that can be used to influence effective practices in the UK. When used, the specific needs of the children are identified and appropriately met. By reasoning in this line, it is quite apparent that the advantages of the practice outweigh the ills that are being raised by those who view it as an act that discourages inclusivity. An example of an undertaking that has benefitted greatly from the labeling practice is the development of a high structure routine for students with the Asperger syndrome in the United Kingdom. In the current society, it is apparent that equal opportunities do not exist. However, this does not imply that the children who are born on low income families cannot reach their aspirations and goals. The society is, therefore, required to move towards minimizing such inequalities by ensuring the education is accessible to all. Chadderton (2013) notes that the transition can be facilitated and promoted through labeling and additional funding for target individuals and groups. While implementing the labeling and the inclusion approaches, it is imperative that the policy makers take into account the effects of gender, disability, ethnicity and class on their success (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). The current society is heavily influenced by such issues and neglecting them will in one way or the other impact negatively on the practice. Gifted children versus Special Educational Needs children The existing national curriculum makes it clear that teachers and schools should respond to the diverse needs of students and learners through careful consideration of their roles as well as their capabilities. The Special Education Needs and Disability Act of 2001 was implemented to help create equal opportunities for students irrespective of their educational needs and physical and mental wellbeing (Gorard, 2014). Teachers find themselves between a rock and a hard place when they have to while consider the student’s special needs while at the same time striving to achieve their leaning objectives with the academically talented students. Strand (2014) however informs that the key to finding a balance batten the two is by knowing the students well and focusing on what they can do and what they cannot do. There are children who need extra support for them to benefit from the teacher. Differentiation is therefore essential in supporting students in the learning environment (McNess, Broadfoot & Osborn, 2012). Every child is entitled to equal learning opportunities and by using a differentiated approach, teachers are able to employ a variety of resources to achieve learning goals. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that there is discrepancy between the existing polices on equality and the reality in the learning facilities and institutions. The declared and formatted policies alone cannot be effectively used in ensuring that groups and individuals are accorded equal opportunities. Socio-economic factors have created inequalities in the learning facilities. At times, teachers strive to cover content as required by the curriculum without taking into account the needs of special group. Existing policies are capable of promoting equality. However, the reality is that there are systemic issues like teacher’s belief, teaching practices, ecology of schools and students’ belief that have hindered the realization of equality in learning environment today. The implementation and the success of different equal opportunities policies depend on micro level practices and beliefs. For this to be changed, the practices at this level as well as the beliefs of the players must be altered so that they are in line with the laid down procedures and guidelines for equality. Reference List Avis, J., Bathmaker, A. & Parsons, J 2012, “Communities of practice and the construction of learners in post-compulsory education and training”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, vol.54, no. 1, pp. 27–50. Brooks, R 2007, “Young people’s extra-curricular activities: Critical social engagement – or ‘something for the CV?”, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 417–434. Busher, H., James, N., Piela, A. & Palmer, M 2014, “Transforming marginalized adult learners’ views of themselves: Access courses in England”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 35, no. 5,pp. 800–817. Chadderton, C 2013, “Towards a research framework for race in education: Critical race theory and Judith Butler”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 26, no. 1, pp.39–55. Cummings, C., Dyson, A. & Todd, L 2011, Beyond the School Gates: Can Full Service and Extended Schools Overcome Disadvantage? Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K 2011, “Exploring inclusive pedagogy”, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 813–828. Gorard, S 2014, “The link between Academies in England, pupil outcomes and local patterns of socio-economic segregation between schools”, Research Papers in Education, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 268–284. Hatcher, R 2014, “Local authorities and the school system: The new authority-wide partnerships”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 355–371. Koutselini, M., Trigo-Santos, F., & Verkest, H 2008, Equal Opportunities at school: Mission impossible? CiCe Central Coordination Unit, London. Lamb, P., Lane, K., & Aldous, D 2013, “Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-review process within physical education initial teacher education”, European Physical Education Review, vol. 19, no. 65, pp. 21–38. Lander, V 2011, “Race, culture and all that: An exploration of the perspectives of White secondary student teachers about race equality issues in their initial teacher education (ITE)”, Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 351–364. McNess, E., Broadfoot, P. & Osborn, M 2012, “Is the effective compromising the affective?”, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 243–257. Pring, R et al 2009, Education for All: The Future of Education and Training for 14–19 Year Olds. Routledge, London. Strand, S 2014, “Ethnicity, gender, social class and achievement gaps at age 16: Intersectionality and ‘getting it’ for the white working class”, Research Papers in Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 131–171. Read More