Educational equity policy as human taxonomy: who do we compare and why does it matter?

ABSTRACT

Descriptions of educational inequality, or ‘gap talk’, require principles of categorisation that divide humans into groups between which a ‘gap’ can exist. The principles used in education equity policies to define groups affect the nature of the educational interventions that these policies propose. Drawing on critical discourse analysis of education policy documents and political speeches, I argue that in New Zealand the dominant categorising principle is indigenous/Māori ethnicity, whereas in England it is socio-economic disadvantage. These two principles result in two very different types of policy interventions, both of which address only part of the problem. Furthermore, both principles are simplistic and one-dimensional, making it easier to blame ‘failing schools’ for educational inequality, whereas use of more nuanced principles would provide a better basis for determining the kinds of differences that ‘effective schools’ can reasonably be expected to make. While previous analyses have suggested that recognition-orientated policies can shift attention away from broader social policies that influence educational disparities, I argue here that this can also be the case for distribution-orientated policies.

KEYWORDS:

• Education policy
• England
• equity
• ethnicity
• New Zealand
• social class

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Pomeroy

David Pomeroy is a Lecturer in the School of Teacher Education, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is interested in the way pedagogical practices and education policies challenge or exacerbate educational inequalities related to social class, ethnicity, and gender.