Talk:Educational equity

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhott23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asmc19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HK khawaja. Peer reviewers: AbiL7, Mgmari19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire article makes no attempt at NPOV whatsoever. It uses nonsense jargon such as 'equity recognises'. It is just a propaganda piece

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.22.23 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is structured very clearly and provides a lot of information on the topic, but some of this information is unnecessary. Adding that the words “equity” and “equality” are misused in this context was informational, but there did not need to be two sections, let alone one, on this issue. The “Equality” section was completely unnecessary because it does not pertain to the topic. This is a problem because it takes away from the main point of the article. Neutrality was maintained in the sections about race, gender, and publications, which is necessary and ideal. However, another sign of bad quality, sections that are much longer than they are important, can be seen in the “Reputable Research Centers and Associations” section, for this section lacks importance. Overall, the article provides in-depth, significant information about educational equity, although it seems as if unnecessary parts were added inaccurately. Laurdeut (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The group did a nice job of making many meaningful edits to make the page more complete and informative. It was good that the group added a section in the beginning that laid out the difference between equity and equality. Viewers can easily get confused between the two, and it was helpful that the group provided the difference early on in the article. This Wikipedia article barely had anything to start with and now it not only has through descriptions of topics ranging from the race equality in education by the UK, US, and England to the challenges in education equity, but the group took one step forward and added recommendations and solutions for educational equity. The addition of the picture of the world that depicted which countries are associated with OECD was helpful for people to visually understand which countries are working towards educational equity, and how they are doing in comparison with each other based on their color in the diagram. The group also added hyperlinks and many sections that further enhanced their Wikipedia page. However, even though the sources for the group’s information were technically cited correctly, information regarding the sources’ authors are missing from the citation. The group also could have done a better job in terms of formatting the information and making the sections that follow each other go in a better order. For example, there are four sections titled “Equity vs Equality,” “Equity,” “Equaltiy,” and “Equity vs Equality,” again. Perhaps the four sections should be combined into one and just have three separate paragraphs. Overall though the group did an excellent job of improving this Wikipedia article. Alexandraalbericci (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This group did a great job structuring the article, as it is easy to follow and provides the most relevant information in the beginning. But although the article was organized well, there were some unnecessary sections, such as the "Equity vs. Equality," and the "Equality" sections. In the introduction the article claims that the study of educational equity is often linked with the study of excellence and equity. Nowhere in the description of educational equity does the article mention equality. It seems as though equality is irrelevant from the main points of the article, and should therefore have its sections be discarded. In fact, to someone learning about educational equity, introducing equality in addition to equity, to demonstrate their differences, may provide some unnecessary confusion. On a more positive note, the inequity sections were rather informative and well-written, allowing the reader to understand the point quickly. Additionally, the group did a good job including sections on racial and gender equity, as they added a more colorful take to the subject. Furthermore, the article's section titled "Notable Publications and Reports" provides the reader with real-life examples of the different types of equity discussed in the article, which provides a certain credibility to their findings. Finally, the group did not cite their references appropriately. As you can see, the group simply posted the links to all of the sources they used, rather than cite them in the appropriate APA format. This resulted in the article remaining a stub, which hinders its credibility. All in all, the group provided very valuable insight into educational equity, and with a few minor changes (references and typos), the article could be great.Jslplainview (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Educational equity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222023026/http://www.vsointernational.org:80/vso-today/index.asp to http://www.vsointernational.org/vso-today/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Patrinos has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article requires a framework. It should start with a basic definition of equity. While the article tries to do that, it simply points out that terms such as equity and equality are misused. But it doesn't help solve the problem. The description of equity is not useful. For example, the sentence: "Equity aims at making sure that everyone's lifestyle is equal even if it may come at the cost of unequal distribution of access and goods." I have not idea what that means.

With such a start, it makes the rest of the article different to understand.

This article requires a thorough revision.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Patrinos has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Fasih, Tazeen & Kingdon, Geeta & Patrinos, Harry Anthony & Sakellariou, Chris & Soderbom, Mans, 2012. "Heterogeneous returns to education in the labor market," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6170, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Rocco has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Starting at an extremely young age, the sorting of students mimics hierarchy similar to one which will form later on in life. Students are both viewed and treated differently depending on which track they take. The quality of teaching and curricula vary between tracks and as a result, those of the lower track are disadvantaged with inferior resources, teachers, etc. In many cases, tracking stunts students who may develop the ability to excel past their original placement.

This sentece is not necessarity true. Only in a few Central European Countries (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic) tracking still takes place at age 10 or 11. In most of the countries that tracked early in the Seventies, reforms have been enacted to delay tracking (following the so-called detracking movement). Also, not necessarily fewer resources are devoted to the lower tracks. This might occur, but it is not a rule.

A useful reference on tracking is Brunello, G. and Checchi, D. (2007) Does School Tracking Affect Equality of Opportunity? New International Evidence, Economic Policy, vol 22(52):782-861

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Rocco has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Ariga, Kenn & Brunello, Giorgio & Iwahashi, Roki & Rocco, Lorenzo, 2007. "School Tracking Across the Baltic Sea," CEPR Discussion Papers 6552, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will include this in my revisions (see below). SteveCree2 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The 'Recommendations and solutions' section shows clear bias and probable plagiarism. It is also rambling and poorly written. I suggest it be deleted or dramatically revised.RockBass83 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@RockBass83: Removed. Next time, be bold! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Anne. I would like to make revisions to help improve the quality of this article. There appears to be a problem with keeping a neutral POV, so I would like to address this and reduce any biases that are present within the article. I would also like to restructure the article so that sections 2-4 are put under the same section but are labeled as sub-sections, and I would also like to create new subsections that describe other factors that intersect with educational equity.AMRara (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, again! I will be making revisions to help improve this article. To stay updated with my planned changes, you can visit my sandbox through my userpage, where you can also see a more detailed outline of my proposed revisions. Feel free to leave any comments or suggestions. Thanks! AMRara (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I would like help to improve this article as well and agree with AMRara about the need for restructuring. I think making sub-sections of sections 2-4 is a very good idea. I would also suggest to create a section of in-school mechanisms that cause educational equity, such as different tracking mechanisms in and between schools, because they differ significantly for the existence of equity. Right now, tracking is part of the socio-eco section, but I think it is broader, affects all types of equity and would be more guiding being part of a separate section describing in-school mechanisms. Charlottetim (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

While the article is well written, the few sources used have no grounding in current academic research on the topic, and are mostly reflective of a profound bias if not a particular ideology. This is evident from the fact that a clear definition of equity is not provided and that no concrete reference is made to the policies implemented, for instance in the EEU, with regards to employment, education and gender disparity. These latter are all predisposed to meet criteria of "equality" understood in standard classical liberal terms, rather than in terms of equity (or equality of outcomes). Wikipedia exists to inform people about existing policies and theories not as an instrument for a political agenda--86.6.150.203 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

As I read this article, as a newcomer, I conclude that the many shortcomings of the article are, at least, partially due to it having been the subject of student assignments. The lack of citations, poor writing, and heavy point of view (which many students assume is a neutral point of view) need serious work. I will insert more calls for citations in the text. This is not my field of expertise, so I leave it to others to fill in the many gaps. Pete unseth (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

One of the points of contention in current discussions of "Equity" is a clear definition, and a comparison or differentiation from "Equality". This article fails at the beginning on this fundamental point. It must be remembered that the public uses these terms differently from some academics, so terms must be defined carefully, not assumed.

This article needs very serious reworking. It might be simplest to delete some sections. Pete unseth (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This article is well below the Wikipedia standard. It's failed structure, as pointed out above by Pete unseth above, extends from its being a disparate collection of not-very-good undergraduate essays. The meaning of equity in education is of itself much contested; no coherent definition has been laid down here, let alone explored. A consequence of this contestedness is that any Wiki article attempting to grapple with it needs to be clear about the idea's ambiguity. There are a number of logical criticisms of the idea of equity in education, let alone other intellectual critiques. None of this is reflected here. This should really be an article in draft, it is so far from a coherent treatment of the idea of equity in education. I will enter a short paragraph at the end on simple logical criticisms of equity in education, but my view is that this doesn't help that much - the whole thing needs put into draft and re-written in a much simpler way SteveCree2 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tidied up the first sentence or so and put a criticisms paragraph in at the end. This doesn't really help that much, however, as the whole thing needs reworking. I'll spend some time on it over the next couple of weeks and hopefully others will come in too. SteveCree2 (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you concerns. This article really does need to be reworked extensively. It is far below the standard of clarity and accuracy seen in Wikipdia articles. Until then, I wonder if the article should be suspended because much is confused, misleading and badly explained. It comes as no suprise to read that its origin was a student project as it lacks neutrality, maturity of argument, etc to such a degree that I was obliged to come here and see what had been going on. HTH. Brabtastic (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions to add this information to already existing sections or create new sections accordingly.