Educational Equity Policy in China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eryong Xue ◽  
Jian Li
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Paul Cairney ◽  
Sean Kippin

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 expectations and outcomes, and inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish, from education research, how policymakers seek equitable outcomes. Our study emulates its partner review of ‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP) to ask: How does education equity research use policy theory to understand policymaking? Methods: A qualitative systematic review (from 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 inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how relatively theory-informed articles enhance 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. The comparison with HIAP highlights distinctive elements of education research. First, educational equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although countries like the US, and organisations like the World Bank, have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique the narrow equity definitions – focusing on performance – that dominate policymaking. 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 task. Compared to HIAP research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on delivering top-down aims. Most studies criticise current educational equity aims and expect them to fail.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Cardichon ◽  
Linda Darling-Hammond

This article takes a careful look at political and policy tools that presidential administrations have at their disposal for ameliorating educational inequalities. These tools, the authors suggest, include issuing federal guidance that informs and supports states and districts as they work to implement policies and practices that comply with federal law. However, as the authors point out, the extent to which administrations have chosen to leverage these opportunities to advance educational equity has varied over time.


1997 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 401
Author(s):  
RONALD D. TAYLOR
Keyword(s):  

NWSA Journal ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Elizabeth Jung

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-149
Author(s):  
Mary B. Ziskin

<?page nr="117"?>Abstract Calls for higher education institutions to implement improvements guided by “data-driven” processes are prevalent and widespread. Despite the pervasiveness of this turn toward data, research on how data-use works on the ground in postsecondary institutions—that is, how individuals within institutions make sense of education data and use it to inform practice—is still developing.Drawing on Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action (TCA), critical-race theory, and methodological guidance on critical-qualitative research methods, this paper synthesizes methodological and substantive insights from P–12 data-use research, with an eye to applying these insights to critical questions on postsecondary educational equity. The result of the review and analysis is a theoretical framework and a set of methodological recommendations for future research on the perceptions and experiences of college faculty, administrators, and practitioners, regarding their data-use and its implications for equity.


Author(s):  
Sally Patfield ◽  
Jennifer Gore ◽  
Natasha Weaver

AbstractFor more than three decades, Australian higher education policy has been guided by a national equity framework focussed on six underrepresented target groups: Indigenous Australians, people from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, people from regional and remote areas, people with disabilities, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and women in non-traditional areas of study. Despite bringing equitable access to the forefront of university agendas, this policy framework has fostered a somewhat narrow conceptualisation of how educational disadvantage should be addressed. Responding to calls for reform, this paper draws on survey data from 6492 students in NSW government schools to examine the extent to which a new category warrants inclusion in the national framework: first-generation status. We illustrate how being the first in a family to attend university brings distinct equity status and argue for a revision of the national equity framework to recognise and support students who are ‘first’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document