SHETKARI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, MUMBAI

GURUKRUPA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

KALYAN (W)

ACADEMIC YEAR 2022-23

FIRST YEAR – B.ED.
SEMISTER – 1ST

Name Of Student : Kavita Dharmesh Jethwa

Roll No. : 28

Subject : Knowledge and Curriculum

Project Topic : Report Writing on Deliberate

on Marden Value like Equity ,
Equality And Social Justice in
School Subject Syllabus

Signature of Student :

Signature of the Principal of

The College With Seal :
 INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars

1 Introduction

2 Objectives of syllabus

3 Reason for selecting text

4 Examples of equity and equality

and social justice
5 Justification of examples selected

6 History Std. 7 Introduction

7 Conclusion

8 History Std. 8 Introduction

9 Conclusion

10 Reflection
 INTRODUCTION
One of the most important aspects of research, professors will tell you, is asking the
right question. The “right question” for a researcher is important, interesting, and
answerable through a particular methodology. Asking the right question is the
cornerstone of inquiry. It orients the investigation and guides the researcher’s
thinking. In other words, how a research question is worded frames the approaches
available to answering it. The answers are often used to support arguments about
educational policy for change.

This essay examines three pressing, often implicit questions currently being asked in
educational policy research:

1) What is educational equality?

2) What is educational equity?

3) What is a just education?

Although they are seemingly similar terms, the concepts of equality, equity, and
justice orient thinking about policy in different and important ways.

On the surface, the goals implied by the above questions might seem to be aiming at
the same result—even the terms might seem to be about the same idea. But, in fact,
when thought about rigorously, each concept carries different assumptions about
students and the goals of a policy outcome. All three concepts are important, but each
can easily be misapplied. Misunderstood or poorly understood ideas of equality,
equity, or justice, when enacted in policy, can inadvertently harm certain groups of
students. This is why understanding the differences between these three ideas—and
asking the right questions—is important.

Equality and Equity in Education Policy

The ideas of equality and equity are often misunderstood and misused. Each concept
carries implicit underlying assumptions about what is “fair” as they relate to the types
of schools children should attend. Each concept also carries implications about how
students should be treated and how resources should be distributed. A common
understanding of educational equality is that schools should offer all students the same
education. This way all students will have an equal chance. A common understanding
of educational equity is that all children should be given the education they need to
achieve certain outcomes. Both of these ideas make sense at first glance, and they
clearly connect to ideas of fairness. However, when these ideas are used to orient
policy approaches, undesirable consequences might arise.
 OBJECTIVES OF SYLLABUS

➢ Give equal treatment to all the human beings irrespective of the gender, cast,
colour or all other aspects

➢ Make a provision for those who are disable so that they can have equal
opportunity in betterment of life.

➢ Focus on inbuild capacities of human beings rather than the position or power
they have at the moment

➢ Maintain social bonding stronger between all the human beings irrespective of
their age and gender.
EXAMPLES OF EQUITY, EQUALITY AND
SOCIAL JUSTCE
 JUSTIFICATION OF EXAMPLES

As demonstrated by this pithy cartoon, the assumed logic of equality gives

all students the same amount of a good, such as the same number of boxes
to stand on. In contrast the equity orientation acknowledges the different
needs of individuals and how they all require specific support to be able to
reach a goal, such as achieving proficiency on standardized tests, or in the
case of the cartoon watching a baseball game. To extend the metaphor in
this picture, the educational equity orientation reframes the policy
discussion and orients it around ensuring that schools help all students to
achieve, even if that means distributing resources “unequally.”

The difference between thinking about equity and equality is important

because the rhetoric around major policy changes such as the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) includes terms such as equal and
equitable.[1] ESSA’s website claims that the law “Advances equity by
upholding critical protections for America’s disadvantaged and high-need
students” and that it is committed “to equal opportunity for all students.”
The statement of purpose in section 1 of the ESSA amendment reads: “The
purpose of this title is to provide all children significant opportunity to
receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close
educational achievement gaps.”
The ESSA incorporates the idea of equity into its policy orientation, and
based on the reasoning above, equity seems to be “fairer” than the idea of
equality. However, there is a problem with the concept of equity when
thinking about school policies. Although an equity orientation is more
sensitive to the differences and diversity between students, equity assumes
that there is a sameness of the “good” to be achieved in education. This
“good” could be everyone graduating from high school, or everyone
reaching certain testing benchmarks. But the goal has to be the same for all
students, because that is what makes reaching equity possible from a
policy standpoint. What happens when, for example, a student does not
want to watch baseball? Will policy force that child to watch baseball?
This is the current tension that the ESSA will be struggling with as it
is implemented in the coming years.
Although an equity orientation is laudable in its sensitivity toward
different students, this orientation leads to problems surrounding the
definitions of what is good, what is success, and what is progress. Simple
answers, such as achievement on tests and graduation rates are the
common responses, and are not, superficially, controversial. However,
when looked at more deeply, ensuring that all students reach testing
benchmarks can oppress the wide variety of values and goals within U.S.
society. For example, policies specifically geared towards equity, such as
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), have created a narrowed
curriculum, because reaching equity is reaching proficiency on state
standardized tests. This lowers the importance of non-tested courses, such
as social studies, music, arts, and athletics, which is a common criticism of
NCLB. The resources devoted to achieving a specific outcome narrow and
limit the potentials of students. While the orientation of equity is one based
on students’ fundamental rights, and positive ideals, the implementation
can actually hurt students unintentionally. Time will tell if the ESSA
policies help remedy this issue.
A Just Education as Compared to Educational Equity and Equality
In contrast to equality and equity, a just education is focused on ensuring
that each student has the opportunities to find, figure out, and develop their
skills and abilities based on their values and their communities’ values. A
just education does not assume the same means or the same ends for every
student. Instead, it is oriented around the value of liberty and the pursuit of
one’s own goals by ensuring that students are prepared to make informed,
knowledgeable decisions and have the skills and understandings necessary
to achieve their goals. It is about seeing students as agents in their own
education who have rights and inherent abilities. Finally, implicit in the
idea of justice is that education is about ensuring that historical injustices
are addressed, such as a historical lack of access to quality education faced
by poor and marginalized students.
There are also problematic assumptions inherent in the idea of a just
education. The first issue is that it is difficult to know what justice is and
looks like for each student. Expanding definitions of success is
complicated because success defined broadly does not allow for the same
methods to measure student academic achievement—standardized tests.
Standardized tests are controversial for exactly the reason asking questions
about educational equity are not sufficient; testing limits the definitions of
success and homogenizes the diversity of skills and experiences that
students enter school with, as well as the variety of skills, knowledge, and
abilities they can develop with the caring help of teachers and their
communities.
Despite these issues, asking questions about justice has been sorely
missing in large “school improvement” projects such as the recent
overhaul of Newark public schools. Instead of ensuring that communities
had a significant voice in decision making, an aspect of liberty, the policy
makers focused on top-down policies that, although focused on equity by
trying to improve the failing schools, in fact created chaos and upheaval.
The improvement effort ultimately failed to have the desired impact.
Perhaps one of the reasons was that the improvement effort was overly
focused on equity at the expense of justice.
Policy makers are beginning to realize the importance of justice and liberty
in education policy. The ESSA has scaled back much of its direct
oversight of accountability measures, leaving that to state governments—a
move that has been praised by many education experts. However, the legal
stance of the ESSA policy is still oriented around the idea of equity and
has not yet taken the next step towards a just education: an education
focused on liberty while ensuring quality. The focus on equitable
education is an important part of any educational policy, but another step
remains to be taken. It may not be politically feasible at the national level,
but local authorities, teacher leaders, and policy makers may be in a
position to think of creating policies that offer quality education while still
ensuring that students have the liberty to reach their own unique potential,
the core strength of a democratic society. In other words, a just education
ensures that each citizen has agency in their own education.
Asking the Rights Questions to Find Appropriate Answers
When trying to answer one specific question it is easy to get overly
focused and lose sight of the many goals, needs, and values that are
embedded in the American school system, and in the lives of each of its
students. Even simple, related terms, such as equality, equity, and justice,
which might seem to be the same at first glance, need to be carefully
understood. Implicit assumptions about policy goals have far reaching
consequences when made into law. This is why asking the right question is
so important.
When education policies are oriented solely around the issue of equity,
they can lose sight of the needs for justice and liberty. Like the federal
government, checks and balances for education policy are necessary.
Asking “does the policy improve equality, equity, and justice?” provides a
more comprehensive framework for creating fair and good policies that
meet the needs of all students and communities. As the push for every
student to succeed continues, we must not achieve equality or equity at the
expense of justice.
Social Justice in Mathematics Education
Watson has confidence that all children are capable of learning ‘significant Mathematics
given appropriate teaching’. She believes that there is a ‘moral imperative’ that children are
educated well in Mathematics in order to ‘realise the full potential of the human mind’ and
that there is empowerment when a child realises that they can enjoy learning
Mathematics.It is a matter of ‘social justice’ to teach Mathematics to all children as their
achievement in the subject is judged throughout their life and can participate in determing
future prospects. Grades achieved in Mathematics can affect future studies and career
paths. For example, to enter university, usually a minimum of grade C GCSE Maths is
required, and this requirement varies depending on the course.
In Mathematics, setting is used to group pupils according to their ability and students are
entered in for an exam tier depending on what set they are placed in, which determines the
maximum grade they can achieve. Usually in secondary schools, the sets are formed in year
7 or in year 9 after SATs and these sets rarely change and so even if individuals make
progress over the years before sitting the GCSE paper in year 11, it does not make a
difference as the maximum grade that they can achieve will not reflect their capability. Only
a maximum of grade D can be attained in the lower sets.(Day, p. 165) As a result, children in
these sets will not be able to go to university, may not get into a particular course or will
have to take their GCSE Mathematics again at a later stage, rendering their first grade D
useless. This seems unfair for the lower setted students, whose full potential may not have
been realised and who surely deserve the chance to achieve a higher grade if they are able
to progress over the year.
Every Child Matters
A UK government initiative programme called ‘Every Child Matters’ has the aim of helping
‘every child, whatever their background or circumstances, to have the support they need to
be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, and achieve
economic well-being.’The idea behind this scheme is that all institutions that affect a child’s
life work together to create a stable and supportive environment for their development
educationally and socially. The education institutions aim to help a child achieve
mathematical learning but also try to develop mathematical learning and thinking on a
wider level, supporting all areas of life.(website 2) The question to be asked is if setting in
mathematics classes really contributes towards that aim or, more likely, hinders it?
Setting by ability
Mathematics teaching is in two forms; mixed ability teaching, where all students learn
together, or setted classes, where students are split into groups in terms of ability level.
Higher sets are taught more advanced Mathematical concepts, topics and skills as they are
thought to have the potential and basic knowledge to understand it. The lower sets are
taught more basic Mathematics and at a slower pace to allow them enough time and
practice to learn and understand and so their learning and depth of Mathematics is
restricted.Students are entered for a GCSE Mathematics exam paper appropriate to their
level, depending on what set they are in. However, lower sets can only achieve grades D-G
which are not usually accepted as being high enough to enable the student to study further
and may prevent them from studying a particular course. In this way, the GCSE examination
itself is split into tiers, with only the higher sets being allowed to attain ‘good passes’ of
grades A*-C.(Archer, Hutchings and Ross, 2003, p. 139)
There are many questions concerning the fairness of such an arrangement. As students in
lower sets would not have covered the content that would be examined in the higher tier, it
is not appropriate to enter them for the higher or intermediate tier. Therefore, as a result of
mathematics setting, ‘those in lower sets are less likely to be entered for higher tiers’,
consequently harming their future study and job opportunities. Also, some children have an
advanced grasp of Mathematics due to an advantaged background, parents’ help or private
tuition. This could mean that setting is unfair as it is biased towards early developing
children or those who have been given extra help outside of the classroom.
Advantages of setting by ability
The ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed with setting children by ability. He states: ‘The
modernisation of the comprehensive principle requires that all pupils are encouraged to
progress as far and as fast as they are able’ and that ‘Grouping children by ability can be an
important way of making that happen.’
The main advantage of separate ability grouping is that all students get the chance to learn
at a pace suitable for them and they are not distracted from students of a different ability
level with different educational needs. With setting, students are only given the work that
they are capable of completing otherwise it could harm the child’s confidence and self-
esteem levels, resulting in dissatisfaction and frustration for both pupils and teachers, class
disruption and lower attendance levels.
Alternatively, people argue that mixed ability groups are more productive for all students.
Evidence from research suggests, ‘all pupils gained socially from working in wide ability
groups’ because, ‘such groupings allowed pupils from a wide variety of backgrounds, as well
as abilities, to work together, strengthening social cohesion’.
Disadvantages of setting by ability
There is a big question of authority about who can decide on appropriate setting in the first
place, and how? In schools, the setting system is supposed to be purely based on ability
level. However, in reality, streaming could be decided upon for other reasons. For example,
two areas of prejudice encountered can be social class and ethnic dimensions.Bartlett,
Burton and Peim point out that often ‘lower class pupils were deemed to have a lower
intellectual ability than middle class peers purely due to unrelated social issues such as
accent or parents’ jobs.’Sukhnandan and Lee (1998) comment on the fact that lower-ability
sets consist of a high number children from low social-class backgrounds, ethnic minorities,
boys and children born in the summer, who are at a younger age for their school year.
(website 1)
Harlen’s study (1997) suggested that ‘teachers with substantial experience of teaching
mixed ability groups frequently used whole class methods inappropriate to mixed ability
groupings and that teachers retained largely fixed views of ability and intelligence’.(Capel
and Leask, 2005, p. 155) A clear disadvantage of setting is that children can be stuck in one
set for years and are then branded as holding a set ability for the rest of their education.
(Ollerton, 2002, p. 264)
Setting prevents children from mixing with other ability levels in the classroom
environment, giving them an unrealistic expectation of future life and general working
environments. The problem of self-esteem is an issue for the lower setted pupils, who feel
dejected that they are perceived as having weaker ability. Self-esteem is also an issue for
higher setted pupils, who can be ‘developmentally damaged’ in a different way by their high
set ‘over inflating their self-esteem’. Sukhnandan and Lee believe that setting in this way
causes ‘social divisions’. (website 1)
Self-esteem is essentially important for children in learning Mathematics. If a child has
lowered self-esteem they could convince themselves that they are not bright enough to
understand and so underachieve due to their negative attitude. Equally, high self-esteem in
Mathematics can make a child overly-relaxed and over confident causing them to slack.
Research has shown that setting pupils has ‘a direct impact on the pupils’ perceived
mathematical competence’and children can be affected psychologically about what they
can or cannot do and learn. A student who is setted is ‘branded’ and this branding can affect
the students’ perception of themselves and others peoples’ perceptions and judgement of
them.
Gender Issues
Boaler points out that setting children by ability can cause anxiety about exam performance
among the more able pupils and underperformance, in particular, from girls. (Boaler, 1997)
Boaler suggests this underperformance is due to crumbling under the pressure which affects
girls more than boys because girls have ‘a tendency to lack confidence’.Ollerton supports
this idea that setting by ability ‘creates the conditions for under-achievement’, a view also
believed by Boaler and William (2001). Another issue of children being streamed based on
their achievements and not on their potential means that ‘underperforming, very able
pupils and pupils who are hardworking and perform well on tests can easily be placed in the
same achievement group’.Indeed, an able pupil who is underachieving would be placed in a
lower set than their ability should demand, whereas a lower ability pupil who has the ability
for performing well under pressure in exams could be placed in a higher set than their
natural ability would normally allow.
In a similar way, behaviour could also cause unfairness in setting as boys often mess around
in the classroom but perform well in exams. They could be placed in a lower set due to their
bad behaviour and lack of attention, but their ability in Maths could be worthy of a higher
set. Research shows, for boys in particular, that ‘the set they were in reflected their
behaviour more than their ability.’Girls tend to do better in communicative tasks and enjoy
writing more than boys who ‘often don’t enjoy “writing up” coursework’and research
conducted has shown that girls tend to do better in coursework compared to exams
whereas boys do not do well in coursework but perform well in exams.
Modularisation in Mixed Ability Teaching
The main concern in a mixed ability class is for the teacher to decide what to teach and how
to teach to a wide spread of abilities, which is still a concern in a setted class. Sukhnandan
and Lee (1998) comment that a modular approach would benefit a mixed ability class. They
suggest that schools should try to teach pupils’ in relation to their individual needs rather
than streaming by general ability, with equity in teaching more easily achieved ‘through
greater modularisation of the curriculum, an increased emphasis on independent learning
and improved library and information technology resources’.
It seems that ‘what goes on in the classroom’ and ‘the teaching strategies used, is likely to
have more impact on achievement than how pupils are grouped’ A teacher’s goal is to
encourage progression of learning Mathematics in the classroom for all students. In order to
achieve this, Ollerton suggests that this modular approach to teaching Mathematics creates
the feeling of having a fresh start to every section of learning, therefore, helping self-esteem
as everyone can ‘embark upon a journey to learn, say trigonometry’. This progressive idea
challenges the view of the hierarchical structure of mathematical learning, (Ollerton, 2002,
p. 266) where everyone can start at the same level.
Differentiating Teaching Content
Tomlinson comments on the importance of differentiating the content of a Mathematics
lesson in a mixed ability classroom. She points out that this includes adapting ‘what we
teach’ and modifying ‘how we give students access to what we want them to learn.’Giving
different ability level students different tasks appropriate to their ability is differentiating
what they are learning. Tomlinson explains that giving students, of higher ability, time to
read part of a text on their own while taking time to go through the text with the lower
ability pupils separately differentiates their access to learning as they are learning the same
thing in different ways, appropriate to their ability level. (Tomlinson, 1995, p. 72)
It appears that Mathematics would benefit from an approach that considers differentiation
in what is taught rather than how it is taught. Some Mathematical concepts would be too
difficult for some children to understand, so the teacher must differentiate between the
content suitable for the weaker students from stronger students. For example,
‘trigonometry … is only introduced to students in higher groups’ (Boaler, p. 7)
Equal Rights and Equity in Mathematics Education
In the context of teaching, the issue of equity is often confused with equality. According to
Zevenbergen, ‘equity refers to the unequal treatment of students in order to produce more
equal outcomes’. This contrasts equality which means ‘the equal treatment of students with
the potential of unequal outcomes’ . For example, students who have disadvantaged
backgrounds could be offered extra help to catch up with their advantaged peers’ in order
to hopefully achieve ‘parity in the outcome for all students.’ The alternative method of
equality would mean that all students are given equal treatment and the same
opportunities to succeed. However, some students would take more advantage of the
opportunities and the results may be more unequal than with an equity programme. Equity
programmes are ‘designed to be more proactive and seek to redress differences in prior
experiences’ , whereas equality programmes are more conservative in their approach and
acknowledge that some students will achieve more than others. If children are taught in a
way that meets their individual needs then justice in education, a prime aim of Every Child
Matters, can be achieved.
Special Educational Needs (SEN)
Children with special educational needs require different teaching methods. Learning
disabilities which need to be considered in the maths classroom include dyscalculia, where
the child cannot grasp the meaning of number, poor numeracy skills, problems such as
Aspergers syndrome and autism, or physical disabilities and sensory impairments. (Cowan,
2006, p. 202-203) For these students, the teacher needs to be aware of using simple and
precise instructive language, a clear method of presentation, modified content of difficulty
and work structured with reduced quantity. (Cowan, 2006, p. 203)
How Equity can mean Social Justice for all Learners
It is clear that ‘the tiering of mathematics papers is likely to have an important impact’ on
student development and pupils often ‘make more progress if taught in a higher set rather
than a lower set’ . This means that in mathematics teaching, the same topic should be
addressed in a mixed class and tasks can be organised according to needs level. The National
Numeracy Strategy (NNS) advises planning a lesson using three stages: pre-active phase,
where necessary prior knowledge is identified and presentation planned; interactive phase,
where teaching takes place and tasks are worked through, including a plenary at the end
summarising the lesson and the evaluative phase, where the teacher reflects on the lesson
and on learning successes or difficulties. (Cowan, 2006, p. 59)
By following a structured lesson plan, ‘using a range of tasks comprising different levels of
difficulty but addressing the same topic or theme within the one class’, (Cowan, 2006, p.
212), equity can be achieved for all students of different ability level. In this way social
justice is maintained for all students in mathematics teaching and learning

.
 REFLECTION

In order to achieve social wellbeing equity equality and social justice all
this are important terms. Once we get grip on this parameters we will be
able to attain social wellbeing in a short period of time.
The government’s Every Child Matters initiative supports the view that
equal rights for all children means equal opportunities for all children. It
seems that in order to achieve this kind of social justice, every child needs
to be given the chance to take an examination paper that allows them to
achieve an A grade. In doing this, each child will have an opportunity to go
on to further study should their ability and interests allow. Setting by ability
not only makes this difficult, but actually increases problems in the
classroom, such as damaged self-esteem and under-achievement and can
even encourage some prejudice regarding race and class. Setted classes are
not necessarily easier for teachers to teach either, as they will still need to
differentiate content for different class members. It therefore seems that a
strong lesson structure incorporating modularisation and appropriate
differentiation in teaching content will provide a more effective
environment in which equity can be used to maintain social justice in the
teaching of Mathematics to children in a mixed ability classroom.