All week I have been wrestling with Kris Gutierrez's assertion of the neoliberal agenda in education that leads to a "sameness as fairness" policy. Gutierrez claims that under the guise of color-blind, merit-based interventions, the current educational climate has, in fact, created a "sameness as fairness" approach (Gutierrez, 2007). Neoliberals maintain that fairness is achieved by treating all students in a like manner (sameness). This notion holds all students to the same standards of accountability while using a cookie-cutter style curriculum. “Sameness as fairness” ignores students’ diversity and individuality. Gutierrez & Rogoff (2003) state that the "sameness as fairness" theory acts in effort to "commodify instruction and package it in ways that erase difference and ignore the repertoires of practice students bring to learning environments”(as cited in Gutierrez, 2007, p. 111).
I assert that neoliberals sell the tenet of “sameness as fairness” to the public based on the misuse and exploitation of the words “sameness” and “fairness.” The neoliberal agenda preys on the assumption that society must and will go along with this concept because it aims for “fairness” in education. After all, how could anyone argue against the idea of fairness?!?! Add to that a fear that has been instilled in us about anything that appears to not be the same as us. The neoliberalist view has perpetuated a notion of “difference as deviance”(Gutierrez, p. 117). This fear of being seen as deviant has brainwashed society into thinking that we must all look the same, speak the same, and act the same to be considered a part of the societal “norm.” And, when we do not fit this part, we will not receive “fair” treatment.
So, let’s dissect this concept of “sameness as fairness.” First, take a look at the word “sameness.” In the educational arena, when we speak of sameness, we refer to treating ALL students as ONE specific student. As set forth by the neoliberal agenda, this ONE specific student that our educational climate caters to is male, English speaking, middle to upper class, and has no physical or learning disabilities. However, as we all know because we do not live under rocks, our national student body does not look like this. In fact, our nation’s students are a diverse, eclectic group that has a variety of races, cultures, languages, experiences, classes, etc. Because current educational policy acknowledges only ONE specific student under the notion of “sameness,” we fail to reach, include, and empower individual students. Jackson and Cooper assert students achievement can occur when teachers encourage “relationships that they [students] believe appreciate their identity and honor them as individuals” (2007, p. 246). We cannot recognize our students as individuals when we hold onto the tenet of “sameness.” In addition to this, our schools’ populations reflect that of the country’s population: diverse. We are not the same. Therefore, the use of the word “sameness” is not only inappropriate and unfounded, but also extremely wrong.
Neoliberalist views also throw around the concept of “fairness.” Society is forced to buy into the idea that we must strive for “fairness” in education. However, I contend that it is not “fairness” but equity in education that we must strive for. All students must not only be ensured, but must also receive and have access to an equitable education. True, “fairness” may be an impetus to equity. “Fairness” at times may impact equity. But, we also must understand that what is equitable may not always be “fair.” The concept of “fairness” is an abstract and subjective idea. This idea of “fairness” is not only emotionally driven, but situational as well. What may be considered “fair” to some, may not be “fair” to others.
On the other hand, equity is a goal we must achieve in education. Equity can be substantiated with tangible evidence. When ALL students have better performance rates, when drop-out rates decrease, when urban schools receive the proper equipment and tools for their classrooms, we are headed in the direction of equity in schools. But we must recognize that sometimes equity does not necessarily mean “fairness.” At times, some practices on this road to equity may be un”fair.” For example, Jane may require additional time on her math test. John may see this accommodation that provides Jane with an equitable education as unfair to him. However, this practice ultimately helps to guarantee Jane with an equitable education.
Yet again the neoliberal agenda has manipulated and deceived society. By throwing out words like “sameness” and “fairness,” we are manipulated into buying into the notion of “what is right for one is right for all.” However, we know this not to be true. Only when terms like “individual” and “equity” are added to the discussions of educational reform can we ensure proper and equitable education for each individual student.
No comments:
Post a Comment