In a spring 2022 post, DIY DEI, I drew a comparison between the educational measurement and assessment community engaging in DEI with a baby discovering its feet for the first time. In that post, I discussed seven potential pitfalls that might cause us to stumble as we tried to make sense of DEI, in general, and within our context. One of those stumbling blocks was whether we had a handle on what DEI is. Working from a familiar framework, I asked,
- Should we view DEI as a unitary concept like validity?
- Or are diversity, equity, and inclusion three separate, but somehow interrelated, concepts or constructs?
- If they are separate, but interrelated, in what way(s) does that play out? Is there a hierarchical structure? Can you not have equity without diversity and inclusion?
- Is DEI, as a whole, a concept that is greater than the sum of its component parts?
- To what extent is the concept of DEI or the constructs of diversity, equity, and inclusion (if they are constructs) unidimensional, norm-referenced, dependent upon some other factors?
In the past couple of weeks, I attended a keynote address, several conference presentations, a webinar, and read one impassioned blog post each of which had some aspect of DEI in education, but not necessarily assessment, as its focus. Based on that sample of experiences, I have reached some tentative conclusions about what DEI is and where our field stands now, three years down the road.
One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others
My first takeaway is that DEI is not a unified, or unitary concept. To my mind, achieving and ensuring equity in education clearly stands apart from diversity and inclusion as a moral imperative. The National Equity Project offers the following definition of educational equity:
Educational equity means that every child receives what they need to develop to their full academic and social potential.
The keynote speaker I heard, Linda Darcy, noted that she prefers “each child” to “every child” in her definition of educational equity, explaining that “every” has more of a detached, group feel to it than “each” – a sentiment I can certainly relate to in the context of terms like No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds. A name, a face, or even an empty chair representing a student placed at the front of the meeting room as one of my colleagues used to do, all help to keep the focus on meeting the specific needs of “each” and “every” individual child.
Many other definitions of equity that I have read outside of the education arena also include a clause about the importance of identifying and eliminating the conditions, factors, beliefs, etc. that have been barriers to equity in the first place.
I don’t mean to diminish or downplay the importance of diversity or inclusion, but simply put, equity sits on a higher plane.
The position and definition of a fourth element, justice, when included in DEIJ statements/plans I have read feels quite similar to me to the discussion of “fairness” in the 2014 joint Standards; that is, “the term has no single technical meaning and is used in many different ways,” is related to “the broad goal of achieving equality of opportunity,” “is a fundamental validity issue and requires attention throughout all stages” an “is an overriding foundational concern.” Further, justice applies individually and collectively to considerations of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Honor and Guilt By Association
If equity does, in fact, stand apart in some tangible and critical way from diversity and inclusion, the next question I consider is what potentially is gained or lost by routinely grouping them together and considering them collectively.
On one level, there is an obvious downside: the steps needed to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion are not the same. Lumping them together, we run the risk of implying or inferring that a single approach or solution can achieve all three. Considering the whole is important, of course, but we know the dangers of conflating; think formative assessment and assessments, assessment and accountability, tests and testing.
Conflating (i.e., ascribing the characteristics of one thing to another) also carries the risk of encouraging (or at least facilitating) guilt by association and its lesser known complement, honor by association. Proponents of DEI tend to frame arguments around equity, hoping to raise diversity and inclusion to the same level, allowing them to ride equity’s coattails. Who can argue against equity? Critics, on the other hand, seek out the weakest link to break the entire chain, which in their mind and rhetoric is usually programs focused on diversity solely for the sake of diversity. Both honor and guilt by association are effective persuasive strategies, which of course is why they are used so often.
At some point, however, the devil is in the details, and we have to form theories of action, logic models, and formulate DEI/DEIJ plans that address each component and their interrelationships comprehensively and coherently.
And we also have to be able to be able to communicate clearly and cohesively with all stakeholders. Let’s face it, effective communication has not been our strong suit.
The Best Things In Life May Not Be Free, But Are Worth The Cost
One piece of rhetoric that I came across several times over the past two weeks as we attempt to communicate is the oft-made claim: Equity is not a zero-sum game
I linked to my colleague and friend Juan D’Brot’s post here, but he is certainly not the first nor only person to make this claim. The logical and moral reasoning behind the claim is sound. Equity is fairness. Fairness to you does not detract from fairness to me. I agree that the concept of equity ultimately is not a zero-sum game. Implementing programs and actions to achieve equity, or more importantly to overcome inequity, however, may be different matter.
There undoubtedly are many improvements to increase equity that can be made simply by changing attitudes or by revising, replacing, or rethinking existing policies. This low-hanging equity fruit may be harvested at little cost. Changes to counteract or remediate years of systemic inequities within school systems or to offset the effects of inequity outside the school building, however, are going to require resources. And in most schools, districts, cities, and states, resources are limited and fixed. Reallocation of resources, by definition, is a zero-sum game.
The allocation discussion is not new. It takes place every year in cities and towns across the country as school districts attempt to cover costs of equity-minded mandates such as services for students with disabilities or the implementation of programs to meet Title IX requirements. Bringing facilities out of disrepair, obtaining needed supplies, updating curriculum, hiring and retaining high-quality faculty and staff all require resources. Some arguments regarding resources are disingenuous and self-serving, but many are sincere as there is only so much money to go around.
Fixed resources can be allocated more efficiently, effectively, and perhaps equitably, of course, but my guess is that efficiency is a DOGE-road many don’t want to travel down at this particular moment in time.
Even with increased efficiency, however, I believe that it’s safe to say that overcoming inequity to ensure “that every child receives what they need to develop to their full academic and social potential” is going to require additional resources above and beyond those currently committed to public education, particularly in areas where inequity is greatest, and support is needed most. Securing that funding is going to require clear, well-developed strategies, and effective, honest communication about the costs and sacrifices that will have to be made.
The Problem With Rising Tides
Talk of “zero-sum games” is often accompanied by another piece of rhetoric. For as long as I can remember, the education reform movement has been in love with the aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats” – a concept we have borrowed from the economists. (Why do we lean so heavily on economists and econometricians?)
The problem, however, is that literally and figuratively, the image of a rising tide doesn’t fit our current situation.
First, taken literally, tides are the quintessential zero-sum game. The pool of water in the ocean is reallocated by gravity every 12 hours or so, but the total amount of water doesn’t change. Water added to one place during high tide is literally taken from somewhere else.
When used by economists, the term “rising tide” refers not simply to the daily ebbs and flows, but to expanding the economy, creating more water, making it rain, as they say.
So, we are back to the starting point of having to communicate clearly the need to expand, not simply reallocate the existing pool of resources in education to create the fairness and equity that we desire.
Second, combining the literal and figurative, rising sea levels does not have the same positive connotation that a rising tide might have had in the 1960s or even early 2000s. Rather than a benefit, rising tides are now the poster child of an existential threat – climate change. Not the imagery that we want to go with to communicate messages related to education reform and equity. Perhaps we can do something with a daisy.
Where We Go From Here
Despite the discussion above about the dangers of conflating and of the need to consider diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice individually, I am 100% behind the concept of going all in on equity when discussing testing, particularly large-scale assessment and state testing.
Since the early days of ESEA and Title 1, equity has been the driving force behind large-scale assessment, our raison d’etre. Testing’s equity mandate was confirmed and reinforced through the introduction of state NAEP in the 1990s, NCLB in 2001, Race to the Top in 2010, and even by ESSA leaving testing requirements in place.
The other components of DEIJ can be brought in when we move down a level and examine more critically policies related to the uses of testing.
Then when we shift from testing to tests (remember, don’t conflate the two), everything is on the table as we continue to work to improve our tests.
The same is true as we continue to work to expand and improve our professional community.
With regard to the high-level purpose of testing, however, it’s critical at this moment in time that we continue to put our best foot forward and maintain our focus on serving as an indispensable tool to improve educational equity.
Image by Roman Grac from Pixabay
Embrace the Absurd 