This isn’t really about assessment, or perhaps it is. First of all, some background. Because of a change in the dates used to establish school years where I lived when I was small, I missed a year at primary school. So, in a sense, I was disadvantaged. But I understand that, up to a certain age, they then gave those of us affected extra marks in exams. I’ve no idea whether that was actually the case. What I do know is that if I felt I’d been given unfair advantage over others in my more recent career (in particular as a female physicist) I would not be happy.
My definition of equality of opportunity has to do with leveling the playing field. I once arrived at a tutorial venue to give a tutorial, having requested a ground floor room because I knew someone in a wheelchair would be there. The problem was that the venue had given me a room in a portacabin up three steps. Only three steps but the effect was the same – the student couldn’t access the tutorial (well, not until I got angry and got us moved to another room). Sometimes apparently small things can get in the way of learning, for some students not for others, and promoting equal opportunity is to do with ensuring that these “small things” are removed. In my book, equality of opportunity is not the same of positive discrimination; I’d give a student extra time in an exam if a medical condition suggested it was necessary; I would not give a student extra marks just by virtue of the medical condition. I’m happy to argue my case for that…or at least I was…
At the Open University we have found that female students do less well on one of our physics modules, and we continue to investigate the causes for this and to seek to put it right. Start here to learn more about this work. However, I’d never have thought of increasing marks just for women or others in minority groups. After all, these are averages, some women and some black students do well, even if their average attainment is lower.
Then, in my catch-up reading of old copies of New Scientist I came across an opinion piece from Joshua Sokol entitled “Mix it up”. This points out, as I know from other sources, that there can be a mismatch between scores in tests and future performance. So if women and blacks do less well in a test, and we use that test to determine entry onto a subsequent programme (in this case an Astronomy PhD) we are both disadvantaging racial minorities and women, and failing to get the best students on the subsequent programme.
By coincidence, I been trying to come to terms with all of this in the week when my Department at the Open University has been awarded Institute of Physics Juno Champion Status for our commitment to gender equality. It’s great news, but it doesn’t mean we have arrived! More thought needed, and I think my conclusion to the conundrum described in this post is probably to be careful not to judge ANYONE on a single measure.
Sokol, Joshua (9th January 2016). Mix it up. New Scientist, number 3055, p. 24.
Interesting thoughts – I think there is another issue here, and that is, what if the test itself discriminates- by accident? We know there are gender issues with the FCI, it is possible that something about the FCI, the type of thinking needed, or the way it is administered (multiple choice) makes women less likely to do well.
In fact what if the cultural collection of ideas we call ‘science’, and the institutions and practices around science, (developed mainly by white men) happen to also disadvantages whose who are not white and male. What to do about it is tricky – but well done on the Juno status!
Interesting thoughts. I think there is another issue here, and that is, what if the test itself discriminates- by accident? We know there are gender issues with the FCI, it is possible that something about the FCI, the type of thinking needed, or the way it is administered (multiple choice) makes women less likely to do well.
In fact what if the cultural collection of ideas we call ‘science’, and the institutions and practices around science, (developed mainly by white men) happen to also disadvantages whose who are not white and male. What to do about it is tricky – but well done on the Juno status!
The test being the discriminator can indeed be an issue Anna, though recent findings on this have been contradictory; it looks was if the use of MCQs in the FCI may be an issue, but on our problematic physics module at the OU we’ve found that women do less well on all types of question. However there are particular questions on which women and men do, on average, better and worse than on other questions. If we can get beneath what’s going on here, we’ll have made some real progress.
Many thanks for your thoughts – this is such an interesting issue and so important!
I think positive discrimination can be OK in some forms. If the current system is a long way from the desired equilibrium, and the natural decay rate towards that equilibrium is very slow, then giving the system a push in the desired direction is a good idea.
Of course, that assumes that the system is now set up so that equality is a stable equilibrium (if not, you have to fix that first) and the current inequality is due to history.
Also, the nature of the push matters. I would not support giving bonus marks to disadvantaged groups. However, redesigning an assessment with known biasses to be less biassed is obviously good. (It increases reliability and validity of the assessment.) Another kind of positive discrimination that I would support, but others might not, is extra tutoring for disadvantaged groups.
Extra tuition for disadvantaged groups? Again, I’m not sure. If you frame it as extra tuition for particular groups of students with particular needs then I’m happy. Also, we know that providing separate tuition for separate groups can work well – this is the single-sex school debate and also to the idea of not having just one of a minority group in a tutorial group.
I suppose the general point is that providing equal opportunity is NOT the same as treating everyone in exactly the same way.