Inquiry for Equity: Or calling a spade a spade

Equity n. Fairness or impartiality.

Okay, clearly there is a new definition of “equity” in the context of this reading. Webster and I hold an equal view on the definition, fairness or impartiality. But this chapter makes it very clear that Malarkey’s view of equity is far different than my own.

Clarifying the word itself is important. For the record, my personal approach to equity means that students will experience equal growth.

The expectation is that a student entering 6th grade reading at the 6th grade level should leave reading at the 7th grade level, thus experiencing one year of growth. By this token the 6th grader coming in at the 8th grade level, should experience the same one-year growth, leaving at the 9th grade level.

Sometimes I feel that this step is overlooked. In the fervor to raise the lower-achieving students to grade level we may forget that our high-achieving students must experience equal growth, or equity does not exist, at least in my mind. Please know that I understand the need to scaffold our low-achieving students up to the proper level, but I also believe that this shouldn’t be done at the expense of other students.

But, let’s call a spade a spade. Malarkey’s not talking about a fair or impartial approach to education. Clearly, with the repeated references to addressing the needs of lower-achieving students the concept of equity is not about impartiality. Just so we’re all on the same page – no judgment intended.

In reference to looking at how inquiry can best support an equity focus Malarkey cautions us that we need to look carefully about how and why issues of equity are (or might be) overlooked in our investigations. A point not to be taken lightly. My concern is what kinds of specific questions need to be asked to assure the equity issue is properly addressed? If we are to insure that our inquiry is indeed equitible I at least need guidance in this area. Cindy, this seems to be your ballywick. Asking ourselves the right questions is of particular interest in areas where the focus is not directly on the lower-achieving student (such as writing circles, giving proper feedback in a writing group, or self-assessment of online writing).

A second issue dealt with in this chapter is the idea of inquiry. In this arena I agree wholeheartedly with Malarkey. Inquiry requires self-reflection. We need to look openly at how we approach students in our classroom; recognize what we don’t know; and see how we are meeting our own role as educators. “Inquiry helps us hold ourselves accountable.” Perhaps the most germane statement in the whole essay. I agree that inquiry, self-exploration, that reflective componment that defines a good teacher from a not-so-good teacher "can have a transformative effect on a teacher's practice even though the inquiry itself does (sic) not immediately lead to measurably improved results for students." Inquiry feeds our teacher souls.

Finally a note about the process of teacher research. On page 15 Malarkey states that “In order for inquiry to be sustained, it must be based on some real passion or curiosity of the teacher researcher." Pay attention Steph – this is exactly the confirmation you need to pursue the line of inquiry you’re proposing on your blog. As far as how this affects the rest of us I’ve already seen the pattern of inquiry at work. It seems that as we further reflect upon ourselves and our personal practices in the classroom. our research focus has shifted to better suit the passion or curiosity that made us sign-on for the summer institute in the first place.

Although I found much to disagree with here one thing is certain, there is a necessary fluidity to research that cannot be denied. We ride the wave wherever it takes us, not always in the same direction, but certainly with great excitement.