Equity vs Excellence: Can Schools Achieve Both?

Equity, to me, means fairness for everyone. It means giving students equal chances and making resources available to those who need them and those who ask for them. Excellence means performing at a level higher than average and completing work at a strong standard.

I believe equity and excellence can exist together. The problem begins when schools confuse fairness with lowering expectations.

Lowering standards does not solve a student's problem. It can hide it.

If a student cannot understand the material, changing the passing grade does not suddenly help that student understand. It only changes what the school considers acceptable. The student may move to the next level without the skills needed to succeed there.

I have seen this happen during my teaching career. Some students passed courses even though they did not fully understand the material. Sometimes they studied only enough to pass a test instead of actually learning the subject.

This creates problems later.

A student who moves to a higher level without mastering earlier skills may experience more stress and difficulty. The new class assumes the student already understands certain ideas. If those skills are missing, the student begins the course already behind.

Schools should be careful about promoting students before they are ready.

At the same time, raising standards can also create problems.

High-performing students often need difficult work. Without challenges, they may become bored and stop improving. Lower-performing students, however, may look at the same standard and believe it is impossible.

This does not mean the standard should disappear.

It means the support should change.

I believe all students should work toward the same basic academic standards. Students who can perform above those standards should have opportunities to move ahead. Students who struggle should receive more time, instruction, or other support to help them reach the standard.

Students with disabilities or other learning needs may require specific accommodations. These accommodations should help students access learning without simply removing every expectation.

This is the difference between changing the standard and changing the support.

Support can include extra time, one-on-one instruction, different learning materials, technology, smaller groups, or additional practice.

I have found that extra time can work well. Some students simply need longer to reach the same result. One student may complete an assignment in two days while another needs three days or a week.

The difficult question is how much time should be provided.

There is no simple answer. A student may need extra support in several subjects at the same time. Teachers must determine what the student does not understand and help that student move forward.

To me, fairness means that opportunities and resources should be available to everyone.

Not every student will need every resource. A strong student may never ask for tutoring. A struggling student may need tutoring every week. That does not make the system unfair if both students are allowed to use the service when they need it.

Fairness does not mean every student will have the same result.

Success still depends on effort, ability, support, and many other factors.

Gifted and high-performing students should also receive support.

Schools sometimes focus so much on struggling students that they forget students who are already performing above the standard. Those students also have educational needs. They should have access to advanced courses, difficult assignments, and programs that challenge them.

In some cases, students may be ready to move to a higher academic level.

However, intelligence is not the only factor.

A nine-year-old student may understand academic material at the level of a sixteen-year-old student but still think and behave like a nine-year-old. Moving that child into a much older classroom may create social problems.

Schools therefore need to consider both academic ability and maturity.

Differentiation can help schools balance these needs.

In my experience, differentiation can work when the classroom is managed properly.

I used four main groups in my classroom.

One group worked independently and included higher-performing students. Another group worked directly with me and included students who needed more help. A third group used technology to practice skills. The fourth part involved whole-class instruction where everyone learned together.

This system allowed me to support students at different levels without creating completely different classrooms.

However, differentiation requires resources.

Teachers need computers, pencils, notebooks, dictionaries, hands-on materials, and enough time to prepare. Schools cannot demand personalized instruction from teachers without giving them the tools needed to provide it.

This is one reason equity can become difficult in practice.

It sounds simple to say every student should receive what they need. In a classroom of twenty or thirty students, those needs can be very different.

Teachers need support too.

Another important issue is how schools measure fairness.

There has been major debate in the United States over whether race and other personal characteristics should affect educational opportunities. For example, Harvard University once considered race as one part of its admissions process. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the race-conscious admissions systems used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The issue was more complicated than simply giving one race a lower test standard than another. Supreme Court

My position is that academic standards should be connected to the program itself.

A student should not be accepted or rejected because of race, religion, appearance, or similar personal traits. Students should be judged by clear requirements connected to the academic opportunity.

Equity should focus on making sure students have the chance and support to meet those requirements.

This does not mean everyone will succeed at the same level.

Some students will perform better than others. That is normal.

The purpose of equity should not be to make every result equal.

It should be to make opportunity fair.

When a student struggles, schools should find out why. Teachers should identify what the student does not understand and provide support. When a student performs above the standard, schools should provide more difficult work.

Neither student should be ignored.

Equity and excellence do not have to compete.

Equity can lead to excellence when students receive the support they need while standards remain clear.

The goal should not be to lower the finish line.

The goal should be to help more students reach it.

Note: This article is written in a reflective interview format, exploring how education systems and classroom realities interact across different contexts.

References

National Association for Gifted Children. “Acceleration.” National Association for Gifted Children, 1 May 2025, www.nagc.org/news/acceleration. Accessed 10 Oct. 2026. This supports your point that high-performing students should have access to advanced work and acceleration when appropriate. National Association for Gifted Children

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Equity in Education in PISA 2022.” PISA 2022 Results, Volume I: The State of Learning and Equity in Education, OECD Publishing, 2023, www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en/full-report/equity-in-education-in-pisa-2022_4008c06e.html. Accessed 10 Oct. 2026. This is one of the strongest sources for your discussion of fairness, socioeconomic differences, and achievement gaps. OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Education Equity.” OECD, www.oecd.org/en/topics/education-equity.html. Accessed 10 Oct. 2026. This supports the idea that equitable education involves providing adequate learning opportunities and preparing teachers to meet different student needs. OECD

Smale-Jacobse, Annemieke E., et al. “Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, 2019, article 2366, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366. This systematic review found generally small-to-moderate positive effects from differentiated instruction while also noting important gaps in the evidence. PubMed

Deunk, Marjolein I., et al. “Effective Differentiation Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies on the Cognitive Effects of Differentiation Practices in Primary Education.” Educational Research Review, vol. 24, 2018, pp. 31–54. This supports your argument that differentiation can improve outcomes, especially when it is part of a broader instructional system rather than simple ability grouping. ScienceDirect

Asriadi, Muh. AM, et al. “Does Differentiated Instruction Affect Learning Outcome? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 7, no. 5, 2023, pp. 18–33. This provides further research support for differentiated instruction and its effect on student learning outcomes. ERIC

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. “Toolkit for Differentiating Reading Instruction for Grades K–3.” Institute of Education Sciences, ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/differentiate-reading-k-3. Accessed 10 Oct. 2026. This is a useful primary government source supporting your idea that students can receive different levels of instruction and support while still working toward academic standards. Institute of Education Sciences

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 600 U.S. 181. Supreme Court of the United States. 29 June 2023, www.supremecourt.gov/Opinions/22pdf/20-1199_Hgdj.Pdf. Accessed 10 Oct. 2026. This is the strongest primary source for the section of your article discussing Harvard, race-conscious admissions, and the debate over standards and equal treatment. The Court held that the admissions programs used by Harvard and UNC violated constitutional/equal-protection requirements; importantly, the case involved holistic race-conscious admissions, not simply separate published test-score cutoffs by race.