EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND PUBLIC POLICY: COMPARING RESULTS FROM 16 COUNTRIES
By Joel D. Sherman and Jeffrey M. Poirier
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal, 2007
The constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was adopted by 20 countries at the London Conference in November 1945 and entered into effect on 4 November 1946. The Organization currently has 191 Member States and six Associate Members. The main objective of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security in the world by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and communication in order to foster universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations. To fulfil its mandate, UNESCO performs five principal functions: 1) prospective studies on education, science, culture and communication for tomorrow's world; 2) the advancement, transfer and sharing of knowledge through research, training and teaching activities; 3) standard-setting actions for the preparation and adoption of internal instruments and statutory recommendations; 4) expertise through technical co-operation to Member States for their development policies and projects; and 5) the exchange of specialized information. UNESCO is headquartered in Paris, France.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics
The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) is the statistical office of UNESCO and is the UN depository for global statistics in the fields of education, science and technology, culture and communication. UIS was established in 1999. It was created to improve UNESCO's statistical programme and to develop and deliver the timely, accurate and policy-relevant statistics needed in today's increasingly complex and rapidly changing social, political and economic environments. UIS is based in Montreal, Canada.
American Institutes for Research (AIR)
Since its founding in 1946 as an independent, non-profit and non-partisan organization, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) has conducted more than 3,500 projects providing basic and applied research, technical support and management services to government agencies, non-profit organizations and private companies. AIR’s work in education spans both the domestic and international areas, with the latter including extensive work in comparative education and international development. 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW; Washington, DC 20007-3835; United States; air.org.
The right to education has been recognised by the international community for the last half century and has led to increasing interest in the equity of countries’ education systems. However, the term “equity” is subject to a variety of interpretations. Most would agree that education systems that are “equitable” provide high-quality education to all children, regardless of their background or where they live. But from there, opinions diverge about what aspect of education should be distributed “equitably” to whom and about what levels of disparity are “equitable” or “inequitable”. Recognising the lack of a common language for discussing the issue of equity in education, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) undertook a study to bring together some of the diverse approaches to equity and to provide a more systematic approach to conceptualising and measuring the equity of countries’ education systems. This study comes at an important time for policymakers, particularly in developing countries...
1. Equity has made the law more fair. Discuss
Equity can be defined in a technical sense as a branch of law administered by the court of chancery before the passing of the Judicature Act (1873-1875) with a view of supplementing the common law rules. Equity developed because of the problems of the common law.
The word 'equity' has a meaning of 'fairness' and this is the basis on which it operates. The existing law as at the time equity arose was common law, equity acted as a supplement to the common law thus it was described as being 'a gloss on the common law'. This statement shows that it improved the common law. Seeing that the law (common law) was made to ensure justice in particular cases, it is only right to say that if equity truly was a gloss on the common law, equity then made the law more fair. For example, a major problem of the common law courts was the fact that the only remedy they could give was 'damages' that is monetary compensation. In some cases this would not be the best method of putting matters right between the parties, therefore equity provided other equitable remedies.
Equity can also be said to have made the law more fair by its mode of operations which includes a series of maxims. This maxims are called equitable maxims and they include :
...The word ‘equity’ can be seen to have a wide range of meanings- to many it is a synonym for ‘fairness’ or justice’. Those within the legal community recognise equity as the body of rules developed and applied by the Court of Chancery; a court previously presided over by the Lord Chancellor with rules developed under his authority. The law of equity developed due to the inflexibility of the common law. Before the development ofequity, The law was rigid (which was often cited as a weakness) for example, claimants would only have a successful claim in common law courts if their claim could be matched with an existing writ and even then, the only remedy available to them was damages, even in cases where monetary compensation was not seen as the most suitable remedy. However, claimants who were unsuccessful in receiving a solution in the common law courts were able to appeal directly to the sovereign, who would then delegate cases to the Lord Chancellor for a decision. The Chancellors’ role, in time, was taken over through the development of the Court of Chancery, the aims of which were to deliver ‘equitable’ or ‘fair’ decisions in cases where justice could not be achieved in the Common law Courts. The creation of equity as a system of law was to serve as a means by which the English legal system could strike the balance between the rule-making process and the need to achieve fair results in individual and...
In accounting and finance, equity is the residual value or interest of the most junior class of investors in assets, after all liabilities are paid; if liability exceeds assets, negative equity exists. In an accounting context, shareholders' equity (or stockholders' equity, shareholders' funds, shareholders' capital or similar terms) represents the remaining interest in the assets of a company, spread among individual shareholders of common or preferred stock; a negative shareholders' equity is often referred to as a positive shareholders' deficit. At the very start of a business, owners put some funding into the business to finance operations. This creates a liability on the business in the shape of capital as the business is a separate entity from its owners. Businesses can be considered, for accounting purposes, sums of liabilities and assets; this is the accounting equation. After liabilities have been accounted for, the positive remainder is deemed the owners' interest in the business. This definition is helpful in understanding the liquidation process in case of bankruptcy. At first, all the secured creditors are paid against proceeds from assets. Afterwards, a series of creditors, ranked in priority sequence, have the next claim/right on the residual proceeds. Ownership equity is the last or residual claim against assets, paid only after all other creditors...
...Development of Equity
Before the Norman Conquest of 1066, there was no common law system, law was written in codes influenced by Roman law and created by local kings. Shire courts and hundred courts were responsible for law enforcement. The legal system was mainly based on custom and tradition by the intervention of god. The law was often reformed, being how the king wanted it to be. The Lord Chancellor, who was the chief legal administrator of the kingdom and the king, made their own law which was not common to all, this inflexibility made the people of England dissatisfied. The common law system began to develop only after the Norman Conquest. The Angelo Saxon law remained unchanged with only a few changes being made to suit their needs, which mostly favoured the Normans and the rich than the Saxons. In the 12th and 13th centuries “The Royal Principle Courts” were developed gradually which was later known as the “king’s bench, the court of common pleas and the court of exchequer”, which sat in Westminster. This system attracted the people to seek justice for them. (Mulholland, 2001)
The Three Royal Principles were then redefined since the lack of interest by the king, and virtually remained the same. However, some names of the courts were changed. The Royal courts remained the same and very important cases held by the kings were conducted here. The king’s officials held quarter sessions which were held four times a year than...
...dramatic, event in 1975 has had a more profound and lasting effect on the fabric of Australian law: the publication of the first edition of Meagher, Gummow and Lehane ’s Equity, Doctrines and Remedies (‘Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’), now in its fourth edition. Writing extra-curially, Justice Heydon has said that ‘no greater legal work has been written by Australians.’ The book has, indeed, been extremely influential throughout the common law world in arresting the decline of the serious study of legal doctrine, and of the unique contribution of equity jurisprudence in particular. Its great strength is its advocacy of the importance of an appreciation of the historical development of doctrine to the understanding, and shaping, of the modern legal system. And, as Spigelman CJ has recently reminded us, the method of common law systems demands that lawyers ‘acknowledge and respect the collective wisdom of our predecessors’, a comment that is, of course, as applicable in equity as it is at law.
Arguably the greatest legacy of Meagher, Gummow and Lehane, certainly its most renowned feature, is its exposition of the ‘fusion fallacy’, which seeks to define the relationship between law and equity in a judicature world (that is, in a common law system in which, emulating the Judicature Act 1873 (UK), law and equity are administered in the same court). Professor Ashburner had put the orthodox view of...
...OVERVIEW OF EQUITY IN UGANDA.
Juristic concept of Equity. (general juristic concept and technical juridical concept)
HISTORICAL OUT LINE AND EVOLUTION OF EQUITY.
Rationale for the growth.
The influence of the Roman law on the growth of equity.
Origins of English equity.
Expansion and development of equity jurisdiction.
Exclusive jurisdiction (creation of new rights)
Concurrent jurisdiction (creation of new remedies)
Auxiliary jurisdiction (creation of new procedure).
RELATION BETWEEN EQUITY AND CUSTOMARY LAW.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW.
Conflict between Chief Justice Coke and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere.
Effect of King James` decision.
Reforms (minor reforms and the Judicature Act).
EQUTY IN THE UGANDA LEGAL SYSTEM.
Liability of an executor for assets.
Agreement for a lease.
Joint under taking.
Variation of Deeds.
Fusion of Law and Equity
Fusion of the rules or fusion of the administration.
DEFINITION OF EQUITY.
Ø Right doing, good faith, honest, ethical dealings in relations and transactions between individual.
Ø Whatever is just and right in all human dealings and transactions.
Ø It is based on ordinary morality. This fluid and moralistic definition is incapable of enforcement...
...that person obviously suffered a wrong. It is one of the equitable maxims that 'Equity looks to the intention and not the form' which stands that it is fair to look at the intention rather than the fact they got the formalities wrong. This maxim was shown in the case of Berry v Berry (1929) where a deed was held to have been altered by a simple contract which is not possible in common law. However, equity decided that it is allowed with the presence of intention. The flexibility of equity had provided much more fairness and justice for the people. With the presence of equity, people tend to have more confidence in the legal system.
The only remedy that could be obtained through common law is monetary relief, damages. However, damages are not always the best solution for a case. For example, a person was harassed and all he could seek for is monetary relief in common law when it was clearly the best to prohibit the culprit from doing so. In equity, there is a maxim which is ‘Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy’. This allows equity to create new remedies where otherwise the plaintiff would not have an adequate remedy for the case and would only be able to claim the common law remedy of damages. Equitable remedies had been highly demanded since it was able to give a much satisfactory in the relief as it is based on remedy that suit best with case. In the...
...on trust. The maxims of equity evolved, as the principles applied by courts of equity in deciding cases before them and when looking at these maxims in particular “Equity will not assist a volunteer”; “Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift”; and “Equity follows the law” it would suggest that the intended trust of 50 shares would have failed due to uncertainty of subject matter. However, this was not the case. Dillion LJ found in favour of Hunter and allowed the trust to be valid arguing that there was no uncertainty. There appear to have been two underlying motivations for this decision. The first was that the finding of a trust would enforce the terms of the employment contract between the parties; and second was that it made no practical difference which 50 shares were subject to the trust given that there is no qualitative difference between one ordinary share and another ordinary share. This judgement has been heavily criticised. The main basis of argument for the critics is that these shares were not identifiable in bulk. Even though thshares were being put under trust. Problems will inevitably arise if 50 shares are sold, and who is to be chargeable to capital gains tax. Moss could argue that he was selling Hunter's 50 shares and so Hunter should be charged and Hunter could argue that Moss was acting on his own shares and should be charged himself. If the proceeds of the sale were then...