The true meaning of "equity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first picture should be of equally tall kids standing on varying sized boxes labeled “home support”, “tutoring”, “implicit teacher biases” etc. The tall kid isn’t tall because he’s just tall. He has more boxes. He has every advantage outside of school. So in an equitable situation he wouldn’t be given more advantages in school while the kid with no supports outside of school gets fewer. AAP reeks of this though.

The same should be done in sports also, to be fair.

I don’t disagree. I don’t think a school should be giving kids who play club sports or get private coaching or who have a parent drilling with them at home every night should be given more advantages at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first picture should be of equally tall kids standing on varying sized boxes labeled “home support”, “tutoring”, “implicit teacher biases” etc. The tall kid isn’t tall because he’s just tall. He has more boxes. He has every advantage outside of school. So in an equitable situation he wouldn’t be given more advantages in school while the kid with no supports outside of school gets fewer. AAP reeks of this though.

The same should be done in sports also, to be fair.

I don’t disagree. I don’t think a school should be giving kids who play club sports or get private coaching or who have a parent drilling with them at home every night should be given more advantages at school.

Depends on what you mean by not being given more advantages in school. What you're suggesting sounds a lot like an achievement penalty. A child's parents are part of any child's innate base of support. A parent that works with their child is expending effort on their child. What you're effectively saying is that a family that works harder should receive less support in response to the extra effort they have put in. The implicit assumption is that they are only putting in more effort because of an inherent unfair advantage, which may or may not be true. The bottom line is that if you work harder, it pays off less (beyond simple diminishing returns).

Now, there could also be a simple misconception that advanced STEM kids are resource-hoarding the easy STEM classes, and seeing more success as a result. In reality, they are simply preferring the more challenging classes. The advantage they're getting from it is that it's easier to identify them on merit, which is something that companies tend to like, for unknown reasons.

[Anonymous]

PP you are right, equity means that a child who gets support from home should not be given any support from school. In this way, that child won’t get to advance more than the peers and all Children are at the same level, even if that level may be the bottom most level.
Equity means making sure children don’t get to utilize their full potential but need to remain to the bottom most level to support the peers.
Only good know where America will end up with Equity.

[Anonymous]

With sports, there should be many levels of teams available.

An interested 14 year old who is a total beginner should have a option available at their high school. They will most likely be shut out though since you seem to have to have played travel for years to make the Freshman or JV teams at most high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

This is the worst graphic. Who thinks it’s ok to put a little kid on top of two crates and then just not support him/her at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they talk about caring for high achievers?

It is not politically correct. It is not part of the message. Because....equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP you are right, equity means that a child who gets support from home should not be given any support from school. In this way, that child won’t get to advance more than the peers and all Children are at the same level, even if that level may be the bottom most level.
Equity means making sure children don’t get to utilize their full potential but need to remain to the bottom most level to support the peers.
Only good know where America will end up with Equity.

I kind of agree that this seems to be where we are going as a country and I do worry about the future of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP you are right, equity means that a child who gets support from home should not be given any support from school. In this way, that child won’t get to advance more than the peers and all Children are at the same level, even if that level may be the bottom most level.
Equity means making sure children don’t get to utilize their full potential but need to remain to the bottom most level to support the peers.
Only good know where America will end up with Equity.

+1

The woke crowd - university administrators and others in connected professions, know they are insulated from these policies. They have employee/Alumini paths to the top colleges and/or send their kids to private schools during K-12. So they are largely immune to the woke policies, which they largely use to promote their careers. The hypocrisy is that these people have very low opinion of Blacks and Hispanics.

If you don't measure then it is easy to say there is no inequality. Eliminate tests, reduce standards, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

This is the worst graphic. Who thinks it’s ok to put a little kid on top of two crates and then just not support him/her at all?

Whoever posted the graphic is so dumb!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP you are right, equity means that a child who gets support from home should not be given any support from school. In this way, that child won’t get to advance more than the peers and all Children are at the same level, even if that level may be the bottom most level.
Equity means making sure children don’t get to utilize their full potential but need to remain to the bottom most level to support the peers.
Only good know where America will end up with Equity.

+1

The woke crowd - university administrators and others in connected professions, know they are insulated from these policies. They have employee/Alumini paths to the top colleges and/or send their kids to private schools during K-12. So they are largely immune to the woke policies, which they largely use to promote their careers. The hypocrisy is that these people have very low opinion of Blacks and Hispanics.

If you don't measure then it is easy to say there is no inequality. Eliminate tests, reduce standards, etc.

The best way to sustain your own status and privilege is to make sure others don't scrutinize it too carefully, and the professional elite class has figured out that a very useful way to achieve that result is to focus attention on hard-working, striving immigrants and others who seek to avail of existing opportunities in public schools and reallocate opportunities to URMs and low-income.

It affects them very little, other than serving the useful purpose of giving URM and low-income children a slightly larger piece of the pie, while the traditional elites continue to enjoy almost all of the same advantages they had before. Those who get penalized in the process can be stigmatized as needed (their culture is "toxic," their applications "all look alike," their personalities are "lacking," etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP you are right, equity means that a child who gets support from home should not be given any support from school. In this way, that child won’t get to advance more than the peers and all Children are at the same level, even if that level may be the bottom most level.
Equity means making sure children don’t get to utilize their full potential but need to remain to the bottom most level to support the peers.
Only good know where America will end up with Equity.

+1

The woke crowd - university administrators and others in connected professions, know they are insulated from these policies. They have employee/Alumini paths to the top colleges and/or send their kids to private schools during K-12. So they are largely immune to the woke policies, which they largely use to promote their careers. The hypocrisy is that these people have very low opinion of Blacks and Hispanics.

If you don't measure then it is easy to say there is no inequality. Eliminate tests, reduce standards, etc.

The best way to sustain your own status and privilege is to make sure others don't scrutinize it too carefully, and the professional elite class has figured out that a very useful way to achieve that result is to focus attention on hard-working, striving immigrants and others who seek to avail of existing opportunities in public schools and reallocate opportunities to URMs and low-income.

It affects them very little, other than serving the useful purpose of giving URM and low-income children a slightly larger piece of the pie, while the traditional elites continue to enjoy almost all of the same advantages they had before. Those who get penalized in the process can be stigmatized as needed (their culture is "toxic," their applications "all look alike," their personalities are "lacking," etc.).

Generally the larger number of people required to collaborate, the crazier the conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agit-prop, but people see through it and are leaving FCPS in droves rather than put up with the neglect of their kids’ education simply because they are deemed privileged.

I know! I heard that everyone went private and now the schools are empty!

If you weren’t a fool you’d know the declines in FCPS’s enrollment are higher than both other area systems and many other systems of comparable size across the country.

Enjoy the race to the bottom in the name of “equity.”

And yet the schools are incredibly overcrowded so it's great that these complainers are leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With sports, there should be many levels of teams available.

An interested 14 year old who is a total beginner should have a option available at their high school. They will most likely be shut out though since you seem to have to have played travel for years to make the Freshman or JV teams at most high schools.

They do. It’s called intramurals.

People constantly want to compare high school sports with TJ admissions. It’s a stupid comparison. The correct comparison is between high school sports teams and high school math teams. Both are teams that are built with the purpose of winning competitions. TJ is not built to win competitions, even though it very frequently does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Equity means no American goes to college for ten years, graciously saving their spots for poor students from Lat Am, Africa and Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of postings over the last few weeks on the 2nd grade AAP pool made me realize that many on this board don't actually know what "equity" means. It is NOT equal treatment for all. It is "right sizing" the treatment based on the needs of the population. (alt+p)

Equity means providing the Title I kids more benefits than the kids from the higher SES schools because the Title I kids theoretically need greater support to have an equal footing as the kids from the SES schools.

Equity means no American goes to college for ten years, graciously saving their spots for poor students from Lat Am, Africa and Asia.

Be specific that you mean immigrants from other countries who are not yet US citizens. Once these immigrants are naturalized citizens, they are Americans too just like you. And when you say Asians, even the poor Asians, they are the most discriminated race in education (schools and colleges).