The true meaning of "equity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May need to watch this before discussing equity.

I'll play. Take the video and add, "Take 2 steps back if:"

- your parents never married
- your parents never finished high school
- you don't spend time with or know one parent
- your mother had you or a sibling while in high school or shortly thereafter

Again, no fault on these kids, but this is what I observed in my own family. I had the advantage of being the youngest and could see what happens when you have kids too early in life. They are still living in poverty or close to it and their kids are highly disadvantaged. Please don't blame me for taking a different road.

Parents need to sacrifice for their kids instead of their own happiness.

[Anonymous]

But walkability, vibrancy!

[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.).

What traditional elites? Are WASPs still at the top?

No not at all. This hasn't been the case in several generations.

The demographics that are at the top for health, education, lifespan, and income are from Asia. Likewise, the rise of Asians in politics and business, and I note moreso south Asians than east Asians, shows that this is not true by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the high achiever receives nothing in order to give more to the lowest achiever? Seems like the direction FCPS is heading in.

This is pretty much the way it is in a Title 1 school. If you have a high achiever, they will get next to nothing after the winter break.

The problem is when the fence is a foot taller and you only have 3 crates. Equity doesn't work and they all lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They expect tiger moms to either quit and be SAHM so that they can be a teacher to their kids during the weekends, OR them to work full time and still take out time to teach during the weekends and spend money on tutoring.
Homeschooling is better than equity focused FCPS.

Do that then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the high achiever receives nothing in order to give more to the lowest achiever? Seems like the direction FCPS is heading in.

This is pretty much the way it is in a Title 1 school. If you have a high achiever, they will get next to nothing after the winter break.

The problem is when the fence is a foot taller and you only have 3 crates. Equity doesn't work and they all lose.

True. But we are trying to reform a world where the rich guy would just buy two of the crates for himself and be the only one that gets to see the game.

[Anonymous]

Actually, the equity picture should have all 3 boys at the shortest boy's level. That's how it actually plays out in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the equity picture should have all 3 boys at the shortest boy's level. That's how it actually plays out in real life.

And, that is how you close the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the equity picture should have all 3 boys at the shortest boy's level. That's how it actually plays out in real life.

And, that is how you close the achievement gap.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the equity picture should have all 3 boys at the shortest boy's level. That's how it actually plays out in real life.

And, that is how you close the achievement gap.

You close the achievement gap and make sure everyone is doomed and to the lowest level. We will then have to close the World achievement gap and make sure our kids when they grow up don’t lose out to kids of countries like Russia, China, Korea. But the question is will these countries work with US to close the achievement gap?

[Anonymous]

Unless top colleges in Russia, China, and Korea accepts students on the basis of non academic factors including parental donations or participation in obscure activities isolated to largely a hand full of white heavy expensive private schools then they are not scared.

China is happy to complete with the operation varsity blues alumni and mediocre legacy admits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the equity picture should have all 3 boys at the shortest boy's level. That's how it actually plays out in real life.

And, that is how you close the achievement gap.

You close the achievement gap and make sure everyone is doomed and to the lowest level. We will then have to close the World achievement gap and make sure our kids when they grow up don’t lose out to kids of countries like Russia, China, Korea. But the question is will these countries work with US to close the achievement gap?

Those countries don’t deal with equality or equity.

I am a child of poor immigrants. I took advantage of the resources offered to me at school. I think giving everyone the opportunity should be good enough.

[Anonymous]

I am a child of poor immigrants. I took advantage of the resources offered to me at school. I think giving everyone the opportunity should be good enough.

+1

Unfortunately, our SB has never heard the axiom: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."

I've been saying for years that there are two ways to close the achievement gap--from the top or from the bottom. It is a lot harder to close it from the bottom. It takes hard work and instruction. So, our SB is choosing to close it from the top. "Equity" is equal outcomes. No one said the outcomes had to be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a child of poor immigrants. I took advantage of the resources offered to me at school. I think giving everyone the opportunity should be good enough.

+1

Unfortunately, our SB has never heard the axiom: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."

I've been saying for years that there are two ways to close the achievement gap--from the top or from the bottom. It is a lot harder to close it from the bottom. It takes hard work and instruction. So, our SB is choosing to close it from the top. "Equity" is equal outcomes. No one said the outcomes had to be good.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a child of poor immigrants. I took advantage of the resources offered to me at school. I think giving everyone the opportunity should be good enough.

+1

Unfortunately, our SB has never heard the axiom: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."

I've been saying for years that there are two ways to close the achievement gap--from the top or from the bottom. It is a lot harder to close it from the bottom. It takes hard work and instruction. So, our SB is choosing to close it from the top. "Equity" is equal outcomes. No one said the outcomes had to be good.

Your daily reminder that TJ, properly understood, is an opportunity and not an outcome. The same goes for colleges.