The true meaning of "equity"

[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.

This method creates bystanders, not players.

They’re still behind the fence. Canceling the game would be best, because the people behind the fence aren’t getting to play.

The actual problem is that this assumes that all 3 people are interested in this game. The reality is equity assumes all people want the same outcomes but most could care less. In the end it's just another fool's errand and never works.

Yes, turns out the kid with two boxes isn't into baseball and wanders off. Meanwhile, the team goes belly up since their stadium isn't full when there were plenty of fans who wanted to attend but couldn't because of these pointless concessions.

I would say that in practice, the middle box is given to the tallest kid, the small kid gets two boxes in the name of equity, and the middle kid wanders off because no one seems to care whether he can see the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This method creates bystanders, not players.

They’re still behind the fence. Canceling the game would be best, because the people behind the fence aren’t getting to play.

The actual problem is that this assumes that all 3 people are interested in this game. The reality is equity assumes all people want the same outcomes but most could care less. In the end it's just another fool's errand and never works.

Yes, turns out the kid with two boxes isn't into baseball and wanders off. Meanwhile, the team goes belly up since their stadium isn't full when there were plenty of fans who wanted to attend but couldn't because of these pointless concessions.

Either abolish all sports or create some Affirmative Action for short and young kids to play pro baseball.

#equality

Sprots aren't analogous to equal opportunity in public education.

As evidenced by Title IX, the Federal government seems to think so when it comes to college athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A more realistic depiction is that progressives spend millions to make the fence taller so no one can see over it.

It's also telling that the prior "equity" depiction shows a young child, an older child, and a middle-aged adult. It unintentionally reveals how the left largely infantilizes those they claim to want to help.

Fair point.

I guess those seen as "young childs" shouldn't have the right to vote.

Weird take. We do have minimum voting ages and for good reason.

The Left is eager to get rid of these, and has lowered to 16 in some places.

Yep. 16 in Rockville now.

No Effing way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This method creates bystanders, not players.

They’re still behind the fence. Canceling the game would be best, because the people behind the fence aren’t getting to play.

The actual problem is that this assumes that all 3 people are interested in this game. The reality is equity assumes all people want the same outcomes but most could care less. In the end it's just another fool's errand and never works.

Yes, turns out the kid with two boxes isn't into baseball and wanders off. Meanwhile, the team goes belly up since their stadium isn't full when there were plenty of fans who wanted to attend but couldn't because of these pointless concessions.

Either abolish all sports or create some Affirmative Action for short and young kids to play pro baseball.

#equality

Sprots aren't analogous to equal opportunity in public education.

As evidenced by Title IX, the Federal government seems to think so when it comes to college athletics.

Title IX has become a farce since people can self-identify their gender at will.

[Anonymous]

So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

You do realize that's what we've been doing for years? Between the proliferation of students requiring special services, especially in UMC areas, like extra time on tests like SATs, and the rise in ESOL students. There's very little left for anyone else, especially not students who are already doing well. They are basically ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A more realistic depiction is that progressives spend millions to make the fence taller so no one can see over it.

It's also telling that the prior "equity" depiction shows a young child, an older child, and a middle-aged adult. It unintentionally reveals how the left largely infantilizes those they claim to want to help.

Fair point.

I guess those seen as "young childs" shouldn't have the right to vote.

Weird take. We do have minimum voting ages and for good reason.

The Left is eager to get rid of these, and has lowered to 16 in some places.

Yep. 16 in Rockville now.

No Effing way.

I know it's great. Sadly, it only applies to local elections so things like the school board aren't on their ballot. However, the reason this is a good thing is by engaging people early they tend to stay more politically active at least that's what the studies have shown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically the rich parents who can afford to test prep their kids from 1st grade NNAT up until the TJ test are all pissed that they no longer can reliably get their kids a quality private high school education with public dollars. Why we are spending public money on a school like TJ and at the same time all the other schools are overcrowded and can't afford to pay enough to keep teachers and subs will never make sense to me.
My son's 2nd grade teacher told us that over half the kids were in Kumon, Sunshine Academy, and other math prep (and CogAT prep) courses when she asked if kids had seen questions like these during the CogAT pre-test examples a couple years ago.

All the test prepping in the world isn't going to move a kid more than a couple of points. This is a false narrative, put forth by activists to delegitimize, standardized tests and TJ. They provide no evidence for these fake theories they just tell stories. Since we are into lazy empiricism, I will give my own example. My DS didn't test prep at all. He took one practice test, then took the TJ test and finished in the top 10%. He went to TJ, finished in the top 10% and is going to a top 5 college. That's the kind of kid who should go to TJ and the kind of kid who may not go there in the future thanks to these admissions changes. The concept put forth about a bunch of rich kids test prepping and getting into TJ without deserving it is false. Most of the parents at TJ are middle class or lower middle class. It's not like McLean high school. Not very many rich people. Many of them are immigrants.

This is the type of thing you write when you think you know and understand TJ because maybe your kid went there, but you really don't. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is one of the elements of Marxism.

If by Marxism you mean a free and fair society, then sure.

Hmm. What "equity" proponents want to do is neither free nor fair.

More like totalitarian "Marxism" inspired by Mao or Stalin or Castro.

I know and progressive taxation is also socialist! Rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes that's for the poor!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

But, no level of support will ever be deemed “correct” if the outcomes are perceived as inevitable. And, of course, what you are telling the parents of gifted kids confronting the current situation is that absent massive increases in taxes and spending in schools, school resources can and should be diverted away from their children. Which was my point: until we reach some utopia, which of course has never been attained anywhere, the boxes must be taken away from the gifted children and given to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

But, no level of support will ever be deemed “correct” if the outcomes are perceived as inevitable. And, of course, what you are telling the parents of gifted kids confronting the current situation is that absent massive increases in taxes and spending in schools, school resources can and should be diverted away from their children. Which was my point: until we reach some utopia, which of course has never been attained anywhere, the boxes must be taken away from the gifted children and given to others.

“Inequitable” not “inevitable”. Clearly I need more supports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according to the poster, we should cut back any specials / G&T programs for advanced kids and only focus on the most disruptive kids in the class.

Well, yes, The G&T kids can already see the game, so you need to take away their boxes and give them to someone else.

So when applied to a school setting, the G&T kids who already meet basic minimum English and math standards should just be left to coast in class all year?!

True equity would mean giving EVERY child a meaningful opportunity to grow, no matter where they are. So you still make sure that advanced kids are challenged while also providing remedial support for kids who may be a little behind. Otherwise you're just dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator so no one gets jealous.

In practice, this is what progressives want.

They are required to advocate much much harder for the kids who are disadvantaged because conservatives tend to ascribe their being "a little behind" to some fault of themselves or their parents, when in fact there could be any number of reasons why they struggle. And sure, maybe it is their own fault in some cases.

The reality is, meeting every child where they are and providing the correct level of support for each requires a massive investment into public schools. If this is genuinely your goal, there is no excuse for voting for people who wish to tear down public schools. If you don't wish to make that investment, you can hardly blame a school system for spending its resources on the kids who need it the most rather than on kids who can get that additional enrichment elsewhere.

But, no level of support will ever be deemed “correct” if the outcomes are perceived as inevitable. And, of course, what you are telling the parents of gifted kids confronting the current situation is that absent massive increases in taxes and spending in schools, school resources can and should be diverted away from their children. Which was my point: until we reach some utopia, which of course has never been attained anywhere, the boxes must be taken away from the gifted children and given to others.

Bottom line is, if you're truly in favor of equality of opportunity, you should be in favor of the bolded. Full stop.