The true meaning of "equity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If people have one vote regardless of their wealth, why should taxes be progressive?

I know you can switch around fairness as you please, but humor me and have a decent discussion.

[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.

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.

My point was, provided that all want to watch, it stops at watching and not participating. The moment you want to participate it becomes selective again, and you’re back to square one. If you follow the same reasoning for participation, then it ends up like women’s baseball after the war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what's DCPS's excuse then? DC taxes are sky high and per student spending is off the charts. And yet DCPS is still openly hostile to any kind of enrichment for gifted students. It's all just about subsidizing the bottom and cursing those evil gentrifiers.

[Anonymous]

Equality of opportunity is unattainable. Full stop.

Imagine a family that is high socioeconomic status, high income, that pour resources in their children’s education. Not only money, but also reading them at night, helping them with math homework, modeling good behavior etc. Add to it a hereditary component if intelligence, e.g. both parents have advanced degrees etc.

There’s nothing that the school, or society for that matter can do to equalize the opportunity between the child if that family with the one living in project housing with addicted parents. No matter how much we tax the rich, of what the teachers do during the school hours. Adding more money to the system does help, but only marginally, the benefits are actually doubtful. We always see examples or charter svmchioks that get better results with less money per student.

[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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Equality of opportunity is unattainable. Full stop.

Imagine a family that is high socioeconomic status, high income, that pour resources in their children’s education. Not only money, but also reading them at night, helping them with math homework, modeling good behavior etc. Add to it a hereditary component if intelligence, e.g. both parents have advanced degrees etc.

There’s nothing that the school, or society for that matter can do to equalize the opportunity between the child if that family with the one living in project housing with addicted parents. No matter how much we tax the rich, of what the teachers do during the school hours. Adding more money to the system does help, but only marginally, the benefits are actually doubtful. We always see examples or charter svmchioks that get better results with less money per student.

+1

[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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Exhibit A: San Francisco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equality of opportunity is unattainable. Full stop.

Imagine a family that is high socioeconomic status, high income, that pour resources in their children’s education. Not only money, but also reading them at night, helping them with math homework, modeling good behavior etc. Add to it a hereditary component if intelligence, e.g. both parents have advanced degrees etc.

There’s nothing that the school, or society for that matter can do to equalize the opportunity between the child if that family with the one living in project housing with addicted parents. No matter how much we tax the rich, of what the teachers do during the school hours. Adding more money to the system does help, but only marginally, the benefits are actually doubtful. We always see examples or charter svmchioks that get better results with less money per student.

+1

+2

No pathways initiative or quota systems or teacher support will come even close to fixing a parent's inability to support a child student the same as other families. Add in the natural intelligence piece that may not be overcome by anything including a capable supporting family. We are just wasting money and dragging down other kids who cant help they come from greater means.

Its hilarious trying to explain to a kid why they cant be young scholars.

[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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

There’s a sizable portion of families that doesn’t think the public option is as good as it gets and find education alternatives in privates, charters and homeschooling.

I would love the special treatment of focusing on solid math, reading and writing without chasing the latest useless fad like equity, social emotional learning which won’t move the needle for any disadvantaged student. In my experience the vast majority that push these concepts are using it as an avenue to promote self interest.

[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 doesn't specifically mention athletics. They are just considered part of education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

The poorer schools get the special treatment and rather than acknowledge it they just demand more. Race to the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

There’s a sizable portion of families that doesn’t think the public option is as good as it gets and find education alternatives in privates, charters and homeschooling.

I would love the special treatment of focusing on solid math, reading and writing without chasing the latest useless fad like equity, social emotional learning which won’t move the needle for any disadvantaged student. In my experience the vast majority that push these concepts are using it as an avenue to promote self interest.

There have always been parochial and independent schools, even during whatever time the sky of falling crowd wants to point to as the golden age, parents still sent their kids to Potomac School or SSSAS if they had the means. I would like to hear more about the popularity of charters in Fairfax considering there are currently none

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your "reality" sounds a bit like a hostage situation: "We're going to hold your kids hostage until you agree to fork over enough money for us to take care of someone else's kids we think are more deserving first. And then we'll probably send you another hostage note, so keep saving your money."

The problem is you don't quite have the monopoly that would make this possible. You want it, which is why you bash every official or candidate who proposes alternatives, but even then people can still move or send their kids to privates.

Most don't buy any of that nonsense and realize FCPS schools are about as good as it gets but like to complain in the hope of getting special treatment.

The poorer schools get the special treatment and rather than acknowledge it they just demand more. Race to the bottom.

Title I and the school lunch program are both federal law.

[Anonymous]

The true meaning of "equity" is this:

I want what you have and am plotting to take it one way or another.