How would you interpret this as a new school employee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is discussed in nearly every PD we have. It is overkill because it’s the trendy topic. A few years ago it was restorative practices. PDs need to be about actual teaching practices and not the flavor of the year.

The old birds like this who don't care about equity will hopefully retire soon.

I am a "young" bird and I agree with the first poster. It is every other word right now. Next year it will be something different, thank goodness. I'm over "equity."

You'll wash out soon enough.

+1 being over equity is a scary sentiment. Like PP really is okay with systems that are set up to produce inequitable outcomes? Glad she isn’t teaching my kids.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is "over equity." Chill out. Teachers are sick of the same PDs over and over again. There are many other important topics that go undiscussed because they keeping saying the same things over and over again. Maybe new teachers should take the equity PDs.

[Anonymous]

I would interpret it as meaning that someone who doesn't read or write very well created the slide.

[Anonymous]

OP, every institution/industry has goals, stated goals ... which may not be achieved. Many will never be achieved. You should not challenge this. Your much bigger problem, than actually reaching any of these goals, is a lack of work experience and not knowing the game (of life, of work life everywhere)

[Anonymous]

To an extent, I agree with the op. Equity is basically built into every training now to reduce gaps in education. However, they never tell us what to actually do. Awareness of equity is not going to change anything unless curriculums and assignments are changed. That is not the job of the typical teacher. I always say that unless it is in the curriculum than it is not a real priority for the school system.

There is no discussion of engaging parents, formalized response strategies to kids in crisis, etc. Teachers are just expected to to wing it or figure it out in PLCs.

[Anonymous]

I'm a teacher...I interpret this as " treat every child with the love, respect, encouragement and access that you would want for your own child".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is discussed in nearly every PD we have. It is overkill because it’s the trendy topic. A few years ago it was restorative practices. PDs need to be about actual teaching practices and not the flavor of the year.

The old birds like this who don't care about equity will hopefully retire soon.

I am a "young" bird and I agree with the first poster. It is every other word right now. Next year it will be something different, thank goodness. I'm over "equity."

How very privileged of you to be over “equity.” Must be nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher...I interpret this as " treat every child with the love, respect, encouragement and access that you would want for your own child".

That's a great interpretation but if your back and Hispanic kids score a lot lower than your Asian and white kids you're going to be fired. Because to many school districts, equity means closing the achievement gap. Because you can't make the former group work any harder of the later group work any less, it's impossible. Best of luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did you become a teacher without any discussion or awareness of equity issues and their impact on how children learn? Genuinely curious.

They need to focus on how to teach kids how to read and write and not on equity. Everyone knows that students should be given equity of opportunity but that doesn’t mean the same results.

Be quiet.
EVERYONE should focus in equity. We should all have done awareness of how we are treating people, if we are dealing with the with understanding, empathy and respect. We should understand that everyone’s circumstances and experiences are different so we should not operate on assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher...I interpret this as " treat every child with the love, respect, encouragement and access that you would want for your own child".

That's a great interpretation but if your back and Hispanic kids score a lot lower than your Asian and white kids you're going to be fired. Because to many school districts, equity means closing the achievement gap. Because you can't make the former group work any harder of the later group work any less, it's impossible. Best of luck to you.

Racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is discussed in nearly every PD we have. It is overkill because it’s the trendy topic. A few years ago it was restorative practices. PDs need to be about actual teaching practices and not the flavor of the year.

The old birds like this who don't care about equity will hopefully retire soon.

I am a "young" bird and I agree with the first poster. It is every other word right now. Next year it will be something different, thank goodness. I'm over "equity."

NP. It’s not about being old and needing to retire. It’s about being experienced and having gone through the PD flavor of the month. Everything is about equity and awareness this year but nothing is a practical application for the classroom. A few years ago the same happened with restorative justice. Before that it was PBLs and cooperative learning. And before that it was recognizing learning disabilities and being aware of the different types of intelligence.

All important topics, but we sit through hours of PD at the philosophical level and no one discusses practical applications in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

I just feel very bad for the teachers and school employees who are navigating this on top of their many other responsibilities

[Anonymous]

Yeah - fake post. Well the “post” is real in that exists. Typical racists crap. Anyone of average intelligence who graduated with a teaching degree - and that obviously does not include the person making the post - understands the issues that disparity imposed, and that you cannot ignore them in the classroom.

The issue largely arose because kids in classrooms were largely from the same socio-economic group. But, obviously, that has never been the case with all students in the classroom and ignoring that fact is not permitted. So - no - you cannot assign a project that requires kids to have access to materials or abilities that are not available to all kids.

Example: Everyone in your 3rd grade class needs to go to the public library and get a library card. Problem: Billy’s mom is single parenting and his Grandma watches him after school. Grandma is great but does not drive and it is a 3 mile walk from Grandmas house to the library. When Billy’s mom gets home the library is closed. When Billy cannot show his new library card in class 2 weeks later shall we blame Billy? What do you think Billy got out of that assignment? Did it make Billy a more confident student? Did it make Billy want to go to the library and get books to read? Or, did you just embarrass and humiliate Billy?

Frankly - embarrassing and humiliating Billy is what the poster wants. Ha ha. Isn’t that fun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher...I interpret this as " treat every child with the love, respect, encouragement and access that you would want for your own child".

That's a great interpretation but if your back and Hispanic kids score a lot lower than your Asian and white kids you're going to be fired. Because to many school districts, equity means closing the achievement gap. Because you can't make the former group work any harder of the later group work any less, it's impossible. Best of luck to you.

Lol. That is not true. It's actually difficult to fire teachers. If this were true, no teachers would ever work with kids in Title 1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah - fake post. Well the “post” is real in that exists. Typical racists crap. Anyone of average intelligence who graduated with a teaching degree - and that obviously does not include the person making the post - understands the issues that disparity imposed, and that you cannot ignore them in the classroom.

The issue largely arose because kids in classrooms were largely from the same socio-economic group. But, obviously, that has never been the case with all students in the classroom and ignoring that fact is not permitted. So - no - you cannot assign a project that requires kids to have access to materials or abilities that are not available to all kids.

Example: Everyone in your 3rd grade class needs to go to the public library and get a library card. Problem: Billy’s mom is single parenting and his Grandma watches him after school. Grandma is great but does not drive and it is a 3 mile walk from Grandmas house to the library. When Billy’s mom gets home the library is closed. When Billy cannot show his new library card in class 2 weeks later shall we blame Billy? What do you think Billy got out of that assignment? Did it make Billy a more confident student? Did it make Billy want to go to the library and get books to read? Or, did you just embarrass and humiliate Billy?

Frankly - embarrassing and humiliating Billy is what the poster wants. Ha ha. Isn’t that fun?

Sure, but equity will lead to the teacher discouraging ALL kids from going to the library. And that's terrible. The reality is that Billy is doomed by a less than ideal home life. Should the rest of the students on Billy's class be held back because of it? Equity says they should which is insane.