Diversity and "Equity" are each other's enemies... discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

This graphic is a cancer

+1. Equity means every getting what they need. But current attempts at “equity” hold the advanced kids back to make the gap appear smaller. I have no problem with kids who need extra aides, supports, pullouts, etc. But stop eliminating honors/AP/enrichment activities for other kids. And yes this is happening at our school right before our eyes, all in the name of “equity.”

This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

I don’t care who got support younger when they did. All kids should be met in school at their appropriate level. You don’t freaking let the advance kid learn basically nothing by dumbing down the curriculum or taking away harder courses such as honors/AP / etc..

Your dumb ass theory of race to the bottom is exactly why this country has to import talent and why parents with options pull their kids out of public schools into charters and private which does absolutely nothing to improve public schools and end up with less resources with funding and also from families. Classic example of this is in DC.

[Anonymous]

Advanced kids are shamed for everything good they do to get ahead. "your parents are married" - privilege. "Your parents are not drinking and doing drugs"- privilege. "You are studying hard at school" - privilege. The culture of shaming academically advanced, motivated and good kids was at first only contained to a particular community. Now they are spreading the contagion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

Indeed, fathers making the poor decision to abandon their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Advanced kids are shamed for everything good they do to get ahead. "your parents are married" - privilege. "Your parents are not drinking and doing drugs"- privilege. "You are studying hard at school" - privilege. The culture of shaming academically advanced, motivated and good kids was at first only contained to a particular community. Now they are spreading the contagion.

Sorry the truth hurts you so. You will get over it. The world is changed. Your average kid will be fine, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

Like it or not, that is becoming the norm throughout the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

This graphic is a cancer

+1. Equity means every getting what they need. But current attempts at “equity” hold the advanced kids back to make the gap appear smaller. I have no problem with kids who need extra aides, supports, pullouts, etc. But stop eliminating honors/AP/enrichment activities for other kids. And yes this is happening at our school right before our eyes, all in the name of “equity.”

This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

I don’t care who got support younger when they did. All kids should be met in school at their appropriate level. You don’t freaking let the advance kid learn basically nothing by dumbing down the curriculum or taking away harder courses such as honors/AP / etc..

Your dumb ass theory of race to the bottom is exactly why this country has to import talent and why parents with options pull their kids out of public schools into charters and private which does absolutely nothing to improve public schools and end up with less resources with funding and also from families. Classic example of this is in DC.

Explain Stuyvesant with all of its poor, underprivileged high-achieving students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

This graphic is a cancer

+1. Equity means every getting what they need. But current attempts at “equity” hold the advanced kids back to make the gap appear smaller. I have no problem with kids who need extra aides, supports, pullouts, etc. But stop eliminating honors/AP/enrichment activities for other kids. And yes this is happening at our school right before our eyes, all in the name of “equity.”

This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

I don’t care who got support younger when they did. All kids should be met in school at their appropriate level. You don’t freaking let the advance kid learn basically nothing by dumbing down the curriculum or taking away harder courses such as honors/AP / etc..

Your dumb ass theory of race to the bottom is exactly why this country has to import talent and why parents with options pull their kids out of public schools into charters and private which does absolutely nothing to improve public schools and end up with less resources with funding and also from families. Classic example of this is in DC.

Explain Stuyvesant with all of its poor, underprivileged high-achieving students

Extreme outlier due to being in a major city with great public transit.

Now explain TJ with its 2% FARMs students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

This. One of the parent is the shitty parent. This is especially true in the poor black communities where many fathers are incarcerated. Those that are not, many abandon their responsibilities to their kid and could care less. I have a good friend in this situation but she is lucky because she has support from her family and they are helping to raise him. These kids have no strong father figures at all.

The single moms with no support are working to support the family so no one is at home watching the kids. They then get into trouble, hang out with the wrong crowd, etc….

The other issue is that some households with 2 parents, they just don’t give a sh’t about the kids and are just unfit to be parents. Ask a teacher in a title 1 school about that and they can easily tell you the percentages and you would be surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

This graphic is a cancer

+1. Equity means every getting what they need. But current attempts at “equity” hold the advanced kids back to make the gap appear smaller. I have no problem with kids who need extra aides, supports, pullouts, etc. But stop eliminating honors/AP/enrichment activities for other kids. And yes this is happening at our school right before our eyes, all in the name of “equity.”

This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

I don’t care who got support younger when they did. All kids should be met in school at their appropriate level. You don’t freaking let the advance kid learn basically nothing by dumbing down the curriculum or taking away harder courses such as honors/AP / etc..

Your dumb ass theory of race to the bottom is exactly why this country has to import talent and why parents with options pull their kids out of public schools into charters and private which does absolutely nothing to improve public schools and end up with less resources with funding and also from families. Classic example of this is in DC.

Explain Stuyvesant with all of its poor, underprivileged high-achieving students

PP here. Stuyvesant works not because there is many poor kids but because it is a test in school that offers challenging courses so yes the kids are met at their level.

You know why these poor kids do well? It’s because they have family support and families that places a high value on education. You don’t have that and no matter what the school attempts, it will not work to get these kids up to this level, especially after the early elementary years.