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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh and by the way, schools in NY offers free support and the families above, who are majority Asian also gives their kids resources. They work extra to do this and like I said sacrifice. They also instill a very tough work ethic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those “poor kids” are the result of a self-selection process of immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh and by the way, schools in NY offers free support and the families above, who are majority Asian also gives their kids resources. They work extra to do this and like I said sacrifice. They also instill a very tough work ethic.

Who are you implying here is not sacrificing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

Yea sure place all blame on racism and not any accountability on the kids. Guess you can say the 13 year old kid who died in DC while trying to steal cars at 3-4 am is doing nothing wrong. It’s just racism.

Sure, all these people incarcerated is because of racism, even though a large part of the police officers in DC are black. Guess they are perpetuating racism against their own people. Guess the data that shows black males as the highest perpetrator of crime by far than anyone else is false too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those “poor kids” are the result of a self-selection process of immigration.

This is laughable. Are you actually arguing that the family, their values, and the hard work these kids do is not why these kids are where they are?

Are you saying they got there just by self selection of immigration and then by osmosis just for being that? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

You are ignorant. You do realize that there are different parts of Asia and the majority of families that come here are from poor areas or were forced to flee because of war, brutal authoritarian regimes, etc…..

BTW, many kids at Stuyvesant are from poor, uneducated families who work in Chinatown. They came here for a better life for themselves and their kids.

But hey, you do you in your fantasy world that immigrants here all do well just due to being an immigrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

Yea sure place all blame on racism and not any accountability on the kids. Guess you can say the 13 year old kid who died in DC while trying to steal cars at 3-4 am is doing nothing wrong. It’s just racism.

Sure, all these people incarcerated is because of racism, even though a large part of the police officers in DC are black. Guess they are perpetuating racism against their own people. Guess the data that shows black males as the highest perpetrator of crime by far than anyone else is false too.

While this tangent is related to the original point of shitty parents, I don’t want to take away from the overarching theme of a kids desire, drive, and want for academics is usually determined by parents and that some parents just don’t care. These may be single black mothers and fathers or married white parents, or married black parents. Shitty parents come in all shapes and sizes.

I know several parents who’s sole focus is sports for their elementary school aged children and laugh at how poorly their kids do in school. Some of these kids are PoC and now because their parents don’t care and the kids, predictably, score poorly, and now we should be concerned with equity? Because their parents don’t prioritize education. Like I said, the school can’t fix shitty parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Generational wealth - shitty parents, a whole bunch of them but realistically, there are tons of normal everyday middle class Americans of all colors without generational wealth.
Untreated learning disabilities - shitty parents
Lack of knowledge about college - shitty parents
Bias in arrests, sentencing - don’t care, stop committing crimes. This isn’t rocket science
Bias in hiring - racist quota systems set up in many institutions now. But remaining bias may also exist because all of the above is true.

So how does removing advanced math/tracking fix any of that? The kids who have bad parents and/or learning disabilities will still get as good an education as the school system is capable of giving. Systemic discrimination of kids with greater learning capabilities seems like a stupid answer to problems created by perceived systemic racism.

[Anonymous]

And go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

I agree 100%. If we are going to raise kids up, we need as many family-based early intervention programs and incentives as possible. We are only making things worse by lowering standards in the classroom and crippling advanced programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. The first step is understanding the racism built into our systems and worldview.

Diversity values all people and cultures, even though the system favors some. Equity seeks to redress imbalances based on those systemic biases. Focusing on equity naturally increases and fosters diversity.

This is a problem right here. Most of us want to understand assertions of "racism built into our systems and worldview." But there are rarely any specific examples given. Instead of pointing out specific examples of racism in systems that can be worked on, the argument is made that unequal outcomes must indicate racism. Well, anyone with intelligence and a bit of honesty will say that there are lots of rational reasons for differences in outcomes that are not due to racism.

So, we don't fix real problems because all we do is vaguely point to "systemic racism." And frankly, I think more racism is being created by the so-called "anti-racism" efforts.

[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.

This is always the argument, but underneath all of your privilege arguments is the biological reality that not everyone has the same academic potential. I'm sorry, they just don't. So, our job is to maximize performance and development for each child within their abilities. A child born to a drug addicted mother, who has eaten junk food his entire life, etc. typically has both genetic and environmental handicaps that will limit his performance, regardless of the effort made by society to counteract those handicaps.

And honestly, if a society has limited resources, it is better for the group as a whole to focus resources on the ones who might innovate or create jobs for those less capable. Everyone is better off then.