Deep Equity in Education: If it walks like a duck, it might be a duck!

My ears perk up a bit when I hear folks gnawing on the topic of education. And the buzz I’ve heard in recent days has been generated by a single word. That word is “equity.”

First thought? Equity and education both begin with an “e.” That may not be relevant, but most often, if we wish to come to grips with an idea, it is best to begin with the basics. And if I were a parent of today’s school-age youngsters, I would want to know in great detail the basics. Just what is it some current educators believe and propose when they use the word “equity.”

Whatever the current focus, we must never lose sight of this: it is necessary for each student to be able to read, comprehend, and write with clarity in the English language. It is further necessary for each student to be able to solve age-appropriate mathematical problems and to understand and apply essential principles of science to life in a complex world. Hence, “equity” in education — however it is described — must, as a minimum, achieve these outcomes.

“Equity” — if it is to be of value — must afford student success. This by providing best quality teaching staff and other resources without reducing educational standards of achievement. Allow me to repeat: without reducing educational standards of achievement.

Whatever the curricular goals for any course material, student expectations for success ought never be sacrificed on an altar of social equity engineering. Is that what the current “equity” effort is? Social engineering?

It may be too early to know. What we do know is that one local description is this: “deep equity is when every student has what they need and when they need it.” Yet, another local descriptor is, “a practice of ensuring fairer outcomes, treatments and opportunities for all members of the learning community.” Aside from the grammatical error (singular “student”, plural “they”), I have no qualm with the first statement. Who would argue against having what is needed for success?

But the second idea, that of advancing “fairer outcomes,” is rife with social engineering. Those who propose equality of outcome (in any endeavor) seem never to address equality of effort or equality of investment. Have you ever spoken with an Olympic medalist? I have! The athlete does not strive for equality of outcome but rather for success! For mastery. Go ahead, ask a gold medalist to share the highest award platform with a couch potato!

Yes, educators and students should focus upon success. We would do well to define success in any learning objective as no less than: successful (60% – 75%), highly successful (76% – 85%), advanced (86% – 95%) and mastery (96%-100%). And, yes, some students will need greater assistance than others to achieve success.

Equity, then, may best be described as strategies, tactics, and methods to be applied to guarantee successful outcomes. Never should the goal of “equity” be that of redefining or reducing curricular standards or expectations.

In my teaching career, fellow teachers, principals, parents, even students themselves, told me I was the most successful teacher they had encountered. To the extent that I was successful (more accurately, my students were successful) the issue of expectations was the prime reason.

I taught sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth graders both English and German. My students proved to me time and time again that when challenged they can and do succeed. If educators have a shortcoming, if student achievement falters, we seldom need to look beyond the issue of expectations.

Certainly, some students need a little more help getting over that bar, but that is not a reason to lower standards. The greater catastrophe is not sufficiently challenging all students.

I have always found my students to be far more capable than either I or they might have believed. It is not lack of potential that stalls most students; it is tepid textbooks, mindless methodology, and insufficient challenge. When students know what we expect of them, they rise to the challenge!

I offer these thoughts in the hope that current “equity in education” programs being proposed and applied in Virginia and many other states might resist the temptation to reduce our expectations for student achievement or lower the bar for standards. Nothing could be more harmful.