This is the final article in our series on getting education equity right. look of Introduction post, as good as essay upon school finance, student discipline, advanced education, school closure, homework, gradingand a competent teacher.
For the past few months, I've been sending out posts about “getting education equity right.” Given that eight is enough, I'll wrap things up here. In a final twist, let's look at three ways schools are getting education equity wrong.
- By getting caught up in the soft prejudice of having low expectations.
- By tying the hands of teachers without just cause.
- By acting as if fairness is not only important, but the only thing.
Stocks as an excuse for the soft prejudice of low expectations
A recurring theme in this series is how wrong it is for schools to lower expectations for students “for reasons of fairness.” Of course, the schools, elected officials, advocates, and journalists who embrace these practices are not saying that expectations for students are diminishing, but that is exactly what is happening.
This is most evident in the world of higher education, where school districts refuse to take algebra in middle school because not everyone can take it. Thankfully, there is a growing backlash against this idea.
But other examples abound and unfortunately continue to be praised for their civility. For example, the idea is that grading or even assigning homework is unfair and unfair because some children don't have a quiet place to complete their work away from school. Consider this idea for a moment. Do we really believe that many American families are so dysfunctional that they can't even figure out how to make space for their children to solve math problems? Or are teens unable to find a place to get their homework done, such as the local library, school library, or even McDonald's? Why do we infantilize children and their parents in this way?
The same goes for policies that allow students to submit assignments late without penalty. Are we trying to teach our children to procrastinate? Is it to teach children that real life doesn't involve responsibility or consequences?
Or maintain school discipline. Many well-meaning people who would never say, “We can't expect poor kids or kids of color to learn fractions; it's too hard,'' but students of all kinds because of poverty or poverty… willing to insist that we have to accept the wrongdoing of. systemic racism. Journalists may be the worst at this point. Just last week, the Hechinger Report's lead article condemned suspensions and other actions for “subjective violations such as insubordination and disorderly conduct.” One concern is the bias in applying penalties for disruptive behavior. But as my colleague Daniel Bach has written, in the real classroom world, this leads to paralysis of authorities in the face of children's flagrant, over-the-top disrespect. And woe to their teachers.
Allowing low levels of defiance (this is how we define deviance) encourages and encourages more serious misbehavior. Behavior escalates as students learn that adults will be ignored and rules will be flaunted. A crumpled piece of paper is thrown and the teacher asks the culprit to move, but the culprit refuses. The next day he is walking around the classroom singing. The teacher asked him to sit down, but he refused. Eventually, he walks around the hallways and tells teachers to “fuck off” if they ask him to come back to class, which most teachers don't. Many other students join in the fun, and a cacophony of music fills the hall. The students in the class wonder why they have to listen to adults when they don't want to, when other kids flaunt the rules. Noisy, unsupervised halls increase the likelihood of student conflicts and fights.
We are certain that all students, regardless of the challenges they face due to poverty or racism, should be expected to treat their teachers with respect and civility in a reasonable manner. I can agree with you. Teachers in other countries would be appalled if they were told that they had to accept this kind of treatment as part of their job. Indeed, 99 percent of the parents of these children would be alarmed, if not outraged, if they learned that their children were being allowed such brutality at school.
“Downplaying deviations” in schoolwork, homework, grading, behavior, etc. will only disappoint students. That should stop.
tie the hands of teachers
Another big mistake some equity advocates make is reducing teachers' power and autonomy for no good reason. Certainly, educators don't always have to have complete decision-making power to do whatever they want. Biases are real, and that's why we strive to establish high and consistent academic standards and encourage teachers to follow them, ideally with the help of well-coordinated, high-quality instructional materials. That's one of the reasons I requested it. Again, to resist the soft bias of low expectations.
But advocates say it forces educators to teach with one or both hands tied behind their backs, contradicting recent preaching from the high church calling for educational equity. Too often, we refuse to let them use it.
For example, some school districts do not allow elementary school teachers to group students by achievement level when teaching reading or math, and many districts are eliminating “on-level” courses and There is a shift to “non-track” high school courses. And make everyone (wink wink) an “honor student.” Now imagine you are her 7th grade teacher. For a typical class, a student enters the classroom at an achievement level ranging from her 3rd grade to her 11th grade. So a kindly instructional coach in the district recommends dealing with it through “differentiated instruction.” It might be a good idea to receive magic beans and grow a beanstalk high in the sky while you're at it. Certainly they are guilty of magical thinking.
Most studies have found that grouping students by grade tends to help everyone learn more, especially when the groups are flexible and continually remixed. But progressive education doctrine declares that all forms of grouping or “tracking” are suspect, making teachers' lives dramatically more difficult and children's learning effectiveness dramatically reduced. Masu.
There are many other examples. Telling teachers they can't send disruptive students to the office and instead engaging them in lengthy “restorative justice” circles. Requiring a minimum grade of 50 percent even if children do not submit a research paper or show up for a test. Do not allow teachers to detain students for forgetting homework or refusing to participate in class discussions.
A constrained teacher is a dissatisfied teacher, which is bad for everyone and bad for equity.
Is fairness like a win or is that all that matters?
Finally, some educators and advocates act as if equity is the only value in education worth pursuing. I think this comes from a good place. There is no question that our system has a long and vile history of mistreating poor children and children of color. The swing of the pendulum is long overdue, and erring in the direction of equity is no terrible crime. But policies and practices that ignore everything else and everyone else will prove harmful and unsustainable.
So what other values are or should be important in our universal public education system? I would put excellence at the top of the list. It means doing right by our top performers, who have especially great potential to one day solve the world's problems and revitalize the economy. But it also means pursuing excellence in everything the school does, from the fundamentals of teaching and learning to tutoring and counseling, extracurricular activities and more.
A commitment to excellence is not necessarily inconsistent with a commitment to equity. In fact, as I wrote last year, excellence is not the enemy of fairness. The enemy of fairness and the enemy of excellence is mediocrity. Therefore, we must sound the alarm when “fair practices” end up promoting mediocrity.
Another important value is efficiency. Even America's relatively well-funded public education system does not have unlimited resources. Trade-offs are inevitable. But if you seek practices that promote equity, excellence, and efficiency, you're more likely to arrive at an effective approach. For example, when it comes to discipline and student behavior, it's not enough to think of the ideal strategy for disruptive students. They must also protect the learning environment of their colleagues and consider the demands on teachers' limited time.
The same goes for the difficult problem of schools with low enrollment. Equity advocates may want school districts to avoid closing schools with high proportions of poor children and children of color. But if those schools have declining student numbers, such an outcome may be inevitable. Because excellence (getting kids into better schools) and efficiency (not wasting money on small campuses) are also important.
Equity advocates must not be myopic. By balancing the urge for fairness with concerns for excellence and efficiency, you are more likely, not less, to achieve your goals.
—
I don't want it to end on a bitter note. The months (and words) I spent digging into education equity made me optimistic that we could find common ground, even on controversial issues. If we assume positive intentions, look for practical answers, and avoid getting drawn into culture war battles over language, we can move beyond conflict toward solutions. Let's properly achieve equity in education. Do it now.
