Remix clone Hacker News

> So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap.

That's not what equity is, but it's a common messaging by those trying to move the popular opinion against it, so I understand why you wrongly thought so.

Equity isn't about holding back high-achieving students or bringing everyone to the same level. Instead, it's about ensuring everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential, while recognizing that different people might need different levels or types of support to get there.

A true equity approach in education would mean:

    Supporting gifted students to reach their full potential
    AND providing additional support to students who face systemic barriers or need extra help
    AND ensuring all students have access to quality education and resources

The goal is to lift everyone up, not to hold anyone back. The idea that equity means lowering standards or limiting achievement is a misrepresentation often used to argue against equity initiatives as a straw man.

▲ hintymad 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Equity isn't about holding back high-achieving students or bringing everyone to the same level. Instead, it's about ensuring everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential, while recognizing that different people might need different levels or types of support to get there.

Isn't this equal opportunity, which means equality, which I also support?

> The goal is to lift everyone up, not to hold anyone back.

I thought California, or at least SFUSD, did exactly the opposite. For instance, they pushed the algebra to Grade 8 (or grade 9?) and geometry to grade 9, in the name of equity. That is, they try to restrict the access from even the ordinary kids (many kids have no problems studying algebra before grade 8) in the name of helping the challenged.

	▲	didibus 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Isn't this equal opportunity, which means equality, which also support? Sorry, I forked the convo in two different replies. I explain the difference with equal opportunity in my other response. But basically, the introduction of the idea of equity was because the prior idea of equal opportunity assumed everyone starts from the same place, or has the same potential. With equal opportunity, you give everyone the exact same education. With equity, you give everyone the education they deserve. > I thought California, or at least SFUSD, did exactly opposite. For instance, they pushed the algebra to Grade 8 (or grade 9?) and geometry to grade 9, in the name of equity. That is, they try to restrict the access from even the ordinary kids (many kids have no problems studying algebra before grade 8) in the name of helping the challenged. Ya, instead of providing additional support to help struggling students access advanced math earlier, they essentially "leveled down" by restricting access for everyone. That case is often cited as an example of how misunderstanding equity (or using equity as a cover for other goals, let's be honest) can lead to policies that actually increase educational disparities rather than reducing them. I can't explain it, and I don't support it. But it's not an example of equity, even if it pretends to be. I think sometimes the political deadlock results in stupid things like this. Like, they wanted funding to help struggling students, got opposition to it, so resorted to this "cost-free" but harmful alternative, and labeled it as "equity" to try to make it more palatable and fool the people who wanted them to implement equity polices to believe they did.