Over the past couple years, Pedro Noguera and I have done scores of events, webinars, and media appearances in which we鈥檝e discussed our book . One theme that inevitably comes up, just because it鈥檚 unavoidable in today鈥檚 educational landscape, is the issue of 鈥渆quity.鈥�
Someone will ask about equity. Pedro, as befits an education school luminary, will talk about how we can do better by kids who鈥檝e been marginalized, overlooked, or left behind. And then I鈥檒l nod along as Pedro speaks and say, 鈥淵eah, I鈥檓 good with that. But I鈥檓 deeply concerned that the push for equity has taken us into goofy territory where 鈥榩ro-equity鈥� ideologues are doing destructive, inexcusable things.鈥�
And then, depending on the topic, I鈥檒l offer a couple examples of what鈥檚 being done in the name of equity. California has sought to advanced-math classes and bar kids from 8th grade algebra because of equity. In 鈥済rading for equity鈥� schools, students no consequences for missed assignments or lousy work because of equity. Teachers have been urged to abandon math practices like students to find the correct answer because of equity. My local school system in Arlington, Va., teachers not to cover new content for three months in 2020 because of equity. School systems have honors classes because of equity. School leaders have word of students鈥� academic awards because of equity. Academic experts that teaching 鈥�2+2鈥� is problematic because of equity.
Invariably, when I offer these sorts of examples, most (or even all) in attendance wind up saying something to the effect of, 鈥淵eah, well, I agree that鈥檚 silly. But that鈥檚 not what this is about.鈥�
To which I鈥檓 invariably tempted to say, 鈥淭hat may not be what you want it to be about. But, it seems to me, this frequently is what it鈥檚 about.鈥� If this isn鈥檛 what most people think 鈥渆quity鈥� is supposed to mean, they need to confront the ideologues and poseurs who are doing destructive things in its name.
The other week offered another textbook instance. Back in 2021, Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon, signed a law repealing the state鈥檚 requirement that high schoolers be able to pass reading, writing, and math tests in order to graduate. A spokesman for Brown that the state needed 鈥渆quitable graduation standards,鈥� ones that would benefit 鈥淥regon鈥檚 Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.鈥�
As I observed at the time, 鈥淚 have trouble thinking of an educational policy more threatening to any state鈥檚 鈥楤lack, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color鈥� than the suggestion that it鈥檚 fine for them to graduate without being able to read. It seems patently offensive to suggest that expecting high school grads to be literate and numerate is racially suspect.鈥�
In any event, back in 2021, it was promised that the state鈥檚 education brain trust just needed a year or two to retool the requirements into something more equitable and refined. Everyone was assured that it would just be a couple of years during which schools would be graduating students whether or not they鈥檇 been adequately educated. Well, not so much. In October, the Oregon state board of education the graduation requirement until at least spring 2028. After hemming and hawing in the face of extensive , the board ultimately decided it was more 鈥渆quitable鈥� to send illiterate young people out into the world than to ensure Oregon鈥檚 graduates could read, write, and do math at a high school level.
Setting aside Oregon鈥檚 decision, my persistent frustration in all of this is the shape-shifting nature of equity. For a term that gets used in every mission statement and school district missive, every other research article, and every third education headline, it鈥檚 remarkably hard to get a straight answer on what 鈥渆quity鈥� actually means. Oh, sure, I鈥檝e been walked through all the colorful graphics depicting kids on boxes at a fence or a tree (with the cartoonish distinctions between 鈥渆quality鈥� and 鈥渆quity鈥� and so forth). But, in practice, whenever I raise specific concerns about how equity is being applied, I鈥檓 told that is, of course, problematic but 鈥渢hat鈥檚 not really equity.鈥�
If a school鈥檚 disciplinary policy makes classrooms chaotic and kids feel unsafe, is that 鈥渆quitable鈥�? What about a pedagogical approach that prioritizes struggling readers while leaving students on grade level to fend for themselves? Or a 鈥済rading for equity鈥� policy that leads students to cut corners because they can get good grades without doing the work? I don鈥檛 see how any of these outcomes are especially 鈥渆quitable.鈥�
Ultimately, 鈥渆quity鈥� is often treated as a magic word鈥攊t鈥檚 all the good stuff. If something is dumb or destructive then, by definition, it鈥檚 not a manifestation of equity. Here鈥檚 the thing: Too often, that doesn鈥檛 strike me as a fair or accurate description of how equity plays out in practice. I think we鈥檙e at the point where that term obscures more than it reveals.
I think we鈥檇 be better off if we treated the term 鈥渆quity鈥� like the term 鈥渋nnovation鈥� (which I encourage educators to regard as a four-letter word) and instead focus on what we actually mean. For instance, I believe that high school grads need to master certain skills, and schools and states should be ensuring that they master them. I believe that students should learn to work hard, turn their work in on time, respect their teachers, and feel challenged. And I think this should be the expectation for all students. If that鈥檚 consistent with prevailing notions of equity, that鈥檇 be news to me.
If that stance means I鈥檓 an opponent of 鈥渆quity,鈥� so be it. If that鈥檚 the case, I think champions of equity have some hard thinking to do. But I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 actually the takeaway. I think the real lesson is that the agents of 鈥渆quity鈥� have frequently got so caught up in the rhetoric, spectacle, and conceit of the thing that they鈥檝e lost the plot.
