A Question of Equity

Posted by on Apr 15, 2009

equal

I had another conversation this week that left me much in the same frame of mind as the one I had last week.  This is a topic I’ve struggled with for many years, and I’m really not sure what the answer is.

The topic is equity.  The topic is tough.

If a public school teacher writes a grant for technology, but the district can’t sustain the program in other buildings or potentially refresh the equipment once it reaches end of life, should the grant be granted?  Is it better to deny the students in the classroom where the grant would be in effect so as to ensure equity across the district, or is it better to afford students an opportunity to reach higher, even if it means others won’t have that experience?  Would allowing the grant to go forward specifically advantage one group of students over another, and thus present ethical issues for a public entity?

The person I was talking with was adamant that we should not allow classrooms to have that which other classes in the district can’t.  Is this right?

The implications of the question are rather overwhelming on both sides.  I’m not sure what the answer is.

Thanks to Larsz for the Flickr image.

35 Comments

  1. Kelly Hines
    April 15, 2009

    This is a huge pet peeve of mine and one that I’ve faced numerous times. I have to think about it as a matter of resources. Just because everyone has the same pieces of equipment in their classrooms doesn’t mean they are using them in the same ways. I know that I use my computers in a very different way than my peers. To extend that thought, do you dictate how personnel is used and curriculum is taught? Because I can develop and implement a project that another teacher will not, does that mean I should deprive my students of the experience? How is that different?

    Reply
  2. Candace Follis
    April 15, 2009

    I don’t believe equity in education is plausible. An equal class is completely inachievable because let alone computers and technology, teachers are not all equally capable of reaching all students. Plus each class has different collections of students, some have more high students asking more thoughtful questions, and some struggle to maintain a discussion. There are so many dynamics to consider, that denying them computer access is a mute point.

    Education is never equal. All students come in with different strengths and weaknesses, all classes, all teachers… The fundamental argument is flawed.

    Reply
  3. wmchamberlain
    April 15, 2009

    I actually have lived through this. I co-authored an eMINTS grant for our building. It allowed 4 classrooms to get computers, smart boards, projectors, and even new furniture. We had to go through two years of rather lengthy training to get to use the equipment.

    I heard many teachers talk about the unfairness of what I had in my classroom. I really wanted to tell them to shut-up and write their own grant, but I had to work with them. My students did benefit from the grant, they did get tech to use that others didn’t have. My students today have benefited more because of the learning journey I began with that grant.

    The question doesn’t work anyway. The quality of the teachers throughout the district varies and that is where the true inequity lies. It isn’t about the toys, it is about the quality of teaching.

    Reply
  4. Lee Kolbert
    April 15, 2009

    Don’t even get me started!

    Reply
  5. C Fraser
    April 15, 2009

    We will never achieve 100% equality in education. There are simply too many variables. Even if we were to have the same aged students with one teacher and simple resources, e.g., textbook, whiteboard, paper pencils, no two students would have identical experiences.

    If there is an opportunity to enhance education through integrating technology, it should be seized. What we do is a practice and we search for ways to improve constantly. If we reach just one more student using the resources we have at the time we have them then it is definitely worth it.

    Reply
  6. Doug Sawyer
    April 15, 2009

    Whew! This is a tough one. I do agree with the responses above. My first thoughts while reading your post was at the very least administrators taking the position that one class shouldn’t get opportunities that another class isn’t getting is not logical. As previously stated if you completely take away all the technology, there are still way too many variables present to even use this as an argument. Should we fire excellent teachers because others are mediocre? Should we not allow a teacher to use an awesome lesson plan because others are not? Will we take this to a higher level and say because one district has more resources than another we should not allow that district to use its resources. I am all for equity and I would like to see all classrooms / districts have similar resources but we should be finding ways to give them more resources not take them away.

    Reply
  7. Jennifer Ansbach
    April 15, 2009

    I think that you can never make it “equitable.” Not all my students have the same resources at home, either. I can’t afford to buy computers for all my students who don’t have them at home, but that doesn’t mean the ones who do have them don’t use them.

    If teachers are willing to do the work required to get additional resources and make use of them, they should be encouraged and celebrated for that.

    Thank you for raising this question, though. It is certainly worth considering.

    Reply
  8. Deven Black
    April 15, 2009

    Would you deny a vaccine against polio to one class just because there isn’t enough for the other class? Didn’t think so.

    ALL resources are limited and we are constantly making choices about who gets what and why. Those choices are not easy and, like in so many aspects of life, there is no one right answer.

    I’m a middle school special education teacher in a high-poverty school. There are days when equity, or the lack of it, is almost all I think about. It would be wonderful if there were enough for everyone all the time, but it isn’t going to happen in my lifetime. Does that mean we stop striving for it? No, but it also doesn’t mean we say no to manna when it is offered.

    There are about six computer projectors in my school. Three of them are permanently assigned to one teacher on each grade. Thirty of us share the other three. I’ve never gotten my hands on one. Do I like it? Do I think its fair? Equitable? No, no and no. But six for 33 of us is not much better and the three who have them really use them.

    When I walk a few blocks to the nearest other middle school I enter a different world. That school is much newer and has air conditioning, better lighting and lots of tech. I get jealous of the AC and light, but the tech really makes me grind my teeth in anger. Not because they have it but because they have it and don’t use it.

    Wasting resources is much worse than not having equity. If you would use whatever it is the grant would supply, then by not taking the grant you are wasting a resource.

    Lack of equity is upsetting, agravating, frustrating and makes me angry. Waste makes me sick.

    Reply
  9. Theresa Reagan
    April 15, 2009

    Fair is not equal. We would be no where is we waited for all equipment, resources, teaching methods, assessment…to be equal. I agree with all other comments…and in particular, Lee Kolbert: Don’t even get me started.

    Reply
  10. dtitle
    April 15, 2009

    It’s the starfish story isn’t it? (http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/starfish.htm) Maybe we can’t help all the students, I guess that is an impodssible dream. But if we save a class, that is 30 students who will go out and effect 30 more each. Those 900 will save others, it’s exponential. Maybe it’s a pedagogical Ponzi scheme but if we don’t start with a single one, then we still stay at zero forever. In my mind there is no question but to fund fund and fund some more.

    Reply
  11. Barbara McLaughlin
    April 15, 2009

    Hm-m-m. Just had that conversation today, again.

    Our policy is to have the schools define their School Improvement Plan, including their vision for technology-driven curriculum. We do not have resources to “drop boxes” that will gather dust, but neither do we put big-buzz toys into exclusive classrooms, where they suck the light of curiosity out of those timid learners starting up the scaffolded path.

    But given an interested teacher, or in today’s case, admin, who had solid ideas for centres of integrated awesomeness, yeah, I’m going to help her shine a guiding light along the continuum.

    Does that look like equity? Probably not. Does that look like kids, and teachers, learning. I think so.

    Reply
  12. Kristin Gingrich
    April 15, 2009

    This is an issue that spans all the way from micro (equity between students) to serious macro (equity in world education) proportions. I haven’t ever considered the issue on the level you present here, particularly, but I have considered it from a district-to-district level. I’m sure you have as well, being that your wife teaches in a much different setting from that which you are involved. It’s incredibly difficult for me to see Robbie in such a poverty-stricken educational setting (although they do have more materials than I would have imagined) and then look at the district just next door and the incredible resources that they have at their fingertips. For a long time, I was of the firm and unshakable opinion that rich school districts and poor school districts simply should not exist. Distribute the wealth! Share the love! It’s a great idea, in theory, if only there was enough to go around. Do we take away poor and rich to make everyone mediocre? Communism at its finest.
    I think the best solution that I’ve been able to stomach would be the idea of integrating some sort of sharing into the learning. By that, I mean that students are taught that these skills are never to be hoarded. They are never to be used against others. The knowlege that these skills have the power to change impoverished communities should be some how present from day one, whether in sublte or direct ways.
    Now, I have no idea how to go about this. You’re the educator. Not me. 🙂 My point is that instead of just making rich kids richer and poor kids poorer, and instead of distributing the wealth among a district or among several districts, why not partner up and get the kids sharing what they have learned, if they are at some kind of educational advantage? Teach them to not be condescending in their skills by teaching others.
    It’s probably just another great theory; it’ll probably crumble at the first practice. But it’s worth some thought, no?

    Reply
  13. Ashley Garner
    April 15, 2009

    Unfortunately, as we’ve all heard before, life isn’t fair. I think it’s better to reach some instead of none. I agree w/ Kelly, you could go as far as to consider teaching style. Should I omit things simply b/c a teacher down the hall is not doing the same thing. And wmchamberlain, I agree, they need to start writing grants, etc. also. However, it’s easier for some to complain than to put forth a bit of effort.

    Reply
  14. Randy Saeks
    April 15, 2009

    Echoing what some others have said with equity in education, it is just a matter of fact that as fair as we would like education to be with resources, it just won’t happen. When I think of all the resources we have in schools; technology, curriculum, books and even teachers, how often have we achieved equity through the more traditional methods? Not to knock teachers, but some students get a teacher that is “better” than another. That could be that the teacher is more inline with a students learning style, or they do something unique and more engaging than another. How often do we offer our students instructor equity?

    I think my view on this is can we afford not to take the initiative? Thinking of the Interactive classroom as an example, with a projector IWB, and say a classroom set of laptops. Maybe when the laptops are too old and the board doesn’t respond anymore and the project needs a new bulb the school can’t afford to replace that entire setup. But, focusing on what WAS achieved versus what wasn’t is where I say yes, go for it. It can also be used as a way to teach students, “Life isn’t fair”. (Harsh, I know)

    Plus, wmchamberlain made a good point. With some of the grants out there those that really want to do it will. For those that feel things aren’t fair, then that may be the motivator for them to work a bit harder and go for that grant next year.

    Reply
  15. Nycrican2
    April 15, 2009

    Yes, I think the grant should be granted. Especially, if it is a high school because the technology may be something that is being bought for the particular needs of one class only. For example, a class in robotics in which the grant is used to buy robotics kits for use by students.

    It shouldn’t matter whether the school or school district can provide the same technology for other classrooms, schools or even upgrade it at a later date. Technology changes so fast, it may be a completely different technology tool that the school will need then. Also, if a teacher goes out of his/her comfort zone to get a grant, then I believe the students lucky enough to be in that teachers class should benefit from that

    Concerning your friend’s statement, as you are probably aware, there are many wealthy school districts where parents donate all kinds of tech tools to their neighborhood schools. Personally, I cannot see why these schools would have reject these gifts due to equity issues.

    So, yes, the USA offers a free public education to everyone, but the quality depends of how wealthy the school district is and the grant writing and teaching skills of the teachers. Unfortunately, a richer school district and teachers whom are savvy in grant writing and better educators, are two things that cannot be guaranteed by any constitution.

    Reply
  16. Education Blog » Blog Archive » Equity or idiocy?
    April 16, 2009

    […] Ben Grey highlighted an issue that often arises when educators think about technology […]

    Reply
  17. Kelly Dumont
    April 16, 2009

    The whole concept of equity as we talk about it here has bothered me for a long time. In our elementary schools for example, we define equity by the fact that we have computer labs where each student gets maybe an hour a week in that lab. The equity is in the time. But how each teacher uses that time is not equitable. The ability of each teacher to use that lab as an instructional tool is far from equitable. To me that makes the whole concept of equity as it applies here a farce.

    Now as to the question at hand. If a teacher is willing to put the time and effort into applying for and receiving a grant I don’t see this as having anything to do with equity. If you can’t achieve something on a global basis you don’t do it anywhere, that is ridiculous in my opinion.

    Let’s take it to another level. The students in that classroom are only going to have access to those resources for one year most likely. That’s not fair, so why even go after the grant? Why let them build skills that they are not going to have equipment to use ever again in their school careers? Let’s just leave everything at the mercy of our underfunded school systems to continue to put what little we can everywhere. Makes perfect sense. That’s how we do everything, so nothing great can come anywhere.

    Reply
  18. Paula Naugle
    April 16, 2009

    Your friend loses the agrument right from the start. Unless every student is taught by the same teacher, there is not going to be equity. If you put five teachers in identical classrooms decked out with all that technology has to offer right now, is there going to be equity in those classrooms? No. Because of standards that have to be taught, they will receive similar lessons, but you and I both know those lessons can be delivered in widely different ways. Just because the tech toys are in those classrooms does that mean they are used the same way? No. Teachers bring to the classroom different levels of technology skills. Some are geeky and some are not. Some teachers are willing to invest the extra time and effort to learn how to better integrate the technology and some are not.

    Getting the grant doesn’t just magically happen. Much time and energy was spent on the writing of the grant and much more time will be spent on implementing it. Too many teachers are just not willing to invest that much time and energy. I’ve had teachers ask me how I know what I do about technology. My reply to them is technology is my hobby and I spend many hours pursuing my hobby.

    There have to be pioneers in education. Those who are willing to write the grants are forging the trail and should not be denied. Those who cry foul and play the “equity card” should do something to make their environment more equitable.

    Reply
  19. Roger Whaley
    April 16, 2009

    Yes this grant should go through and be used.

    How do we move ahead unless we have some teachers out front trying some new technologies? If it makes a big difference between rooms, then it is time to get that tool to everyone.

    What is the principal afraid of? Having a class that may be taught differently? What next, everyone has the SAME math teacher, the SAME reading teacher, the SAME social studies teacher…boy, that had better be a pretty small enrollment school. You are not going to be able to give every student the same experience. Which, I think is a good thing. We don’t want everyone to be the same.

    Reply
  20. Andrew Kohl
    April 16, 2009

    This sort of feels like backwards thinking to me, Ben.

    How can the district, in good conscience, make a judgement of sustainability before they’ve seen the full value of the initiative? In my experience, teachers have often used grants to really open my eyes to a new practice or technology. After seeing it in action, there is often more motivation for a district to grow and sustain it.

    In order for my scenario to work, however, you need to make sure that the “granted” teacher will share their experiences with their colleagues, and advocate for change. Sadly, I’ve sometimes seen teachers use grants to build wonderful technological classrooms which are compeletely detached from the rest of their schools.

    The question becomes how you view your school / district environment. Do you feel that the culture promotes sharing and learning together? Or, is it a building of individual classrooms – more competitive than collaborative?

    Reply
  21. David Noller
    April 16, 2009

    In our building, we have resolved these issues by making our new toys portable. We purchased some podcasting equipment using a grant I wrote, but I am not the owner of the equipment. It is housed in the media center and is available for checkout by any teacher. The teacher with whom I wrote the grant uses it the most, but it’s out there for everyone to use.

    We have had teachers who have applied for grants and hoarded the equipment jealously. That’s not so much a problem of technology or equity, however, as it is a problem of personality.

    Reply
  22. David Noller
    April 16, 2009

    In our building, we have resolved these issues by making our new toys portable. We purchased some podcasting equipment using a grant I wrote, but I am not the owner of the equipment. It is housed in the media center and is available for checkout by any teacher. The teacher with whom I wrote the grant uses it the most, but it’s out there for everyone to use.

    We have had teachers who have applied for grants and hoarded the equipment jealously. That’s not so much a problem of technology or equity, however, as it is a problem of personality.
    P.S.: Wanted to say great post!

    Reply
  23. Laura Varlas
    April 16, 2009

    My non-teacher opinion is that the grant should be granted, with possibly the provision that the grantee mentor teachers in schools not receiving the grant on low-or-no-cost tech integration options and maybe also, grant-writing / being grant-savvy.

    I recently saw Michelle Rhee (I know, contentious!) speak about what she’s learned in her first couple years @DCPS. The biggest thing was focusing on big goals, not getting bogged down in all the things that were not fixable right away. I think that sort of ethic could apply to this dilemma, as well. I think education is better served by plowing ahead, not waiting for every condition to be perfect.

    Likewise–Yesterday, at Alliance for Education’s “Meaningful Measurements” symposium in D.C., Stanford U’s Ray Pecheone argued (in terms of finding truly transformational assessments) for the need to try out new things and “fail fast” so we can keep trying til we get it right.

    Reply
  24. sylvia martinez
    April 16, 2009

    The basic fallacy is the assumption that you can purchase equity.

    Reply
  25. Deborah S Tipps
    April 16, 2009

    Should no children have good teachers because there are not enough to go around? Should no one help a person who has fallen because not all injured individuals can be reached? Should all starve because some do?

    If dollar equity is achieved, the human variables will still be in effect. This absurdity also supposes that all children even benefit from the precise same treatment. Not true. Individuals are, hum? individuals? Some children will not have the best for them in the well-funded, high-tech classroom.

    There is no absolute equity. There are only individuals or groups of individuals doing the best they can with what they have where they are. When enough do that, something approaching equity may be achieved.

    Reply
  26. Nancy
    April 16, 2009

    The person who writes the grant should get the stuff (for the short term or long) and furthermore the person who uses the stuff should get the stuff and the person who gets the stuff should get the support–both tech support and staff dev. As my dad used to say “the only kind of ‘fair’ is county or state”. Tolerance for whiners? Not so much.

    Reply
  27. Brian Blake
    April 16, 2009

    There will never be complete equity in schools. Teachers, with, or without the use of technology, have different skill sets. Students in one classroom are never going to get the identical experience as the class next door. In terms of the grant, the teacher should go for it, integrate it into their classroom, and take those kids as far as they can go. The goal is that other teachers will see what is happening and get the bug, along with the building and district administrators. We owe it to the kids.

    Reply
  28. Heather Mason
    April 16, 2009

    Fact of Life: schools don’t have money. If we waited to implement every new technology until every classroom and every teacher could have enough, we would still be using our chalk boards and thinking that the holder that kept chalk dust off of you was high tech.
    If a teacher writes a grant, they are showing they are willing to learn and use whatever it is they get. Often, they also have to teach others as well. We have computers in all LA, SS and ESE classes. I know that some classes have kids on them constantly and others where you would have to wipe the dust off to see the screen. Having the tech in the classroom doesn’t guarantee fairness, it only sounds like it does. Having a teacher willing to do the work provides schools with experts ahead of time. Then as the tech is slowly moved into the building, you have someone who is ready to teach.

    Reply
  29. Robert Mainhart
    April 17, 2009

    I will continue to shout this from the rooftops:
    ***Equity does NOT mean equality!***

    Treating all students “the same” is probably the LEAST equitable thing to do as an educator. Different schools, different teachers, and indeed different students have different needs, because, well, they’re different!

    Equity in education, at least in my view, has more to do with students’ having access to whatever they individually need in order to achieve equal measures of success.

    In my opinion, the withholding of available resources is not only inequitable, it is unethical.

    Reply
  30. Julie McLeod
    April 18, 2009

    Many have addressed the equity issue quite eloquently. My take is slightly different…

    I believe that it is this “equity” stance that many take in education that completely squashes innovation and keeps education moving forward at a snail’s pace. We must have teachers who are willing to try new technologies, be open and committed to conversation about those new technologies, and then interested in helping other technology-shy teachers. That doesn’t happen in the “equity” model. But, how else will be able to make progress?

    Reply
  31. Dan McGuire
    April 19, 2009

    This, as others have pointed out, is a fallacious argument. Not allowing the grant does not insure equity anymore than allowing it.

    A basic problem of the theoretical argument is that there’s not enough thought present at the outset. What do you do with the information that is gained from doing the grant? How will the results of the action of the grant be analyzed and by whom? Who will be included in the assessment? What do the kids think? What do their parents think? There’s a lot of other questions that will inform the value of this grant and make moot the question posed in the initial post.

    Keep asking the right questions as you proceed with the grant and education will happen. If you don’t ask enough questions going in and as you go, then there won’t be enough value derived from the grant to worry about who got what?

    Reply
  32. Trevor Boehm
    April 23, 2009

    I’m involved in variations of this conversation from time to time…

    I really agree with dtitle about the starfish story and the exponential impact our actions and decisions can have.

    I also think a quote from Edward Everett Hale applies here:
    “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.”

    There’s this idea that in education we need to treat everyone the same… except that we really don’t. We make all sorts of adaptations for special circumstances when we make decisions about students, and that’s as it should be I think.

    Every now and then I run into “can’t do that, we would have to do it for everyone then”. In my opinion, everyone isn’t asking, everyone doesn’t need it, everyone won’t benefit from it, and/or everyone doesn’t want it. I (or the students I sometimes find myself advocating for) do want it / need it / plan to use it. And I’m / they’re asking for it. If we can do something beneficial without negatively affecting ourselves or others, then generally speaking we should.

    So I think…do not deny some an opportunity just because you can’t provide everyone that opportunity.

    Reply
  33. Deon Scanlon
    August 15, 2009

    I think that comparing quality of teachers with additional technology in classrooms is a flawed argument. Teachers pretty much cost the same amount of money and, in theory, have the same potential.

    A classroom with additional resources clearly has had more money spent on it, and therefore has greater potential (if the resources are any good!).

    I think most people base their idea of equity on potential. If two learning environments have vastly different potentials for educational outcomes, then there is a lack of equity, and people with students in one class may want their child moved to what they see as a ‘better’ class.

    But people do that because of quality of teachers, too.

    Make sure that all students across a year level have equitable access to resources, and the only people who can complain are those teachers who haven’t the initiative to seek the resources by applying for grants, themselves.

    I do not believe that this is an excuse to NOT go for a grant. Get money from wherever you can!

    Reply
  34. angie
    August 15, 2009

    There will never be equity in education. You can put the same items in a classroom, but the students and the teachers will all be different, different needs, wants, methodology. But why would you punish someone who is willing to take the time to write grants, proposals, whatever, to make their classroom better for them? I agree with previous poster in that others can do the same if they so chose. It all goes back to the everyone has to be a winner syndrome that we have created in our culture. Well, not everyone really wins in real life. Don’t punish those that at the very least try to get what they need to be better teachers.

    Reply
  35. Deon Scanlon
    August 16, 2009

    So many people are commenting from the perspective of the teacher: that is, ‘why not reward the teacher who applies for a grant?’. But schools don’t exist for the gratification of teachers – they exist to provide a fair shot at education for ALL students, especially government-funded educational institutes.
    As a teacher, I strive to provide the best possible education for the students in my class, as do most teachers.
    As a school, in the case of the principal, the needs of every student in the school must be considered.
    In a school district… State… Country…
    Rewarding teachers should NOT be thefirst argument – but penalising students who may have the luck to have a teacher with great initiative should not be on the cards either.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Deon Scanlon

Cancel Reply