Comments on: A Question of Equity

By: Deon Scanlon

Deon Scanlon — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:39:56 +0000

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.

By: angie

angie — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:26:20 +0000

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.

By: Deon Scanlon

Deon Scanlon — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:04:08 +0000

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!

By: Trevor Boehm

Trevor Boehm — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:01:09 +0000

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.

By: Dan McGuire

Dan McGuire — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:34:57 +0000

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?

By: Julie McLeod

Julie McLeod — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:20:42 +0000

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?

By: Robert Mainhart

Robert Mainhart — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:19:38 +0000

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.

By: Heather Mason

Heather Mason — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:06:06 +0000

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.

By: Brian Blake

Brian Blake — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:10:42 +0000

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.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:33:35 +0000

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.