I certainly agree with much of your analysis. Even with my kids in public school TAG classes, it wasn’t good enough and we took them out and paid for private school.
But I question your repeated statement that equity = equality of opportunity. Just because equity <> equality of outcomes doesn’t tell us much. Given that we do know that people vary in how they learn best and the speed of learning, isn’t there some obligation to tailor the education to the student to truly give “equality of opportunity.”
I doubt we know enough today to do this well, despite various learner taxonomies and educational innovations. But it seems very important to me if every person is to reach his or her maximum potential.
> Equity means equal opportunity, not artificially engineering outcomes by preventing kids from learning.
I'm reminded of the phrase, "the purpose of the system is what it does." In theory, equity is what you describe. However, the measure of it is in achievement gaps. That's when Goodheart's law kicks in, and equity becomes all about minimizing the gap by any means necessary. This is accompanied by post-hoc justifications about how hampering high-achieving kids is actually empowering them in some way.
It is easy to say that "equity and excellence are not opposing values," but the fact is that anything you do to promote excellence will both. (1) widen the distribution in outcomes, and (2) result in large outcome gaps by race and income.
It is probably better to be realistic about this. You can't have botth equity and excellence as your top priortiy at the same time.
That is the end result of following this line of reasoning - which I fully agree with. I supect that it will become practical with LLM based support in the near future. If the schools refuse to support it, parents will do it in less controlled environments.
In practice, in large schools, you could test students and group them in similar capability / level groups. But that is what the equity idealogues have shutting down for the past decades.
More capable students learn faster. If you provide the opportunity they will move faster than their less capable peers and the gap will only widen with time. It is already wide by the end of elementary school, with some students having 12th grade plus reading levels and others being barely literate. Similarily, some graduating elementary students can handle simple algebra while others struggle with simple arithmetic. The gap only widens after elementary school.
I certainly agree with much of your analysis. Even with my kids in public school TAG classes, it wasn’t good enough and we took them out and paid for private school.
But I question your repeated statement that equity = equality of opportunity. Just because equity <> equality of outcomes doesn’t tell us much. Given that we do know that people vary in how they learn best and the speed of learning, isn’t there some obligation to tailor the education to the student to truly give “equality of opportunity.”
I doubt we know enough today to do this well, despite various learner taxonomies and educational innovations. But it seems very important to me if every person is to reach his or her maximum potential.
> Equity means equal opportunity, not artificially engineering outcomes by preventing kids from learning.
I'm reminded of the phrase, "the purpose of the system is what it does." In theory, equity is what you describe. However, the measure of it is in achievement gaps. That's when Goodheart's law kicks in, and equity becomes all about minimizing the gap by any means necessary. This is accompanied by post-hoc justifications about how hampering high-achieving kids is actually empowering them in some way.
It is easy to say that "equity and excellence are not opposing values," but the fact is that anything you do to promote excellence will both. (1) widen the distribution in outcomes, and (2) result in large outcome gaps by race and income.
It is probably better to be realistic about this. You can't have botth equity and excellence as your top priortiy at the same time.
Are you suggesting the complete personalisation of learning?
That is the end result of following this line of reasoning - which I fully agree with. I supect that it will become practical with LLM based support in the near future. If the schools refuse to support it, parents will do it in less controlled environments.
In practice, in large schools, you could test students and group them in similar capability / level groups. But that is what the equity idealogues have shutting down for the past decades.
More capable students learn faster. If you provide the opportunity they will move faster than their less capable peers and the gap will only widen with time. It is already wide by the end of elementary school, with some students having 12th grade plus reading levels and others being barely literate. Similarily, some graduating elementary students can handle simple algebra while others struggle with simple arithmetic. The gap only widens after elementary school.