“EQUITY” IN SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOLS

Another Bad Liberal Idea

Countless studies show that when you hold kids to a high standard, showing that you believe that they can do excellent work, they thrive. Lance Izumi, Pacific Research Institute, studied many California schools, especially charter schools, and found that taking the poorest kids into these schools leads to greater success.

San Francisco Liberals and Equitable Grading

In an attempt to massage statistics and make it look like all students were equal in socio-economic, IQ, and support at home, the San Francisco Unified School District created “Grading for Equity.” The program graded kids only on final exams, and they could take them multiple times. Attendance and homework scores didn’t apply to the final grade. Worse yet, they decided that a final score of 41% would give the student a C, rather than the F they deserved. You got a D if you managed to get only 21% and you could get an A by only having an 80% score on the final you could keep taking.

“With equitable grading, teachers’ grades will be more accurate, more fair and more motivational, and more consistent across teachers, within courses and across courses,” said board members when questioned.

The idea was to be voluntary, but 65% of the teachers said they wanted to use this policy.

The good news! The community, commissioners and other politicians challenged the idea. Even Ro Khanna was opposed, saying it would diminish hard work and excellence. “Giving A’s for 80% & no homework is not equity---it betrays the American Dream and every parent who wants more for their kids.” He’s usually wrong on things, but he got it right here.

Dublin Unified School District also tried this, but it was shut down after parental protest.

Why Is This So Bad?

Not holding kids (or anyone) accountable and going for the “feel good” idea of higher grades only means that when they graduate (as we’ve already seen in many California school districts), they really don’t have the competence and expertise 12 years of schooling should provide. They struggle in college and life. Not knowing math means it is easy to be cheated. It also means that those who don’t learn it likely make bad decisions about money, as they don’t understand it. Not having great reading comprehension limits self-learning, which is how we all grow.

SF and other school districts trying this stupid stunt don’t actually care about kids. This is child abuse of a new sort; telling a kid who isn’t really learning that he’s great. It’s a huge handicap no child should be forced to deal with. And for smart students, lowered standards hurt them as well, since they aren’t going to get the education they need to succeed. It’s hard for me to believe that teachers get on board with this. They should know better.

Tracking

In some of my schooling, we had “tracking.” This meant that for each subject, you were assessed and put into a track: 1-4 plus honors. The goal was to help you move up in tracks as you accomplished more. The best part was that lower tracks had few students, which meant a lot of personalized tutoring. The teacher and student goals were to move up. It wasn’t uncommon to have a student in track 4 math and track 2 English.

Instead of the dumb idea to have ALL classes limited to small sizes, which means pulling in less-qualified teachers, this method made sure that the kids who were already doing well had large classes, which is not a problem. I was frequently in classes of 30-35. But the kids who need small classes are those who are struggling and falling behind. The Berkeley school district dropped it, since most of the kids in the lower tracks were Black. They claimed it was racist. But is it racist to provide the help a child needs to succeed? These were often kids whose parents didn’t help them, and may not be all that well-educated themselves. But every child deserves the right to advance as far as they can.

Equity Programs are BS

When the Dems promote “equity” programs, they are never designed to actually help those people targeted to succeed. Instead, by not giving them the challenges to succeed, by failing to appreciate the potential of people, they doom them to a life dependent on government largesse.

If you look at some of the biggest successes, they got there not by being “helped” by the government, but often, despite the government. Look at people who did well before the Civil Rights Act. A Black doctor receiving his degree in the early ‘60’s was a GREAT doctor. He/she had to be better than a White student. People are amazingly capable at pushing against obstacles and in fact, are sometimes more motivated when someone tells them “You can’t do that.”

I’m not suggesting re-erecting obstacles, but I am saying that lowering standards helps no one. Instead, empower kids by expecting them to succeed, and offering some help if they struggle with some things. Otherwise, you’ll end up with even more familial-inherited welfare demands and kids who can’t be all that they can be.