By: Shamann Walton, Commissioner
San Francisco Board of Education
Equity v. Equality:
Often Times I find myself in a pickle when the topic of "Student Equity" is brought up. There are mindsets that believe that if you give every child the same thing, then you have addressed the issue of equity. The biggest problem with that philosophy is the total and complete misconception that does not take into account the actual starting point for each student. Equity can be defined as: the quality of being fair or impartial or something that is fair and just.[1] Equality can be defined as the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. [2] By very definition, we can see the stark contrast between equity and equality. Equality deals in sheer quantities in terms of what you receive, equity deals with the actual fairness and quality of what you receive.
So that we don’t take knowledge of this phenomenon for granted, let me provide an example. If we want to make the goal high school graduation and ensure a 100% graduation rate, that’s impossible if we provide everyone with the same supports during their high school years in terms of equity. Student A was born into a financially stable two parent household with both parents being college educated. Student A grew up and lives in a community where cultural and enhancement activities are not only available to each family, but are also expected for each student. Given the financial viability of the family, Student A has the opportunity to enjoy family vacations in different countries and by the time they become a middle school student, they have seen the world, spent time with families (on an almost daily basis) where a college education is the norm and the question is not “if you will go to college” but the question is “when and where you will go to college”. Student A has access to in-home technology that matches the cutting edge devices utilized in their classrooms and when they struggle, they have access to peers and adults with access to educational resources, higher education opportunities and multiple sectors of sector of employment. Student A was destined for higher education and through favorable circumstances and experiences, has been positioned to achieve our main goal of high school graduation.
Student B however, is born in a single parent household and that one parent does not have a “career”, but holds several jobs (with possibly extended points of unemployment) on a consistent basis. Student B has lived in a community where they are saturated with examples of negativity on a daily basis and in fact, on their way to school in the mornings, they see violence, drug dealing, prostitution, homelessness and several examples of failure. The single parent in the home works very hard (when employed), but just doesn’t have the capital to provide resources for many support services and/or extra-curricular activities such as culturally and mentally enriching vacations (outside of once and a while attending a field trip or two with the local school or community based organization of some kind). Student B has books, but does not have access to new ones and the only time they have the opportunity to utilize the latest technology/internet is while attending school and after school programming. As intelligent as they are and as resilient as they are, Student B started and continued through life with a different (more limited) set of resources and as such does not benefit from the same advantages shared by Student A and their peers.
This begs the question: Do you think there is an issue of equity that exists between Student A and Student B? I would say that anyone with a touch of compassion would agree that Student A is in a better place than Student B in terms of indicators for successful high school graduation, but as I stated before, we cannot take this understanding for granted. With all of this knowledge and understanding, we have not given the necessary attention and resources to the most negatively affected student populations and therefore implicitly (or explicitly) standing by and continuing to feed the circumstances that keep student equity at the forefront of issues. It is an anomaly to me that increased focus is not on those students who need us the most.
Implications of Inequities:
When someone is behind in a race, without a significant push or unforeseen circumstance to their advantage, there is no way for them to catch up to the front of the pack. Life is a race! Our job as educators, mentors, elected officials, administrators and anyone in the field of child development, is to provide an opportunity—early in the process—that lets all students take advantage of what’s available to lead them to success. One can infer that the more enriching, the healthier and the stronger the foundation, the higher the probability of success. The one thing that I hope is evident in the scenario between Student A and Student B, is that Student A’s exposure to an array of opportunities provided an early implicit advantage over Student B. I know first-hand that when you are exposed to the possibilities that exist, it ignites a fire that will push you to work hard on the things you want to achieve. The problem is when and if you ever obtain that exposure. We owe our students—early and often— exposure and access to careers, higher education, cultural differences, and the first-class learning tools in our school systems necessary to not only survive, but thrive as well. If for a number of circumstances they do not receive this exposure at home, we must provide it in the schools, at the earliest stage possible. Otherwise, the inequities that are developed will continue to increase and widen the gaps.
The scenario provided is not much different than my life or the many other young Black Men I grew up with. Fortunately for me, after a few expulsions and spending a good chunk of my teenage years in juvenile hall, I was able to attend a youth leadership conference in Atlanta, GA in the summer of 1992, where I was exposed to hundreds of young Black Men who looked like me and who seemed to be very successful. After speaking with several of these young men, I discovered the common theme between them (that led to their success) was an education. At age 17 at the time, I had never in my life seen that many Black men in the same place with college degrees and focused on building community. Once receiving that exposure, I knew it was possible for me to achieve a higher education as well. The clock on my exposure was later than that of my many more affluent peers, who had seen this type of lifestyle and opportunity first-hand since birth. I can only imagine what possibilities would have been available to me had I received this exposure at 7 instead of 17.
Opportunities:
In order to truly address equity for our students, we have to change the way we treat them in our discipline strategies, the way our schools look and feel in communities that suffer from many disparities and socioeconomic ills and we have to expose students to what success looks like at all levels (pre-school, elementary, middle and high school). In addition, we have to provide an atmosphere that promotes the different learning styles of all students. In simple terms, we have to do things differently than we have in the past. The graduation rates for most ethnicities in the state of California are increasing (that goes for SF as well). The real disparity exists in the graduation rates for our Latino students, Black students and students in Special Education or the Foster Care System (this negative data also applies to students in the LGBT and transgender communities as well).
This brings us back to the conversation of equity. All is not lost and there is cutting edge work taking place to address the inequities that exist for students. On May 27, 2015, the San Francisco Board of Education passed a resolution (authored by Commissioners Emily Murase, Matt Haney and I)[3], that not only reinforces the fact that we must provide intentional and aggressive strategies to eliminate the achievement gap that exists for our Black students, but it also demonstrates the understanding that in order to move the needle for specific minority groups (in a City with a budget of over 8 billion dollars and less than 5,000 black students), we have to be bold and aggressive and pass policies—such as the aforementioned resolution. San Francisco Unified School District’s (SFUSD) focus on equity is coupled with resources and personnel decisions that are cutting edge. Is it enough?
According to recent data received from the California Department of Education and San Francisco Unified School Districts own aggregated data, graduation rates for Blacks and Latinos have continued to decline in SF and in other areas across the state. Is it just because of socioeconomic indicators that exist? Not when we have data that demonstrates that other minorities (particularly of Asian descent) are doing extremely well academically and they suffer from similar economic and societal woes. I know from personal experience how hard it is to be successful and achieve without adequate support systems, both in the home and in community and our strategies in our schools have to match this reality.
In Conclusion:
We have to own the fact that for years we have developed systems of educating students in a one size fits all sphere and be willing to change that dynamic through providing more exposure to various learning opportunities, including contextual and culturally relevant opportunities. We have to be bold enough to change systems in meaningful ways and shift where priorities ensure a level playing field. This means that more resources will have to go to those with less capital available to them and with less examples of exposure to success. This means that structures will need to be put in place so that schools with less active and less affluent parent groups, are given the tools and supports to develop lucrative and effective fundraising strategies. We have to leverage resources that are outside the traditional confines of how we support our students as well. We cannot continue to only rely on the inadequate resources that provide funding for education from the state. Ownership of educating our children is the responsibility of all of us, from the education community, social services community and government, to the philanthropic and business communities. We have to focus on policies that keep our students in the classroom (particularly our minorities who are disproportionately suspended or expelled from school each year). San Francisco has addressed this with the Safe and Supportive Schools resolution (authored by Commissioner Matt Haney) designed to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions in its schools through appropriate restorative justice strategies and professional development for educators, administrators and all school personnel.[4]
Always keep in mind that giving every child a laptop, when one of them already has two (and a tablet and the latest smart phone technology) is not equitable. Teaching one child the same as another, when one of them has a language barrier or has not had access to the tools that equate to success is not equitable. Let's take into account the gaps that exist and provide responsible, but very bold solutions to alleviate and eliminate these gaps. This means that we have to “Dare to Care”. My mentor Philmore Graham once said, “You need to give a child the possibility of a success by giving them a success story they can put themselves into,” he went on to say “You have to see it before you see it or you will not see it.” Without exposure, we cannot effectively address the inequities that exist for our students. Equal is not equitable.
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equity?s=t
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equality?s=ts
[3] http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/news-and-calendars/files/archives/5%2027%2015%20Af%20Am%20Achievement%20Reso.pdf
[4] http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/about-SFUSD/files/resolutions/HANEY%20SAFE%20SUPPORTIVE%20POLICY%20FINAL%20FOR%20POSTING%202%2025%2014.pdf