Equity vs Equality II: E2

[Coriolis]

[/QUOTE]

Regarding equity, I would like something to be done about the way property values determine educational funding. I am not sure what exactly, but it needs to change.

I have written several times about the unfairness of taxes like property tax, which take no account of one's ability to pay. This, for instance, often affects older people whose income is drastically reduced upon retirement, but whose property values if anything have appreciated. I would like to see us abolish property tax and other regressive taxes, in favor of income-based tax. This is step one in making education funding more fair. Step two is funding education at a higher level, e.g. state level, where tax money comes from the mix of wealthy, poor, and middle income communities, and is distributed so as to leave each community or school system with comparable resources.

Many complain that, in such a system, wealthy people in town A will be paying for the education of poorer students in town B. In other words, income is redistributed. Heaven forbid! Better education for those poor students in town B means less crime to spill over into town A, and better prepared workers to take jobs in A and across the board.

For me, it really depends on what a person means by equity. Some people have a reasonable definition of it, where it's something like having wheelchair ramps to make things more accessible for the disabled. But there are some people who have a more... shall we say, extreme idea of it, and think that any disparity in outcomes is proof of injustice. They would not just want to lift up the disadvantaged, they would want to force people who are more capable to go through life with one hand tied behind their back so that those who are less able don't have to feel inferior.

That would be when I say they are going too far with equity. You can give people with a disadvantage some help, but I don't see any value at all in holding back the potential of people who don't have a disadvantage and denying them resources and opportunities just because it makes outcomes more equal. I don't think there are a lot of people who think this way, but I have unfortunately seen a few, and I would have to say I don't think achieving equity by making life worse for those who are doing well would be very desirable... even though it is probably a lot easier than making life better for those who aren't doing well, and would likely be successful in creating a form of equality between them if implemented.

For too long, society has imposed additional burdens (denial of resources and opportunities) upon many of its members, beyond their own inherent physical, mental, and other limitations, due to bias and bigotry. Achieving equity involves removing these external barriers, not imposing different barriers on other groups. Put another way, we extend to everyone the benefits and opportunities currently available only to certain people, rather than extend the limitations.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think you are discussing equality in the realm of politics. Who do you think make the decisions regarding educational funding in terms of allocating educational resources?

Either way, my point stands. Equality is a myth. And even if it were realized, you would wish it had not.

To Athenian - I agree with you. Equality is great to aspire to, but only because it provides incremental change, which is progress. But anything approaching equality is unobtainable and unsustainable. Yes, that's sad. But wins are done on the margins and should be considered progress. I think the women's Suffrage movement is a good example. Are women today equal to men in terms of access to opportunities? Nope. But "radical" change inspires incremental change. And as time moves forward, the incremental changes result in real progress. But in the end, equality is not achieved., But the opportunities are improved beyond what the ladies of the Suffrage movement could have ever dreamed of.

I mean, yes, it is in the realm of politics, but it seemed to me that everyone was, whether they were saying so or not. The discussion was not in a vacuum, it did not seem like a highly abstract definition that was mostly only about the meaning of words to me. If someone starts discussing equality and equity, I assume the only reason they care about the subject is because of some political theory and that they don't care about JavaScript operators.

Let me come at this from another way. I think inequality in education has the effect of taking many people out of the game before they even had a chance. I'm not really thinking in terms of how much we could reach the end goal; I'm interested in discussing whether this is a desirable goal. I believe it is. What I would like is for people to fight for this issue; I suppose that's my immediate goal.

People will justify the inequality by saying that it's a meritocracy, and that people are just getting what they deserve. This doesn't reflect the facts, and a statement like this is something people believe so that they can feel better about themselves and the society they live in. I recently mentioned that a caste system is emerging, but when I think about it, it's already here. Being born poor drives so many other negative outcomes, like poor health. We've made a decision as a society that some people should get to flourish, purely because of birth, while other people should live lives of constant struggle.

I don't think that's right.