- “Educational equity,” or the equalization of student results, is an impossible goal
- Even if all nontraditional public school options were banned, student outcomes and resources would be distributed unequally
- The prioritization of equity does a disservice to actual student achievement and opportunity
As a thought experiment, imagine if North Carolina passed a law mandating not just that all children be educated, but that they must attend traditional public schools. No more private schools, homeschooling, or charter schools.
This would no doubt make progressive advocacy groups like the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE), ACLU, and NC Justice Center very happy. They view school choice as a threat to their preferred method of universal, taxpayer-funded public education. School choice programs and charter schools “divert” resources from traditional public schools, resources that in their minds belong exclusively to traditional public schools.
Arguably the most important reason driving such groups’ support for traditional public schools and objections to any other form of education is their prioritization of “equity” and “equality of opportunity.”
For instance, the NCAE declares that “Our vision is to provide an equitable, quality public education for every child.”
Similarly, the ACLU prioritizes “education equity” as a civil rights issue while insisting that “all students have equal access to a high quality education” (emphasis added).
They further argue that “equity in education is a critical foundation for a democratic society in which people of all backgrounds are equally included.”
It’s important to pause for clarity of terminology. As the National Society of High School Scholars (NSHSS) defines the terms, equality in education means each student receiving “the same resources and opportunities,” while equity refers to each student receiving “the opportunities and resources they need” (i.e., students of different abilities will require different resources). Notably, NSHSS further clarifies that equity means “that all students get the same positive results regardless of where they started” (emphasis added).
In short, equality means an equal share of resources, while equity refers to an equality of outcomes. So when the ACLU declares that “education equity” is a civil right, they mean it is an injustice for students to not have equal outcomes.
Returning to our original thought experiment, what would happen if every child were forced to attend a traditional public school? This would have to achieve, or come very close to achieving, the goal of “educational equity,” right?
Maybe not.
Those parents who could afford the finances and the time — with children willing to put in the extra effort — would hire tutors to provide additional instruction. They’d also consider providing their children various study aids, additional books, and access to online instructional materials.
Some might form study groups with other parents and students in their neighborhoods.
Moreover, those with the financial means and the geographic ability might send their kids to private schools in neighboring states, while some might up and move to another state altogether.
The result would be a pattern of unequal resources and unequitable results, shattering the vision of the NCAE and possibly rising to the level of a civil rights violation as defined by the ACLU.
So even with the criminalization of school choice, other factors would nevertheless come into play to create disparate outcomes.
What would the advocates of equality and equity in education do then? They couldn’t sit idly by and allow this injustice to continue.
Would they ban private tutors? Prohibit neighborhood study groups? Block households from accessing books or online instruction?
Would they insist on greater resources and attention being given in the school setting to those students lacking the extra instruction and resources at home, while denying school resources to those kids getting the extra attention at home? That would be one way to equalize resources.
But how would they know which kids are getting extra instruction, and how much? Might this require home monitoring systems or surveys of parents under penalty of perjury?
If so, the enforcement would look like a dystopian authoritarian nightmare.
If not, how could educational equity advocates claim to be fulfilling their mission of equality and equity for all students?
Perhaps some might object by saying they don’t want perfect equity or equality, they just want to narrow the gap. But what level of inequality is acceptable, and why? Good luck getting an answer to that question.
They might also object by saying they don’t oppose private schools, they just don’t want private schools to receive taxpayer money. But even without taxpayer money, private schools typically produce better student outcomes than traditional public schools. Allowing private schools to exist would trample on their goal of educational equity.
So which would it be? Would they not be serious about educational equity being a civil right because they allow private schools to exist, or would they not count private school students in their equity measurements?
Which brings me to the point of this mental exercise.
Equity in educational outcomes — even equality in opportunity — is impossible to achieve.
This reality is enough to question why the very mission of the NCAE — and the top priority for so many other school choice opponents — is an impossible goal. One can speculate that one reason is that establishing a goal known to be impossible excuses a never-ending pursuit of greater and greater taxpayer resources while opposing any competition. They cook up noble-sounding justifications like “equity” and “equality” to conceal their desire for centralizing power and banning their competition. Students would be far better served by expanding freedom to pursue educational opportunities their families deem best.
