Why Is the Term Equity So Contentious?
In our Eanes community, we have a HUGE misunderstanding about the word equity. In trying to define it, we’re talking past each other.
In one camp, it’s members of the Eanes School Board and Eanes4Equity.
In the other camp, it’s community members who oppose the efforts of the district and the advocacy group to implement their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative.
To get us onto the same page, if someone talks about equity, you need to ask a single clarifying question: Are you talking about inputs or outputs? That is, resources or outcomes?
Fun Spoiler: at the end of this post, you’re going to understand this issue better than members of the Eanes School Board and leadership of Eanes4Equity.
Part One
Framework: Inputs vs. Outputs
INPUTS. One way to define equity is to look at inputs—meaning how many resources, how much funding, how many services should a district, a school, or a student receive?
Should all students receive equal resources? Or do different circumstances require unequal distribution of resources?
For example, think about how a school should allocate resources for struggling reading students. Should every student receive the same (equal) reading instruction? Or do kids with reading difficulties, such as dyslexia, need additional help and thus should be provided with more resources.
In this context, resources shouldn’t be equal. Instead, students should receive the resources they need for their individual circumstances. And this is one definition of equity: every student getting what he or she needs, even if students get different amounts.
How on earth do you allocate resources when every stakeholder has different needs? That is indeed the unending struggle of education policy—trying to sort out who gets what, what’s adequate, and what’s necessary.
OUTPUTS. But this input-focused, resource-based definition is not how the word is defined in the DEI world. Since money-making DEI Inc. burst onto the scene around 2017, the definition of equity has been given a very specific meaning, a meaning that is defined by outputs, such as test scores, discipline rates, attendance rates, or graduation rates. And it’s not defined by how individuals perform. Instead, you have to look at the outcomes for groups. You have racial equity in a system, for example, when racial groups have the same test scores, discipline rates, attendance, or graduation. To be equitable, a system has to produce equal outcomes among racial groups. That’s today’s equity. Period.
An Aside about Three Exceptions
There are three places you might not see this output-centered definition of equity:
- in education materials written before 2017-ish—because this was before DEI, Inc. had burst on the scene and dominated the conversation.
- on corporate DEI pages—there the definition will be quite muddled because corporations don’t want to admit to the output-centered definition
- and in Texas school finance lawsuits—because equity and adequacy are legal terms of art.
These three sources are not the places driving the policy debate. And they’re not driving the national discussion. So if you’re quoting pre-2017 ed materials or corporate pap, you’re either trying to confuse others or you’re not well informed (certainly not well-enough informed to be writing newsletters with articles explaining things to others).