It will make me sound cold-hearted, but I would consider that equality.
I appreciate your honesty. I know many conservative are worried about being shouted down, and I am glad you either don't have that worry or have chosen to disregard it.
I would hope that the parent(s) of the impoverished student took advantage of social welfare programs designed to ensure that all young people have their basic needs taken care of (Welfare, food stamps, low income housing, Head Start). I don't think these efforts qualify as equality or equity, but rather a baseline of needs that should be met for a young person. These efforts are not creating equity, based on the results. If your Dad is in jail and Mom is never home because she's busy working two jobs (or worse), it's going to be near impossible to provide a path for this student to excel academically or in life. Even if social programs were better and more effective, it would not create equity among all subsets (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) of Americans.
I have been on some of these programs myself, and my third child is on them now. They make the difference between starvation and food scarcity, between homelessness and living in a less safe neighborhood. I agree they meet one type of baseline, but don't approach equality/equity.
If the poor child's father was raised poor and is in jail, it's likely to be for the same sort of behavior in his youth (at least, early on) that the middle-class child's father engaged in as a youth. The difference being that the poor kids face a larger police presence, don't have the police look the other way, and get far fewer second chances. However, it's a myth to say that the fathers of most poor kids are in jail. Many poor kids have present fathers who can't find meaningful work that supports their family.
If the Mom has to work two jobs, is it not in part because she feels compelled to by low wages and insufficient financial support?
Perhaps you can never create equity, but I think we can easily come closer than we have so far.
Also, does the same push for equity apply between an upper-class student and middle-class student? The upper-class student goes to a private school, better teachers, access to unlimited tutoring, internship experiences, etc. How do we even the playing field between these two students?
I had not really thought about that. Looking into a couple of studies,
like this one, I think there is less of a need, at least in regards to tests like the SAT. As family wealth increases, the effect of wealth on the SAT scores diminishes.
One advantage the wealthy will always have is connections and resources. If your ancestors went to Harvard, you get the legacy admission treatment, and I don't think there is anything we can do to change that. If you can buy Harvard a new laboratory, you kid will get preferential admission treatment, and I don't think there is anything we can do to change that, either. For that matter, the middle-class family will still be able to take out second mortgages and engage in other assistance to help their kids out. I would not propose changing that, either.
I would describe this as equality. Again, to me, equity is a focus on the end result to force people or subsets of people to all have equal outcomes. The student with dyslexia is going to face challenges in life that many other will not and will likely have an impact on their quality of life (regardless of assistance provided on a test).
I'm on board with trying to remove certain disadvantages in an attempt to create equal opportunity. As mentioned, we are already attempting to do this through many social welfare programs, among other efforts. Have these efforts had a significant impact on equality of outcome? Not really. Expecting an equality of outcome based on equal starting points is the wrong approach.
I don't know anyone who thinks equality of outcomes is something to be fixed on the result end. If you believe all people are basically the same, equality of outcome would be the result of equality of circumstances and opportunity.
I disagree *strongly* that the social welfare programs have had little or no significant impact. When they are employed over an extended period of time, we do see a narrowing of the gapes between the poor and the middle class. Head Start got continues funding and expansion because it made a difference for the kids who went through it.