Mistakes. We all make them. Truth be told, we tend to excuse our own while condemning others. But, trying to look at mistakes objectively, what should be our reaction? Let’s look at an example of two similar mistakes:
Emergency Dispatcher One: Phone call received regarding prowler outside citizen’s house. They dispatch police, but have accidentally keyed in the wrong street address.
Emergency Dispatcher Two: Phone call received regarding prowler outside citizen’s house. They dispatch police, but have accidentally keyed in the wrong street address.
Both have made the same mistake. It’s possible that they were sitting next to each other and made their respective mistakes at the same moment. As a former union representative, I would argue that the consequences should be the same for each person. However, we never have the opportunity to look at mistakes in isolation, but in context with outcomes. What were the outcomes of these identical mistakes?
Emergency Dispatcher One: The police find no such address. Citizen making report realizes the noise outside was the neighbor’s cat and goes back to sleep.
Emergency Dispatcher Two: The police find no such address. Citizen making report awaits police who never arrive. Prowler breaks into citizen’s home and sexually assaults them.
From experience, I can tell you that Emergency Dispatcher One will likely face no consequence, if the matter even reaches the attention of the HR Department. For Emergency Dispatcher Two, the consequences will be far more dire. Investigation, sanction, possible termination. An argument could be made in support or opposition to this result.
Should Emergency Dispatcher One be treated more harshly? After all, no one chooses to make a mistake. No one says “I’m going to poke a stick into the spokes of the system and see what happens…” Indeed, the absence of intent or discrete choice is what defines it as a mistake. Similarly, no one can choose the outcomes of their mistakes. Should punishment, if any, be based on what did happen or what could have happened, or should it be based solely on the mistaken act and not consider anything that came thereafter?
In hindsight, I realize that in some sense what I was arguing for as a union representative was equity. In the case of the two dispatchers, each had equality at the point of their respective mistakes and I was arguing for equal outcomes. I realize further that our perspectives shift regarding equity if we are dealing with negative or positive outcomes. The labor rep in me cannot abandon the belief that there should be equity in outcomes insofar as consequences for mistakes. Similarly, I believe in equity in the criminal justice system. I don’t believe that two criminals with similar histories accused of selling a similar amount of drugs should face disparate punishments based on the uncontrollable outcomes experienced by their customers. However, I cannot embrace the effort to enforce equity on the positive side of the scale. Equity based not on similar mistakes, but on similar opportunities.
We are seeing school systems attempt to shift standards and course offerings to achieve equity in outcome. Let’s look again at some examples:
Student One: Enters the school system at the age of 5, attending Kindergarten in a public school. This is the point of equality with other students in the system and would be characterized as “equality of opportunity”.
Student Two: Enters the school system at the age of 5, attending Kindergarten in a public school. This is the point of equality with other students in the system and would be characterized as “equality of opportunity”.
Student Three: Enters the school system at the age of 5, attending Kindergarten in a public school. This is the point of equality with other students in the system and would be characterized as “equality of opportunity”.
All things being equal, these three students have an equal opportunity to fail or succeed. Unfortunately, all things are not equal, because each student comes from a different background and home environment. Let’s compare:
Student One Background and Home Environment: Born 2 months premature. Mother used drugs during pregnancy, but is now drug-free. Father has no role in child’s life.
Student Two Background and Home Environment: Mother and Father both present. Stable home environment. Parents work in blue-collar jobs.
Student Three Background and Home Environment: Mother and Father both present. Stable home environment. Father works in white-collar job.
Now let’s look at what may be predictable results:
Student One: Minor interactions with law enforcement during adolescent years. Drops out of school at age 16.
Student Two: Graduates high school at age 18. Goes on to vocational school with plans to attend university later in life.
Student Three: Scores highly in all courses. Completes advance placement classes and receives scholarship to university.
What could be done to achieve equity in outcomes and what outcome would we deem ideal? As a parent, I would be grateful for the outcomes achieved by Students Two and Three and would be disappointed if a child of mine had the outcome of Student One. Notice that I didn’t say “achieved” regarding the outcome of Student One, because that outcome is a failure, not an achievement.
Why the disparate outcomes? They are the result of mistakes made in the lives of the students and the people around them. The biggest mistake in the moment is for school administrators to believe that they can change the outcomes without addressing the backgrounds and home environments that led to them. Perhaps Student One would have remained in school if they had not received failing grades? Perhaps Student One would have had higher self-esteem if they did not see peers they started with in kindergarten achieving greater success?
In pursuit of altering the realities of Student One’s educational experience, administrators are seeking equity by eliminating advanced placement curricula and eliminating letter grades and testing. In short, they cannot create a system wherein everyone succeeds, so they strive to create a system with a ceiling on performance. A system wherein everyone is deemed mediocre and excellence and failure are concealed.
However, there will always be excellence just as their will always be failures. These administrators are laying the foundations for a system from which excellence cannot be achieved through public education. A system that will ultimately result in even greater division in society.
As a society, we can work to achieve greater success for future generations, or in the interest of equity we can strive for a redefinition of success. A society perhaps where everyone votes, but no one reads. We should focus instead on building and ensuring equality of opportunity and strive to support the background and home environments that foster the greatest opportunity for success. But we have to realize that equity is not a goal that we can or should wish to attain. Some of us may take some comfort in knowing that we will ALL eventually achieve equity, but it will be in a nicely landscaped park setting populated with marble and bronze markers.
In a dry and thirsty land 