A simple word change, or a larger scheme to undercut public education in Montana?

Montanans can be forgiven for not being outraged at the fight brewing within the Montana Board of Education.

The difference between the use of the word “equality” and “equity” seems like a semantic parlor game.

And while the concepts are related, important and deeply rooted in our lexicon of what it means to be an American, they both represent concepts that have far-reaching ramifications when applied to the classroom.

At issue is the wording in the state’s teacher code of ethics. The word “equity” appeared there and apparently alarmed the Gianforte administration as well as Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen. They’ve instead proposed equality, which sounds similar and is not a bad idea.

While it may seem like the politicians are taking a microscopically small knife to split these slight hairs, there’s a much larger concept at play in public education.

The challenge is that the word equity has become a watchword for conservative politicians, worried that it’s code for “woke.”

Instead, this isn’t some liberal plot. It’s really an exercise in ensuring that all students develop their potential. Providing equality is the minimum acceptable standard for public education, something that was writ large in the landmark Brown vs. The Board of Education decision. Meanwhile, equity is about helping children regardless of background opportunities to maximize their potential.

Simply put, equality is the basement and equity is the ceiling. To be sure, schools in Montana (and throughout the country) must have both, but both concepts are not equal.

Equality means that students have roughly the same schools, same quality of textbooks, and same quality of teachers. In other words, you can’t build a mansion for one set of students and keep the others in a hovel. That’s equality. It speaks to the lowest acceptable standards.

However, equity is looking at every student as an individual, realizing that they come from different backgrounds and may need different resources to help them capitalize on their full potential. And success, for every individual student, may be defined differently. For some, taking college courses through dual enrollment is necessary, while others explore a technical track. Equity understands tailoring education to each student according to needs and talents. It recognizes that some students who come from a background of disadvantage may need more help, while students who outperform their peers may need a different set of challenges and opportunities.

I understand the difference between equity and equality like this: Say you have a group of children ages zero to five. Equality is giving every child a piece of bread. Equity is understanding that not all of them may be able to chew, eat or even digest the bread. You wouldn’t give an infant a slice of toast, instead you’d give them food that’s appropriate. And that’s equity: Everybody gets fed, but not necessarily exactly the same food.

For a group of Republican leaders who seem perennially concerned about the creeping dangers of communism, few notions are more rooted in a communistic approach than the kind of equality OPI embraces: Treat everyone the same regardless. In other words: Comrade, you get cabbage. You get cabbage. Also a cabbage for you … and so on.

This equity-versus-equality situation also seems like a proxy war for a much different fight – the war over public education.

Discussing a non-binding code of ethics buried deeply in the bureaucratic bowels of a state agency would normally not get noticed, but this feels like a more broad assault on public education.

I fear that the attempt to replace equity with equality is an attempt to set public education up for failure. In other words, if school boards and educators are encouraged by the state’s public education leaders to treat every student the same, regardless of need or circumstance, then schools will undoubtedly fail because of the expanded diversity in our growing state.

And if those schools don’t reach all the students they can, or, even worse, are forced to only do the bare minimum, then high-performing students as well as those who struggle will be left behind. And when students’ needs aren’t met, that will become the pretext for dismantling public education or shifting more funding toward private education opportunities, like at taxpayers’ expense. That will create what has been referred to as the “ghettoization” of public education where the only students left in public education are the ones who either cannot afford private schools or whose parents are too incapable of finding an alternative.

How many of us were impacted by the one or two teachers who saw something in us and pushed us toward success? If you’ve had that kind of experience, then you can understand why the equity fight is worth having.