Consulting firm may need changing, but push for equity in Lodi Unified must proceed

In its Feb. 9 editorial, the Lodi News-Sentinel declared: "Lodi Unified's Equity Initiative: Time for a change." In your view "(It) is a failed experiment." I disagree with your position and your rationale.

First, let's disentangle your argument. You appear to confuse the ethical and moral imperative for "Equity" with the costs and perceived value of a consulting firm in the face of impending budget cuts to education.

The so-called "Equity Initiative" is not "The Pacific Education Group (PEG)." But let's take that off the table. It is no secret that nearly everyone is pretty tired of PEG, including many, if not most, site administrators. With the exception of the two-day "Beyond Diversity" workshop, the trainings have been repetitive, time-consuming and short on specifics about how to take the work back to the schools. So, though I have personally benefited from the totality of the experience, I agree that as far as PEG is concerned, it's "Time for a change."

Second, all but the most gullible among your readers would have to question the civic responsibility of a newspaper that would print: "It's time to drop the Equity Initiative." You make it sound like PEG or Lodi Unified coined the term "Equity."

"Equity," isn't a program or a new concept; "Equity" is fairness.

But appeals to end "Equity" movements aren't new. We hear them whenever someone dares to question the status quo. They were with us during the '70s when people of color fought for "Equity" in the broadcast media. Shows like "Good Times" and "Sanford and Son" and others, depicted black characters as dim-witted, ghettoized buffoons from broken homes. Roles depicting wealth, strong family values and academic, civic and/or professional success were reserved for predominantly white actors. Not until the seminal "Bill Cosby Show" aired in 1984 did the move for "Equity" in broadcast media gain traction. Only then did people of color see people who looked like them cast in roles that portrayed characters who had achieved success, had opportunities, wealth and social standing, and who had strong family values. Though the struggle for "Equity" in broadcasting continues to this day, for the first time in broadcast media history, children of color could see themselves as part of the American dream.

What our children see matters. When I taught English at Lodi High School, my eleventh grade students had to compile a junior portfolio. This assignment included functional documents like letters of recommendation, a resume and a letter of intent in which they were to list future goals. My Hispanic/Latina girls would often write something like, "I want to go to college and major in receptionist." Their rationale was telling and related to their experience: The highest they had ever seen someone who looked like them rise in an organization was the receptionist at the cannery where their parents worked.

A couple of years ago I asked one of the cheerleader advisors at Lodi High School why we didn't have more Latina girls on our cheer squad. Latinos comprise nearly 35 percent of our student population but were only occasionally represented in cheer. The advisor said she would make a special outreach to Latina girls on campus. She printed posters in Spanish and advertised a meeting for Spanish speaking parents. When neither of these approaches worked she actively sought out Latina girls. What she discovered startled her. Time after time our Latina girls told her, "We didn't think that was for us." The point is that children need to see people who look like them in roles before they will believe it is for them.

Finally, "Equity" is not equality. "Equity" is about breaking down the attributes-perceptions, belief systems and structures — of systems that inhibit comparable opportunity for all. "Equity" is about providing some students, especially those who arrive with less, a more-than-equal chance to succeed. That statement may incite protest, but when we remove "race" from the equation it becomes more palatable. For instance, two students sitting at the back of the classroom may appear to have an equal opportunity to learn, but if one has poor vision and the other has excellent vision, one is at a disadvantage. The "Equitable" alternative would be to move the student with poor vision closer to the front of the room, thereby providing him with a fair and more equitable opportunity to succeed.

That takes us back to the achievement gap. "Equity" is opportunity. Not until our children of color see people who look like them achieving in high numbers will they believe it is for them. Out of fairness to these children, we cannot abandon our efforts to achieve "Equity." Indeed, we must work to help them create more models of success for others who are watching.

PEG's goals for "Equity" are: 1) To increase the achievement of all students. 2) To eliminate the achievement gap. 3) To eliminate the predictability of which students will be academically successful. Such work is not easy. It requires commitment and the courage to be vulnerable while reexamining the beliefs that contribute to the structures of our organizations and the degree to which our classrooms are culturally responsive. We don't need PEG to do it, but the work must continue.

And by the way, contrary to your statement that there is no "hard data showing that the initiative has achieved real results," there is plenty of evidence that it is working for Latino students at Lodi High School, but we still have a long way to go.

Bill Atterberry is the principal of Lodi High School.

Reader Feedback

Lodian wrote on Feb 25, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Is Mr. A just being PC? "

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes

Consulting firm may need changing, but push for equity in Lodi Unified must proceed

Reader Feedback

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads

Weather

Services

Contact Us

Office

Newsroom

Subscriptions

Advertising

Classifieds