> To me, it seems like the people who are pushing these policies are doing so to "juke the stats" and make it look like certain demographics aren't as behind ac

> To me, it seems like the people who are pushing these policies are doing so to "juke the stats" and make it look like certain demographics aren't as behind academically as they actually are. Statistically, bipoc kids don't do as well in school as white/asian kids, right? I am not trying to make this about race, and I am not suggesting anything other than that statistical reality. But that sentiment seems pretty common when I read about these "equity" programs. "We are doing this to reduce the inequalities between groups X and Y". They're trying to make the schools fix poverty (whether caused by racism or anything else), in order to avoid directly fixing poverty. It's an endeavor doomed from the start because it rests on the religious belief that success is directly proportional to merit, and merit is best shown by achievement in school. But we can't have a society of middle-class strivers, because no ditches will be dug, so all you end up with in the fantasy case is a bunch of well-educated ditch diggers who now have massive student loan debts. What you get in the real case is a bunch of people who realize that they can either A) be depressed baristas lamenting their failure to do better with the expensive degree that has given them a lifetime of debt, B) be depressed baristas who don't owe $100K for a useless degree. It's not compulsory and free primary education that will fix poverty, and it's not the job of teachers to repair all inequity in society (although to the most egomaniacal, it's all they think their duty is.) Just like it isn't college's duty to fix racism. The way you fix these things is by directly addressing them, not explaining to children how to use a bootstrap.