The conundrum of "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity" hinges on that core question. It's weird, and possible contradictory, to see a policy claiming to attempt both.
Most would define a "fair" opportunity as everyone getting the same chances to succeed, but a "fair" outcome would segment on merit. If angling towards fair outcomes, there's usually less uproar over lifting the floor (e.g financial aid), versus lowering the ceiling (e.g. limitations on admissions based on ethnic or financial background).
What is a "fair" outcome?
Is it easier to hold back talented students with a low bar or push untalented ones to a higher bar?
The conundrum of "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity" hinges on that core question. It's weird, and possible contradictory, to see a policy claiming to attempt both.
Most would define a "fair" opportunity as everyone getting the same chances to succeed, but a "fair" outcome would segment on merit. If angling towards fair outcomes, there's usually less uproar over lifting the floor (e.g financial aid), versus lowering the ceiling (e.g. limitations on admissions based on ethnic or financial background).
A much better policy would be to raise the floor and not pay attention to equality of outcome.
If the worst school in 2036 California is better than the average school in 2026, then that's an obvious win.
(That goal is completely achievable -- only about a third of California students are grade-level proficient right now.)
Innocuous at first glance, but you can see how it could be manipulated into justification for banning advanced math classes and other bad ideas.
People have more wildly different definitions for "fair" than "equity".