I think your point comes down to whether or not you believe we’re all blank slates. If yes, then what you says makes sense. If no, then we would expect ability to somewhat dictate socioeconomic status.
Ability does affect socioeconomic status, I’m not disputing that.
The question in a school context, though, is whether socioeconomic status for children determines ability.
As I stated in my original list, what I observed was that gifted classes were filled with children from high social status backgrounds. They certainly didn’t create the conditions for their socioeconomic status, their inherited it.
What's your point? That if a rich parent teaches their kid to read, the fair solution is for the school to unteach the kid, to level the playing field?
I would imagine that the people who are pushing for more equitable systems would argue that would should give people who lack that kind of parental support more help.
Why should a child suffer simply because they were born into a less supportive family environment?
No child should suffer, and I think everyone can very easily agree on that point. But children born into a less supportive family environment are going to suffer for it. So maybe we should focus more energy on figuring out why less supportive family environments exist in the first place, and work on fixing those issues?
I don't know. I'm no expert and definitely don't have the answers.
What if equal access to educational opportunities is a contribution to the problem of less supportive families? Hence why we are having this conversation.
I certainly don’t believe in genetically engineering away differences, to answer your question directly.
But it begs the question, do you believe that racial disparities are primarily due to social factors or genetic ones? Because the whole point of equity is that advocates are arguing that it’s due to social factors, and that we should seek to change that.
