Education Equity Case Studies: Educator Perspectives and Critiques

We need to hold students back. Especially in elementary school because if they’re not getting the basics, then they certainly won’t get the basics in high school.

I was held back in 1st grade. I was an ESL student. It was the best decision anyone ever made for me. It gave me an extra year to catch up and be on grade level. I went to college. Got a masters.

We act like this is no longer an option when some kids just need an extra year to catch up.

I definitely feel like this tracks with what we've been focused on during PD for the last several years. Behavior problems are #1, and even those years where you have a well-behaved class, chnaces are at least some of your colleagues don't.

I teach newcomers and I have one eighth grader who has absolutely REFUSED to engage with anything in class. He tries to use the excuse over and over that he can’t learn English because he doesn’t already know English which is a ridiculous claim that kids normally only use on me once but he won’t even copy down stuff off the board, won’t click play on Edpuzzles, etc. I tried reaching out to everyone I could with no help. He has an F in all of his classes. He will just go along merrily to high school where I am sure they will wonder why no one has bothered to teach him English yet, bleh. It’s like what are we doing here? What’s the point?

Because they're all privileged enough to be living in the world of should instead of working in the world that is.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is probably the best encapsulation of implementation of equity laws in education.

1) Competitive college track. AP. Honors. High expectations. Put the damned phone away.

2) state college / community college. Access to AP/Honors if they demonstrate competency.

3) trade school / military / community college.

4) certificate of completion (no diploma).

My pet peeve is getting PD on a cure all when you are working with autonomous beings that have their own motivations. The most egregious in recent memory was saying that "circles," would solve all class behavioral issues and implementing them was very rewarding. The students in my school mostly hated them. We would pass around the talking stick and kids would go, "pass," "pass," "pass," because no one is forced to talk - which is a positive thing, and a few kids would thoughtfully respond to the question. I would answer the question on my turn and... Everyone usually ended up no better than they started, although some of the kids would get super pissed that they had to do it at all. So it was a net negative. I prefer a tool box of methods and approaches so I can figure out how to best address the issue. Sure, tell me about circles, but don't force everyone into it.

I've been reading that this industry is basically dead/dying. Would it even still be worth it to pursue this as a career? I like how there is a little more room for creativity and I like the day to day aspects of the job but don't want to shove myself into a dead end.

1. The PhD process is partially to blame. Candidates are required to find a novel take on an issue to write their dissertation. This often becomes a future focus for them as a professor for quite some time. In the last decade or so when looking at the exhaustive research that had already been done vs. what was novel, these sort of race, equity, inclusion, restorative justice, areas were wide open. They became easy go-to PhD / Ed. D topics of reseach. And as they become new and trendy universities pushed candidates that direction because it offerred new sellable packages to get schools on board. But now we’re missing critical data on other research areas with modern students in modern times.

2. Historical context here… When I was a kid in school things were different. Teachers could physically beat you with paddles, yell at you, tell you that you were stupid, make you stand in the corner, expel you from school for what we would consider minor infractions today. Students with problems of any kind were put into special classes that had few if any expectations. It was perfectly acceptable in any class for a teacher to sit at their desk and read from the book. Sitting in rows quietly listening for a whole class was a normal expectation. Failing to do so was punishable disobedience. As a result of that you had order and discipline. It was based on fear, but you had it. Then any time a teacher did something remotely interesting it was the best day ever and we were gracious.

But that method hurt alot of people. It excluded alot of people. It did not achieve the best academic outcomes that it could. So they started doing research to find alternatives that might work better. And when you hunt for things, you find them.

We jumped on board with inclusion, sheltered instruction, differentiation, multimodal learning, banning corporal punishment. We completely changed how everything worked. But then we didnt really give teachers meaningful alternatives.

Cant hit them. Cant berate them. Cant send them to the office. Cant suspend them. Cant expel them. Cant shame them. So what can they do? During the transition years nobody knew. So they invented stuff.

Most of it was bribery. Just be more entertaining. Give out candy. Use more tech. Be more hands on. Be positive. But a few distruptive kids in every class still caused hell because they needed discipline and recognized the opportunity of its absence. And society didn’t like that either. Graduates that cant follow rules, need constant praise, demand to be entertained. It wasnt going well for the work force.

But education policy started looking at well how to we get those disruptors on board? How do we address the root cause of the problem. They found a bunch of socioeconomic and pyschology problems and they said hmmm what if we just get teachers to take on the community responsibility of fixing those. And good teachers started quitting because the job duties got ridiculous.

But all along side this, the race issue was a problem. Again our old teachers from back in my day were legitimately overtly racist. History was heavily propagandized. Teachers genuinely did not treat students of color as equals. They disrespected and punished cultural differences. Students of color were getting disciplined at higher rates for the same infractions. Lower grades for equal work. LGBT students were bullied by teachers themselves and forbidden to exist openly. So there was a major effort in education research to try to prove this and show that alternatives were better. That not being racist led to better behavior and academic outcomes. It seems almost stupid now but even 20 or 30 years ago it was what some people needed to hear.

So how we arrived here was offen founded in good intentions. But now is a good time to pivot into something else to fix the real problems of the moment.

1. Research sample sizes are abysmal. A handful of classrooms at one or two schools is meaningless. But nonetheless these studies get published all the time. They’re not good data practices. Most administrators are not science or math teachers. They just see “research-based” and often presume the research is done well. It’s peer-reviewed. It’s published in sometjing reputable. But…. A closer review will show rhe research is deeply flawed. And alot of researchers will cherry pick classes and schools and demographics where the data will support their narrative. Rarely ever are the published findings counter to the prediction. Which tells us the research standards are severely lacking scientific efficacy. There is often too much emotion going into it that clouds it with bias. But these bad studies get grouped together with other bad studies and become sellable packages that teachers then have to endure.

2. Tech isnt helping us its killing us. Schools that locked up the phones and ditched the laptops are having fewer behavior problems, better academic outcomes, improved social skills, better mental health, etc. The focus of future education research needs to be on how we combat the overstimulation and garbage culture of the internet in schools. Our students behave like a comment section that became real people. We need to find a way to integrate technology courses where technology is the purpose, and learn to take our other things back to pencil, paper, doing the real thing, reading real books, and actually talking again. Otherwise, they will stew in apathy, behave badly for the content creation, and cheat on every assignment without understanding it. The next wave of education research needs to fit itself to that narrative of our current reality.

3. Charter schools are a scam. We’re reducing valuable peer connections by dividing students using classism. We’re defunding our highest need schools, forcing parents to either pay more for a good education, or send their kids to a stuggling underfunded campus. The academic outcomes of public school only look worse because charter schools get to be selective. But they exist primarily to line the pockets of the charter school’s direcrors, shareholders, investors, etc. Public dollaes should fund public schools only. End of story. Private schools can do what they want but they can pay their own way. That puts the foundations back in public schools. Then public schools can actually function like a normal education system again. Instead of a social services factory. But unfortunately the trend is getting worse there not better.

When people ask me about education, I tell them education isn’t failing. The parents are.

Equity is not equal outcomes. Equity is giving all students equal access to all the resources they need for success.

And sometimes they don't succeed regardless of how much is given them.

I don’t quite understand. Of course, any relevant laws would have to come first and then school or district policy. This isn’t really a discussion question.

Hey all,

I am studying to be a teacher, and we just finished a class in a unit about about inclusion. The class finished with a human continuum activity with the following provocation:

*'Which comes first: attitudes, or laws and policy?* in terms of inclusion for students in school (disability, race, gender, sexuality, etc).

I think it is important to note that this is in Australia, where there are laws that are meant to prevent exclusion and segregation. Emphasis on 'meant to', there is a lot of places that don't uphold it.

Anyway, almost everyone moved to the attitudes side, except for one student who stayed on the law side of the room. His reasoning was something along the lines of 'laws can be used in such a way to make a kid to engage with the learning content' i.e. making a kid with ADHD stay back after class to finish their work. The tutor, to her credit, did a very good job of trying to explain why punishing that student could only be destructive for both parties. Another student chimed in and said that he had a teacher who did that, and he threw a chair at him - the teacher ended up being the one fired because of how he treated him (the student).

I am still quite shaken, because I know those opinions persist in education. I also had a teacher who held similar views, and my undiagnosed ADHD was seen as an attitude problem. That was more than 15 years ago, but it still affects me to this day, and I have cptsd stemming from that experience.

I also think it's kind of ironic, because I don't think the guy was paying attention to the actual question.

How am I meant to deal with this as a future teacher? I feel so helpless that this is still an attitude.

These are deliberatively provocative questions to spur conversation.

Attitude > policy > laws may have been the origin, but after the initial impetus, those three will always be in flux. They will inform each other. They’re inextricable from within the system.

You will come across it. You will also come across wonderfully inclusive colleagues. The ableism can be triggering, but it can be coped with (I also have cptsd). Being the teacher the kids can feel safe with is a really healing feeling for me as that formed disabled kid. I imagine it will be for you as well. Wishing you the best.

Has anyone experience working at TEP Charter School? I've read the reviews on Glassdoor, most are awful with a few suspciously good/average reviews in the mix. Obviously the pay is amazing but I'm wondering as a 29 year old Irish teacher (no kids) hoping to move to New York, is it worth it? I've seen the hours are long and I'm wondering if this means all work is completed at school and none brought home? I don't want to be completely overwhelmed with work but the money would be amazing for someone moving to the city for the first time. Thanks!

I’m covering:

Charitable trusts/purpose trusts/Cy Pres

Interlocutory Injunctions

Anton piller

Mareva

Quia timet

Rectification

Proprietary estoppel

Trustees

Secret trusts

DMC

Quistlose trusts

Presumption of Advancement

Three certainties

Undue influence

New model constructive trust

It already feels like too much, can I leave specific performance out? Is there anything I can add that would be useful? Maybe Strong v Bird? Tracing? What’s everybody else covering??

Hello,

 I'm an undergraduate junior at a top tier school currently interviewing for a first-year 2027 Analyst position at a middle-market software private equity firm. I recently advanced to the second round, which I've been told will be a 1-hour verbal case study.

The problem is that I have essentially no finance background. I've been trying to prepare, but most of the PE interview resources I've found online seem to be geared toward associate recruiting (i.e., candidates coming from 2 years of investment banking). As someone recruiting directly from undergrad, I'm having a hard time figuring out what level of technical knowledge is actually expected and what the case study will look like. I'm also unsure how to prepare most effectively given the limited time I have before the interview.

 A few questions:

1.     What does a typical 1-hour verbal case study look like in PE? Is it usually an investment recommendation, an industry/company assessment, a paper LBO, a market-sizing exercise, or something else entirely?

2.     If you only had about a week to prepare for this case study from a relatively low technical baseline, what would be the highest-leverage resources you would use?

3.     For a first-year analyst role, should I expect associate-level technicals (LBOs, debt schedules, IRR/MOIC calculations, etc.), or is the bar lower for undergrad hires?

4.     Are there specific software PE concepts (SaaS metrics, retention, Rule of 40, etc.) that I should prioritize?

 I'm feeling very underprepared and would be incredibly grateful for any advice from people who have gone through analyst recruiting at PE firms.

 Thank you very much for any guidance. 

Everyone obsesses over DCFs and LBOs for sell-side interviews, but if you're trying to break into Equity Research (ER), your modeling test is usually just the barrier to entry. The real test of whether you'll survive the job is how well you can write a thesis under a brutal time crunch.

Here are a few tactical things I wish I knew when I was recruiting:

• The 3-Page Test: Nobody senior reads a 20-page initiation report. If you can't summarize your investment thesis, key risks, and valuation in a punchy executive summary on page one, you've already lost them. Practice writing concise, bulleted equity notes.
• The "So What?" Rule: When you present numbers or industry data in an interview case study, don't just state the fact. Tell the reader why it changes earnings estimates or valuation multiples.
• Know Your Catalyst: Saying a stock is "cheap" or "trading at a historical discount" is an instant rejection. Every sell-side desk needs a catalyst—an upcoming regulatory decision, a product launch, or a margin inflection point—that will actually close the valuation gap in the next 6 to 12 months.

For comp and lifestyle: Base salaries usually start around standard front-office banking bands, but bonuses swing heavily based on Institutional Investor rankings and overall deal/market activity. Hours are generally more predictable than M&A, but earnings season will test your soul (and your sleep schedule).

Curious to hear from folks currently on the desk or recruiting—what's been the hardest part of the case studies for you lately?

Hi all, benefited from this community immensely, so wanted to give back a bit. Have a few PE modeling tests/case studies along with my attempts that I am happy to share. Feel free to p.m!