The author of this paper can remember playing a game of Jeopardy in a middle school history class. The instructor brought a homemade board full of answers and their corresponding questions. Rewards for a correct answer (in the form of a question) were denominated in pieces of candy. The game had all the elements of a well formulated teaching method; it was engaging, rewarding, effective. Some might say, however, that the game was rigged from the beginning. The game was biased in favor of the students who were aggressive enough to shoot up a hand after a question was asked. Other advantages surfaced. Whether it was because a parent had pushed the student, or had hired a tutor even, or perhaps the student had first-hand knowledge of one of the categories, it was clear that some folks were winning the game. Students who knew the answers to the questions began to accumulate disproportionably large piles of candy on their desks. Inequalities were developing. In addition, each time anyone answered a question right, the inequality deepened; that student now had control of the board - he could now exercise this control to pick a category that favored him. Thus, in a circular fashion, right answers led to more right answers, and candy began to compound. At the end of the game, everyone clapped for the winner and looked on enviously. After a few minutes, though, all of the candy was equalized. Everyone in the class got 10 pieces of candy. Standing in line, waiting to collect my entitled ten pieces of candy from a classmate, I thought of the injustice in it all. Jonathan Kozol must have felt the same way a few years later when he began to visit schools around the country. Why do some children wind up with all the candy? Why are some left with none? Should every child be ensured of the same amount? This paper examines the question: Do we need to pursue equity in education? For the purposes of argument, equity will be defined as equity of opportunity and outcome - not merely per pupil expense. The paper will focus on New York, where ample evidence exists of extreme inequality within a small geographic region.

The three best ways of equalizing the end result of the broken education system in the United States all involve equalizing the inputs of education. In leveling the teachers in the classrooms, the treatment of the students, and the physical plant of the schools, administrators can effectively provide every student in the country with the opportunity deserved. It is clear from Kozol's research that the pool of teachers in New York have widely varying talents and credentials. This can be expected in any workforce, but the problem lies in the accumulation of the "tenth-best" [1] teachers at the poorest schools. A crowded room in a poor school calls for an "outstanding teacher," [2] not one of the "worst." [3] Young people will always shy away from the "droning voice" [4] of a teacher who doesn't even know the student's name [5] and gravitate towards the Jack Formans of the world - the "academics" [6] who start drama programs and teach Dickens. Equality in education can start with ensuring, through salary mechanisms, that the best teachers are spread evenly across schools. If talented teachers start to accumulate in one school, equality will quickly disintegrate. It's imperative that the government be willing to spend the money necessary to lure the talent to school's where they won't teach today.

The treatment provided to students by the schools must also be equal. Tracking may provide the starkest example of the institutionalized problems of the education system. Tracking represents almost on outright admission and surrender to inequality in education. Kozol describes a system of "tracking children by ability," [7] separating out students and providing them with different levels of education based on talent alone. Equality of outcome can never be achieved if 'special' students and 'gifted' students are learning in different rooms with different teachers. A better solution would be to select students randomly for the special programs, or to do away with them all together. Additionally, it seems that other student services in poor districts are being completely ignored. One school noted by Kozol failed to even attract some students into attending - with several children skipping "eight months" [8] of school without the school even calling or visiting the home of the student. The wealthier districts, on the other hand, appear to have enough truant officers to keep every single student in school - with one school having a dropout rate of 0%! [9] Basic services just aren't making it to all schools.

If tracking provides an example of outright discrimination, and truancy officer deficiency illuminates the abandonment of the children, then the physical condition of schools must complete a strong case for the need of equality. "Gaping holes" [10] in floors and "garbage-strewn" [11] surroundings don't facilitate learning the way computer labs and parks do in wealthier schools. The problem of the inequality is made worse by the parents in the rich school districts, who hold fund-raisers specifically for funneling money into their already wealthy schools. One school's parents went as far as to raise $400,000 [12] for the restoration of an auditorium. No matter what the standard of education is, equality cannot exist in education if private funds have the means to enter the process; such a mechanism is an invitation for inequity.

What is the net effect of distributing the talented teachers, doing away with discriminating tracking programs, and leveling the quality of the school buildings themselves? Thinking back to the Jeopardy analogy, imagine a game where each time you gave a correct answer (in the form of a question), everyone in the room got a fraction of a piece of candy. And then someone who hasn't yet answered a question could have control of the board. That way, at the end of the game there is no jolting redistribution of the candy. Me, standing in line to take ten pieces of candy from my know-it-all classmate is rather unseemly. An agile, equal system would make the candy adjustments on the fly. Small, spry nudges can bring the education of each student to a point of equality like a dealer squaring up a pack of cards. Then, the children can be dealt out into the real world randomly, without regard to suit or rank.