6:32 PM
The twin towns of Emmerdahl and Efferdahl each have their own elementary schools, which have been operating continuously since the early 1800s. They are roughly of equal size. Children from these towns are educated at one of these two schools till age 14 or so, and then sent off to the big shared High School between the two towns.
Historically, the Emmerdahl School has been a place of love and support. The students are constantly reminded that they can do anything they put their minds to. Back in the 19th century, they were explicitly told that as Emmerdahl Kids, they were superior, and destined to dominate the Efferdahl Kids.
At that time, the Efferdahl School was, by contrast, quite cruel to its students. The kids were punished harshly for small infractions, and the students were regularly reminded that as Efferdahl Kids, they were fit only to serve the Emmerdahl Kids.
As you might expect, in those days, the Efferdahl kids were generally not successful as students in the High School, and most dropped out long before graduation. Effectively none of the graduating class had any Efferdahl Kids.
This was the case right up to the early 20th century, when reforms started to be implemented. The reforms were introduced slowly — first they stopped the regular beatings of the Efferdahl kids; they introduced rules that said that that the punishments need to be the same in both elementary schools; etc. Each time the reforms were met with arguments, and sometimes hostility, and each time it was hard work (often of the former Efferdahl Kids) to bring to light the injustice.
Still today, there are differences. Less dramatic than in the 19th century, to be sure, but they persist. Efferdahl's halls are adorned with posters of successful Emmerdahl students. Most of the instructors at the high school and both elementary schools are Emmerdahl kids who left before the most recent reforms.
In meetings to see who should get the prizes, the files of Efferdahl Kids are scrutinized a little more harshly, and sometimes a suggestion is made that an Emmerdahl Kid had helped with a hard project, etc.
Nevertheless, each year since the reforms started, the percentage of Efferdahl kids in the graduating class has risen. Today, the Efferdahl Kids make up about a third of the graduating class. Some folks think that suggests that the reforms are working, and more are needed. We'll call these the reformists.
Others say that it's pretty obvious that everything is fair now, and that the differences in outcomes are not going to be significantly changed by further reform. We'll call these the anti-reformists.
Perhaps 30 or 40 years ago it would have been common to hear an anti-reformists explicitly comment that the Efferdahl kids were just intrinsically less smart or hard-working than the Emmerdahl kids, but these days virtually no one would ever say that, at least not out loud.
Now, instead, the argument has softened to the claim that Efferdahl kids are 'just different.' Perhaps they're intrinsically less interested in the work, or maybe they see the value of not winning prizes or doing the kind of work that would merit a poster of them on the walls.
The anti-reformists admit that there are a few areas where the two schools are not quite equal, and they have heard stories of cruel or dismissive behavior toward the Efferdahl students, but they say that is inadequate to explain the differences in High School graduation rates.
The reformists point to all the progress that has been made, and suggest that we might reasonably expect it to continue, if only we keep making things better and fairer at the two elementary schools.
The anti-reformists respond that they have very good data that in fact the inequality is just the result of the inherent difference between Emmerdahl kids and Efferdahl kids. The reformists point out that the same 'inherent difference' arguments were made back when there were NO Efferdahl students graduating, and they had studies to back those claims up too.
Those old studies, the anti-reformists say, were unscientific, of course. But today the studies are very scientific and robust. We have arrived, they say, at as much equality between the two towns as we can expect, and the reforms aren't really going to help so much anymore.
The reformists observe that data show that simple reforms can have more equitable outcomes, and that's a nice thing. The anti-reformists call into question the seriousness of that data. And in any case, they argue, the burden of proof rests with those who seek equitable outcomes. And in fact, isn't all this focus on reform just a way to sneak in some radical agenda? Why, just last week they heard a reformist say something that sounded extreme.,,