{"id":766,"date":"2026-05-29T02:38:05","date_gmt":"2026-05-29T09:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ryk.groetchen.com\/blog\/2026\/05\/29\/parts-is-parts-when-common-sense-misses-the-mark\/"},"modified":"2026-05-29T02:38:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T09:38:05","slug":"parts-is-parts-when-common-sense-misses-the-mark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ryk.groetchen.com\/blog\/2026\/05\/29\/parts-is-parts-when-common-sense-misses-the-mark\/","title":{"rendered":"Parts Is Parts: When Common Sense Misses the Mark"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A Mechanic\u2019s Case for Equity in Education<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was recently trying to explain equity in education to someone who experiences language around equity as \u201cmumbo jumbo,\u201d (in their words). My mind makes analogies, and tries to find common ground. As we (me and my debate partner) are both Californians, my mind latched onto car culture\u2014Americans love their cars, and California has a specific stake in the dissemination of car culture. Also, there is a deep relationship between car culture, social structure, and education culture, and, for reasons that will become clear, the Ford Motor Corporation, specifically, is a major player in this landscape, and works elegantly as a character in my story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Thanks for bearing with my complex sentences. Neurodivergents love sentences with bonus content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognizing that this metaphor might be helpful for others, I submit to you: the difference between equality and equity in education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You have a central auto shop system, implemented around the country, set up by the Ford Motor Corporation when they were the dominant maker in the marketplace. You advertise that you will work on any make and model of car. That being said, when the shop is set up, the shop only receives shop manuals for the Ford Taurus. So for a while, any car that comes through the shop gets spark gaps, valve clearances, and timing settings for the Ford Taurus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At some point, the vehicle owners, the shop managers, and the mechanics notice that all of the Tauruses that leave the shop are running great, but the Focuses, the Transits, the Broncos and Mustangs, along with Chevys, Dodges, Jeeps, Subarus, Kias, Volvos and Land Rovers are not running their best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A shop manager from Ford comes in to investigate. \u201cI see your problem right here: All of these cars are being tuned to Taurus specs. Where are your shop manuals for the other models?\u201d They order the manuals for the Focus, Transit, Bronco and Mustang, and lo and behold, every Ford that leaves the shop runs at its best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other makes still have timing issues, are not firing on all cylinders, and experience electrical problems. The Ford Motor Corporation claims that this is evidence that the other makes are just deficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At some point, a team of independent investigators, with an understanding of the wider market, looks into how the shop is servicing its vehicles. They see right away that no shop manuals or supply chains are being made available for non-Ford vehicles. They submit their recommendations: that manuals, parts, and training specific to non-Ford makes and models be provided immediately, and that this will result in a) all vehicles being tuned to the proper specs; and b) all vehicles receiving appropriate parts, without the need for modifying inappropriate parts or fudging adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are many Ford-only communities working on the same shop model, and all of their vehicles appear to be doing fine. The Ford Motor Corporation, having set up the shop model in the first place, with significant influence and a vested interest in their vehicles appearing to be the most reliable, moves decisively to thwart these findings and advocate for the Ford-only model to be enforced throughout the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few communities that service a wide variety of makes and models adopt the independent investigators\u2019 findings: they provide manuals and supply chains that ensure that all vehicles leaving the shop are running at their best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ford Motor Corporation sees this as a threat to their ascendancy in the marketplace, and they advocate strongly that only Ford manuals and supply chains be standard, and that other accommodations are simply designed to steal market share from a native maker and transfer it to makers who are encroaching and have no claim to a place in the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They never point out that serving each vehicle to its unique specifications does not make Fords run worse\u2014it simply ensures that each vehicle runs at its best. No one is asking that Chevys be supercharged, or that Subarus get special fuel injectors, or that Dodges get enhanced suspension. It\u2019s just about servicing each vehicle with the appropriate parts and adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equality is treating each car like a Ford Taurus. A move toward equity without actually achieving equity is treating each car as some model of Ford. Equity is providing the proper parts and tuning for every make and model that comes through the shop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equality is treating each vehicle the same. Equity is treating each vehicle like itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Someone who says, \u201cbut children are not as different as different makes of cars\u201d has a fundamental misunderstanding of the trajectories that different children travel before they enter the education system. Some people have a vested interest in maintaining the appearance that every child has had access to the same resources and comes from backgrounds with the same cultural expectations. This is similar to maintaining the appearance that all cars are Fords. Only the Ford ecosystem benefits from this. By treating all cars equally (as if they were Fords) we are not treating them equitably (by giving them the parts and adjustments specific to their needs).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ford Motor Corporation, specifically, provides a good analogy for the foundation of our education system. Like Henry Ford, (the parent of the factory model of human organization), the people who designed the sorting system that is expressed in standardized testing in education were racists, eugenicists, capitalists, and anti-unionists. They designed a sorting mechanism that recognized the need for low-paid workers, middle managers, and highly paid executives, and devised a shop system that was predicated on labeling these social tiers early, and making sure everyone stayed in their lane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Providing shop manuals that resulted in every child achieving at their best ability was directly disruptive to their factory model. (Sound spicy? Check the recipe: The Racist Beginnings of Standardized Testing<\/a>, Born of Eugenics: Can Standardized Testing Escape Its Past?<\/a>, The Racist Origins of Standardized Testing Still Matter<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being a diverse and unevenly distributed nation, we have what are essentially Ford-only communities\u2014communities that are predominantly white and culturally homogeneous\u2014alongside mixed-make communities\u2014communities that include a vast variety of different cultural and relational realities, as different as different makes of cars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The culture wars around education are really an expression of different priorities regarding a variety of specific needs, and a breakdown in the translation layer between understanding the diverse needs of different models of vehicle and a variety of makes of vehicles\u2014between communities loyal to the Ford ecosystem and open-market communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since single-make communities exist, distributed throughout the country, there is a significant voice within the national conversation that advocates for the Ford-only model. Consider a variety of predominantly white Anglo communities throughout the US:<\/p>\n\n\n\n