Lessons Learned about Equity in District Reform

5/30/07

Different understandings of equity in district reform

Differing notions of the meaning of equity in reform makes for communication difficulties among educators as well as different goals and strategies for equity-based reform work. While some educators trivialize these differences, the impact on practice in the field is that knowledgeable, effective practitioners are using different definitions and methodologies which are partially overlapping and partially divergent. It is the divergent areas that cause limitations in the most powerful support for student success, as is discussed in the rest of this document.

In an attempt to clarify the differences in approaches to equity in reform, we have articulated three levels of focus as follows. (*Note well that each subsequent level requires the previous level to be considered rigorous.):

Level 1: A structural approach to equity in reform means that a district is committed to and works to provide everything possible to ensure full access and high standards and rigor for every single student in the district regardless of income, cultural/ethnic/language background, achievement status, sexual orientation, and disability status. This is delicate and complex work.

This includes the district:

1) having an intentional, proactive equity agenda and approach related to access and rigor that is evident in all aspects of its planning, implementation and evaluation of initiatives;

2) anticipating equity issues and addresses them in all areas of their work (standards, curriculum, operations, etc.), though the work may (and likely will) evolve incrementally rather than address all areas at once; and

3) monitoring, aware of and responsive to equity issues using a set of equity indicators and tools across the system.

Level 2: Cultural Proficiency is inherent to high-quality practices in access and rigor. It includes awareness of and attention to culture, home language, communication style, and learning style and how these impact district and school-based decisions made about access and rigor, including how curriculum is developed, instructional practices, student engagement, assessment practices, school culture / climate and notions of discipline, engagement with families, and resource allocation.

A cultural proficiency lens on access and rigor is necessary to understand gaps in terms of adult decisions (e.g., why there are perpetual patterns leading to tracking, overrepresentation of certain ethnic populations in SPED, under-representation of certain ethnic groups in advanced courses, disproportionate representation in disciplinary referrals, differentiation in quality of facilities, technology and faculty per subgroups of students etc.). Using a cultural proficiency lens leads to a more robust understanding of why gaps persist and hence the ability to design strategies that address each dimension in the causal chain.

Level 3: A transformational approach to equity in district reform requires level 1& 2 work but goes deeper.

Districts and practitioners working in this area have a broad agenda about the overall goals of education, focused on students having both the skills and ability to participate fully as a citizen, and students having the capacity to envision and work toward refashioning and transforming society (both in terms of addressing injustices and in simply improving society overall).

In addition to the development of rigorous academic skills in levels 1 & 2 above, the skills developed in this area include the added capacity and support for adults and students to uncover and understand the evolution and impact of historical structures (e.g., racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and environmental exploitation, in relation to education, economics, politics, law, etc.) on individuals, institutions and communities.

In addition to the basic academic and cultural proficiency skills and capacities students are supported to develop in the two approaches above, the goal of this approach to equity in reform is to help produce students who:

 question and critically analyze a variety of sources of information,

 have opportunities to have complex, rigorous, ?real-world? applications of learning,

 have the ability to form an opinion, take a position and take action, meaning they

 are prepared for civic engagement and action,

 have the capacity to have influence (change management, changing systems),

 learn for the purpose of improving their communities (personal, local, national, global);

 have the ability to reflect on the ethical and moral implications of their decisions; and

 have the ability to be continual learners, listen to others, and are open to modifying their opinions and engaging constructively with others to solve problems.

Areas we have found to be typically underdeveloped in districts? work on equity in reform

In our own practice in the Foundation, we have found the most common, recurring equity areas that leaders must address fall into the following categories. These areas are not always mentioned explicitly in the literature or dealt with in depth. We have observed and have a hypothesis in our practice that changes in these areas are key levers for equity leadership. These areas are also the ones of highest controversy, emotion and entrenched practice in district communities:

Resource distribution (inc. placement practices in relation to the most qualified and skilled teachers and principals per subgroups of students; degree of overall funding per subgroup vis-?-vis need; quality of facilities per subgroup; counseling and other supplemental supports e.g., social-emotional supports and other interventions, per subgroup; strategic use of discretionary funds to intentionally support an equity agenda)

Student placement (esp. being vigilant about not perpetually tracking specific groups of students of color into low-level, SPED, or other intervention programs for low performing students, with no concrete plans for how students will be systematically moved to core)

High expectations (inc. beliefs about academic and development potential possible for specific ethnic/cultural/language groups and how this translates into policy development, instructional practices, and resource allocation; understanding of and adaptation to different cultural communication styles in the development of curriculum, instruction, etc.)

ELL and SPED (policies, diagnostic assessment practices, placement and tracking practices, trajectory or lack thereof into core classes; expectations for success as they relate to PD offered to help deepen practitioners? examination and understanding of their own beliefs, instructional practices, and intervention / support provision for these students)

From the above observations, the following seem to be important responsibilities for leading an equity agenda in reform:

 Goal-setting with an explicit equity agenda and calibrating about the meaning of equity in the specific district context

 Explicitly combating old beliefs and practices about some subgroups of students

 Board alignment and mobilization

 Central office alignment and mobilization

 Moving to new ways of thinking and working for archaic systems; intentional culture change focus

 Making hard and often controversial resource decisions, in a skillful manner, given the community context, and including skillful communication, authentic and deep stakeholder engagement, and PR

 An integrated combination of structural and cultural approaches to equity in reform is critically important if the field is to truly develop robust, deep, and sustainable efforts to support the success of all students.

For a fuller discussion of the insights and lessons learned from the Stupski Foundation, contact Sheryl Petty, sherylp@stupski.org.