, , ,

The Power of Heterogeneous Grouping in Education

Introduction

The concept of grouping students has always been a topic of considerable debate in education. One approach that has gained significant attention is heterogeneous grouping, where students of varying identities, abilities, backgrounds, and interests are grouped together. This method stands in contrast to the more common homogeneous grouping (also known as ability grouping or tracking), where students are grouped based on perceived similar abilities or achievement levels. This article delves into the power of heterogeneous grouping in education, exploring its benefits, strategies for effective implementation, and addresses the problems with ability grouping.

What is Heterogeneous Grouping

Heterogeneous grouping is an educational practice where students with diverse abilities, skills, and backgrounds are placed in the same learning group. Heterogeneous grouping within a classroom begins with proportionally representing students across a school. Proportional representation means that the demographics of students receiving special education services, students receiving English Language services, and students receiving advanced learning services in the school are proportionally reflected in every classroom, course, activity, setting, or experience.

Benefits of Heterogeneous Grouping

Heterogeneous grouping promotes a more inclusive and collaborative learning environment, fosters a range of perspectives and skills, and deepens high-quality learning for all students. Let’s explore the benefits.

Academic Benefits

One of the primary advantages of heterogeneous grouping is the enhancement of learning outcomes. Students learn not only from their teachers but also from each other. This peer interaction fosters improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as students are exposed to a variety of perspectives and methods of approaching problems.

Social Benefits

Heterogeneous grouping also offers substantial social benefits. It aids in developing empathy and social skills, as students learn to work with others with different abilities, backgrounds, and viewpoints. This collaborative environment encourages teamwork and cooperation, essential skills for future professional and personal success.

Emotional Benefits

On an emotional level, heterogeneous grouping can increase students’ sense of belonging, self-esteem, and confidence and reverse the effects of stereotype threat that often come with ability grouping. In a supportive and motivating learning environment, students feel valued and understood, which enhances their engagement and enthusiasm for learning. This environment also reduces the anxiety and stigma often associated with being placed in lower-ability groups, as every student has the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the group and participate in rigorous study.

Furthermore, if a school is truly committed to equity and, therefore, to providing high-quality learning for every student, heterogeneous grouping is the only way to accomplish these goals.

Research Supports Heterogeneous Grouping

The Academic Benefits of Diversity

Heterogeneous grouping has been proven to improve learning outcomes, better prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepare students as professionals.

In addition, heterogeneous grouping improves cognitive skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving because students’ experience with individuals different from themselves, [and] the novel ideas and situations that such experience brings, challenges their thinking and leads to cognitive growth” according to a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Brief from Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

Other research findings that support heterogeneous grouping include the following:

  • Varied achievement within student groupings positively impacts student achievement (Hnushek, Klin, Markman, and Rivkin, 2003).
  • Heterogeneous classrooms have high expectations, a faster pace of instruction, peer models of effective learning, and challenging curricula (Leithwood, Louis, Andserson, and Wahlstrom, 2004).
  • … students having difficulty at school, including students experiencing poverty learn more when they learn in heterogeneous rather than in homogenous ability groups (Oakes, 1985 and Yonezawa, Wells, and Serna, 2002).
  • For students with mild cognitive disabilities and learning disabilities, specifically in reading and math, there are no additional gains in segregated settings (Cole, 2004).
  • The common finding across these studies is that “a system of sorting and separating students based on academic level is neither necessary nor particularly helpful for supporting gifted and high-achieving students” (Potter and Burris, 2019).
  • Students of all abilities learn more in heterogeneous vs. ability groups (Leithwood, Lois, Anderson, & Wahlston, 2004; Oakes, 1985; Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002).

The National Education Association agrees with and supports the elimination of ability grouping. According to a 2005 NEA resolution, the use of discriminatory academic tracking based on economic status, ethnicity, race, or gender must be eliminated in all public school settings.

The Dangers of Ability Grouping

The History of Homogeneous Grouping

Ability grouping/homogeneous grouping involves placing students in groups based on their perceived ability levels or achievement. This method aims to tailor instruction to the specific needs of each group by pulling students out of the core classroom into separate rooms or even separate schools for learning. Homogeneous grouping also happens within classroom groups by clustering students for small group activities.

As a result of various civil rights legislation, student populations have become more diverse over time. Yet, as schools have become more diverse, educators – intending to help – have often responded by providing even more segregated special programs, ability grouping, and tracking, which has actually reinforced marginalization and oppressive school systems.

The problem with this type of segregation is that data consistently shows that students who receive free/reduced-priced lunch and students who are racially minoritized are over-identified for special education and Response-to-Intervention and are significantly under-identified for gifted/advanced learning services compared to the percentage of those students in the school.

Figure 1 shows a proportional representation graph as an example. The far left bar shows that 19.1% of students receive free/reduced-priced lunch at this school.

Figure 1: Example Proportional Representation Graph

In the second bar from the left, we see that 28% of students who receive special education services are receiving free/reduced-priced lunch. Thus, students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are over-identified for special education services. Instead, no more than 19.1% of students receiving special education services should be receiving free/reduced-priced lunch.

In the next bar, 6.8% of students identified for advanced learning services receive free/reduced-priced lunch, demonstrating that these students are under-identified for advanced learning services. Instead, at least 19.1% of students identified for advanced learning should receive free/reduced-priced lunch.

In the last bar, 33.8% of students identified for RTI services receive free/reduced-priced lunch. Of the students receiving RTI, no more than 19.1% should be receiving free/reduced-priced lunch.

Thus, at this school, the data shows that students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are over-identified for special education and Response to Intervention services and are significantly under-identified as gifted/advanced learning services.

These data are typical for most school districts and demonstrate that ability grouping increases social stratification, as students experiencing poverty are more likely to be placed in lower tracks, perpetuating cycles of educational harm and inequality.

In addition to the problematic disproportional representation of racially minoritized students and students experiencing poverty, extensive research indicates that ability grouping does not significantly improve overall student outcomes. Studies have shown these students are not held to grade level standards and beyond, typically given less challenging material and fewer opportunities for advancement, leading to widening opportunity and achievement gaps.

A 1982 study by James and Chen-Li Kulik found no evidence that students learn more when grouped by ability; at lower skill levels, a 1986 study shows that students actually learn less. In another 2015 large-scale study, researchers Balu, Pei, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins, and Gersten found that reading interventions did not improve reading outcomes; they produced negative impacts.

Research from John Hattie, Emeritus Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne and author of Visible Learning, confirms this. To find out what works best in education, Hattie developed a way of synthesizing findings from 1,400 meta-analyses of 80,000 studies involving 300 million students. He ranked each influence according to its effect size, from very positive effects to very negative effects. Hattie found that the effect size of the practice of ability grouping is .12 (Hattie, 2023). In other words, it negatively impacts student outcomes.

Research from Eric Hanushek, John Kain, Jacob Markman, and Steven Rivkin (2003) suggests that students in low-ability groupings are often the furthest behind. Every year that a student is removed from the core of teaching and learning reinforces a stereotype threat that will continue to have a negative impact on them for the rest of their lives.

Students who are racially minoritized, with a disability, who are linguistically diverse, and/or experiencing poverty are often the students who receive their educational “opportunities” someplace else other than the core of teaching and learning. When this occurs, students are symbolically and, in practice, told that they do not belong to the “normed group of students.” All students then learn from this practice who belongs and who does not, who is smart and capable, and who is not.

Students in lower-ability groups often face stigmatization and lowered self-esteem, which impacts their overall motivation and engagement with learning. The more marginalized a student is, the more impossible it becomes to take an advanced placement class. Upon graduation, if the student graduates, the cycle of marginalization is reinforced, often across generations. The research is clear that the problems with ability grouping extend beyond academic performance.

What About Students Receiving Advanced Learning Services?

When discussing the notion of heterogeneous grouping, parents and caregivers of students receiving advanced learning services are often concerned. Their children may be benefiting from stereotype lift. Though these families may believe that their children generally receive rigorous instruction with high expectations, the research is clear that the more homogenous the learning setting, the less all students learn. The more diverse a learning setting, the more all learn.

For example, the National Center for Research on Gifted Education measured gifted education across 2,000 students across three states. “Third-grade students in gifted programs were not making significant learning gains compared to their peers in general education …[and that] pull-out programs or self-contained classrooms [for students Identified as gifted] were, on average, not helping to boost academic achievement” (cited in Potter & Burris, 2019).

In 2014, researchers Sa Bui, Steven Craig, and Scott Imberman studied 14,000 fifth graders in a large urban district. They found no differences in achievement between students attending the segregated gifted school and those attending the regular schools.

Our Take: Heterogeneous Grouping Improves Student Outcomes when Implemented Correctly

Why Schools Continue to Group Students by Ability

Across the country, the segregation caused by systems and practices of ability grouping in schools perpetuates cycles of marginalization, particularly for students who are racially minoritized, those with disabilities, students who are linguistically diverse, and those experiencing poverty. Traditional practices such as pull-out services, within-class ability grouping, and lower-tracked classrooms and courses contribute to this issue, emphasizing a reactive system that blames student failure on the students themselves rather than addressing structural and systemic inequities.

However, despite the research showing that homogeneous grouping does not work and the life-long negative side effects of these practices on students, teachers, administrators, and parents often cling to it for all the wrong reasons.

First, teacher training programs often prepare educators for ability grouping, which many perceive as effective primarily because it simplifies classroom management. When teachers group students by perceived similar ability levels, teachers can tailor their instruction to a narrower range of needs, making their job more straightforward. This setup might result in visible improvements for one or two students over a short period; however, the benefits are not widespread, and most students do not experience significant academic gains. Furthermore, teachers miss out on the opportunity to develop their skills and capacity to educate a diverse array of learners.

Economic factors also influence the persistence of ability grouping. Curriculum and software companies profit immensely from selling specialized materials for different ability levels. School districts are often reluctant to abandon a multi-year commitment, having invested substantial sums in curricula, assessment software, etc., which creates a bias against adopting heterogeneous grouping despite the evidence supporting its efficacy. Schools may feel trapped by their previous investments, leading to a cycle where the status quo is maintained at the expense of broader student success.

To move beyond these entrenched practices, schools must adopt a more inclusive and equitable approach, which includes heterogeneous grouping which aims for high-quality teaching and learning for all.

Heterogeneous Grouping Requires a New Way of Thinking

It’s important to note that heterogeneous grouping on its own is not a panacea. Implementing heterogeneous grouping effectively requires district administrators to lead with a commitment to changing their structures and practices on a much deeper and systemic level – not simply re-grouping students in classrooms.

This cultural and structural transformation involves a fundamental shift in educational practices and mindset across the entire district system. The school must first build acknowledgment of the history of marginalization and oppression, awareness of personal biases, and foster an assets-based culture. This work takes time, resources, and a true commitment to equity.

Effect of deficit-based ability grouping

How Schools Perpetuate Poverty and Low Expectations through a Deficit-Based Lens

How Schools Can Disrupt Poverty and Low Expectations Through an Asset-Based Lens and Heterogeneous Grouping

Heterogeneous grouping will not be effective if the personal and cultural work isn’t done first.

Heterogeneous Grouping Requires a New Way of Teaching

It is not enough to simply place students with varying abilities together; educators must be equipped and willing to embrace new instructional strategies and collaborative frameworks. Effective implementation demands that teachers and administrators confront and change any existing biases against mixed-ability classrooms. This involves a commitment to ongoing professional development and adopting collaborative teaming structures like Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams.

C3 Teams should include grade-level teachers, teachers of students receiving special education services, teachers of students receiving gifted services, teachers of students receiving multi-lingual services, interventionists, and other staff as needed at each grade level and then within content areas rather than clustering students with specific labels into particular classrooms or courses. Team member expertise is aligned to student needs at that grade level. The team shares planning, instruction, and learning responsibilities. By working together, teachers develop each other’s capacity to address the diverse needs of their students, ensuring that all learners benefit from the rich, varied interactions that heterogeneous grouping facilitates.

Heterogeneous Grouping Requires a New Process

School districts and teachers must have a proven process and instructional practices to ensure that every student fully participates in the group and learns at a high level.

When appropriately implemented, the heterogeneous grouping process promotes the following:

  • Develops critical thinking skills: Encourages students to explore issues together and test hypotheses, enhancing problem-solving skills.
  • Promotes discussion and communication skills: Provides a comfortable environment for discussion, encouraging active participation and sharing of understandings.
  • Active learning: Helps identify and address gaps in understanding, activates prior knowledge, and encourages reflection and self-regulation.
  • Self-motivation: Involves students in the learning process, increasing motivation and promoting self-directed learning.
  • Develops transferable skills: Fosters leadership, teamwork, organization, prioritization, problem-solving, and time management skills.
  • Application and development of ideas: Offers opportunities to apply ideas and consider outcomes, enhancing understanding through group discussions.
  • Tutor as a role model: Demonstrates transferable skills through a systematic approach, motivating students.
  • Recognizes prior learning: Encourages students to bring forward their prior knowledge and perceptions.
  • Social aspects of learning: Makes learning more enjoyable through participation and social interaction.
  • Encourages alternative viewpoints: Promotes awareness of different perspectives, enhancing learning through diversity.

Our process for forming and facilitating heterogeneous groups with C3 Teams includes a step-by-by step framework for:

  • Creating the teams;
  • Setting team expectations;
  • Developing team norms;
  • Defining group roles, which include the Facilitator, the Pathfinder, the Communicator, the Inquirer, the Recorder and the Summarizer;
  • Developing an instructional design template;
  • Creating an Individualized Skills at a Glance template to ensure students receiving special education services, English language services, interventions, and advanced learning services are provided opportunities through the lesson and through the entire day to accomplish targeted goals;

Conclusion

When implemented correctly, heterogeneous grouping holds significant potential for transforming education. Evidence shows that this approach enhances academic, social, and emotional development for all students by fostering diverse and inclusive learning environments.

Educators can create rich, dynamic, and supportive learning environments that prepare students for success in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world by properly implementing heterogeneous grouping.

, , ,

Collective Teacher Efficacy: From Teacher Teams to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams

Introduction

When groups of educators believe they can impact student learning and make a difference in students’ lives… research shows they can.

This concept, called Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE), stands as a transformative idea in education, illustrating the collective belief of educators in their ability to positively influence student outcomes. This article explores why Collective Teacher Efficacy is more relevant than ever in today’s diverse, challenging and dynamic educational environments.

We also provide a Teacher Team Reflection Tool to help educators assess the effectiveness of their current teacher teams in relation to the research on collective teacher efficacy.

Download the Reflection Tool

What Is Collective Teacher Efficacy?

At the heart of Collective Teacher Efficacy lies Albert Bandura’s 1970s research on self-efficacy. This research posits that one’s belief in one’s ability to succeed influences one’s actions and outcomes. In other words, confidence impacts results.

Collective Teacher Efficacy adapts this individual confidence into a group setting, where the unified strength of a teaching team becomes the driving force behind student success. Teachers’ beliefs in their personal efficacy to motivate and promote learning affect the types of learning environments they create and the level of academic progress their students achieve.

In a 1993 study, Bandura demonstrated that teachers who work together to develop a strong sense of collective efficacy in their school community can significantly contribute to children’s academic success.

Other research confirms that teams are more effective when this group of individuals shares the belief that through their unified efforts, they can overcome challenges and produce the intended results.

Collective Teacher Efficacy has been shown to improve student achievement and close gaps in learning across student differences.

More Evidence for Collective Teacher Efficacy

Bandura’s findings set the stage for further research by Roger Goddard, Wayne Hoy, and Anita Wollfolk Hoy. Together, this research trio demonstrated how collective teacher efficacy is positively associated with differences between schools in student-level achievement in both reading and mathematics.

John Hattie, Emeritus Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne and author of Visible Learning, further defined the concept of CTE in his 2008 book “Visible Learning.”

“It’s not just a growth mindset. It’s not just ‘rah-rah’ thinking. It’s not just, ‘Oh, we can make a difference!’ But it is that combined belief that it is ‘us’ that causes learning,” he wrote.

In an interview, he described collective efficacy as “teachers working together to have appropriately high, challenging expectations of what a year’s growth for a year’s input looks like.”

Hattie developed a way of synthesizing findings from 1,400 meta-analyses of 80,000 studies involving 300 million students to find out what works best in education. He ranked each influence according to its effect size, from very positive effects to very negative effects. He started with 138 influences related to learning outcomes and later added to that number.

Hattie found that the average effect size of all the influences he studied was 0.40. Therefore, he determined that the effect size needed to be .40 or above to impact learning positively.

In a stunning result, Collective Teacher Efficacy was shown to be the most powerful factor influencing student achievement, topping the list with a whopping 1.57 effect size.

Hattie’s meta-analysis shows that schools with high CTE levels significantly enhance student performance, regardless of students’ backgrounds or initial levels of achievement.

The study found that strong CTE encourages participants to make more effective use of the skills they already possess and share that knowledge with colleagues. As a result, students are empowered to succeed and reach for higher goals in the process. They also learn more, causing investment in academic achievement to soar. The implementation of CTE is even known to outweigh impacts such as socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and home environment.

Typical Ways Schools Attempt to Build Collective Teacher Efficacy

Most school districts believe in the benefit of teacher collaboration and employ some aspect of teacher teams to accomplish this purpose. In doing so, they attempt to strategically manage several key components to foster this collaboration.

Effective Communication

Establishing clear, shared educational goals and an understanding of what collective efficacy means within the educational context is critical to success. Create opportunities for teachers and staff to discuss what evidence of learning is observed in individual classrooms.

The implementation of any new Collective Teacher Efficacy improvement plan should align with a district’s equity goals and equity non-negotiables, which in turn align with CTE research and evidence-based practices that benefit all students.

For example, a school may set a unified goal to improve literacy rates. Creating a strategy should involve leaders and teachers collectively planning through the lens of both the equity non-negotiables and Collective Teacher Efficacy. Doing so will ensure that CTE improves and that any new practices or curriculum will support the diverse needs of all learners.

Consistent Feedback and Professional Development

Developing CTE requires regular, structured opportunities for teacher learning and feedback. Effective models include peer observation and coaching, where teachers observe each other’s classes and provide constructive feedback based on agreed-upon criteria.

Encouraging ongoing professional development, both formal and informal, ensures that teachers remain at the forefront of educational research and best practices.

Cultivating a culture where teachers feel safe to take risks and express concerns without fear of negative repercussions encourages deeper investment in collective goals.

Celebrate Success

Teachers are often motivated by the successful outcomes of their students. A 2002 study by Hoy, Sweetland and Smith found that CTE encourages individual teachers and the school community at large to achieve the shared goal of student success. As a result, students are empowered to succeed and reach for higher goals in the process. Regularly and publicly recognizing student and teacher success keeps both groups motivated and collective efficacy high.

Teachers with high Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) doing lesson planning

Our Take: To Improve Collective Teacher Efficacy, Schools Must Address Broken Systems

Often, districts create teacher teams but do so on top of a broken system. Thus, while Collective Teacher Efficacy can powerfully influence student achievement,  implementing it is not as simple as creating teacher teams, providing a few extra professional development workshops, or bringing in a motivational speaker.

Before we can improve collective teacher efficacy, we must first address two primary barriers in the current educational setting: ability grouping and stereotype threat.

Ability Grouping Reduces Self-Efficacy for Students and Teachers

Oppression and marginalization in education for educators and students are historical, structural, cultural, and systemic. As a result of various civil rights legislation, the student populations have become more diverse. Yet, in spite of decades of educational reform and federal mandates, as schools have become more diverse, educators – with the intention of helping – have often responded by providing special programs, ability grouping, and tracking.

Collective Teacher Efficacy is Harmed by Ability Grouping

Examples of Special Programs, Ability Grouping, and Tracking in Schools

These special programs, ability grouping, and tracking have set in motion a deficit-based educational system, from higher education teacher education programs to K-12 schools, that perpetuate the opportunity gaps between students.

Students who are pulled out, ability grouped, or segregated from other students for instruction are taught that they do not belong and are thus more susceptible to stereotype threat and lower self-efficacy.

Jeannie Oakes, Former Presidential Professor Emerita in Educational Equity at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies and author of Keeping Track,  explained the problem with ability grouping:

“When you look empirically at the characteristics of children in classrooms, children are extraordinarily diverse in all sorts of ways, and if you group them on one characteristic, you’re going to have a huge amount of diversity and variation on other characteristics. So, first of all, we fool ourselves into thinking that we’ve got homogeneous groups of students. Your outcomes are very much limited by that practice. So we have a practice that’s very popular — very common — that’s based on a flawed theory and for which there’s almost no evidence of effectiveness.”

Teachers reinforce the negative effects of ability grouping by being required to label students and identify them for various interventions, thereby implying that their own teaching skills are insufficient to educate or help these types of students.

As you can see, ability grouping reduces the self-efficacy and confidence of both students and teachers, which in turn reduces teacher collective efficacy.

Stereotype Threat Harms Teacher Collective Efficacy

Because of the aforementioned segregated practices, schools have inadvertently created a dichotomic culture of stereotype threat and stereotype lift, which is experienced by both teachers and students.

Stereotype threat is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when individuals are at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their social group.

Social psychologists Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson first introduced the concept of stereotype threat in a 1995 study. Their groundbreaking study demonstrated how performance in academic contexts can be negatively affected by the awareness that one’s group is stereotypically expected to perform poorly (see also, Steele, 2010, Whistling Vilvadi)

Stereotype lift, which refers to the performance boost that occurs when negative stereotypes are activated about another group rather than one’s own, is a related concept. Further research, building on studies of stereotype threat, identified stereotype lift as an effect. The recognition of stereotype lift helped to broaden understanding of how stereotypes can impact performance not only negatively but also positively, depending on the social dynamics at play.

“Stereotype threat – when we are reminded of one of our identities that has a negative stereotype and that could be marginalized, we perform less well.

Stereotype lift – when we are reminded of someone else’s identity that could be marginalized or has a negative stereotype, and we are not of that identity, it makes us feel better about ourselves and increases our performance 

Stereotype lift and threat occurs every day in every school perpetuating societal marginalization…”

(Steele & Aronson, 1994)

In the context of education, stereotype threat and lift can significantly impact students’ performance and their educational experiences. Based on Hattie’s research, stereotype threat has a significantly negative impact on student learning.

Below is an example of stereotype threat and lift from Steele’s research:

When college students who identify as female, had to mark their identity as female before taking a math assessment for which they were well prepared, they did not perform to their potential. They experienced stereotype threat and were subconsciously reminded of a stereotype that females perform less well in math.

On that same assessment, college students who identified as male and marked their identity as male before taking the assessment performed to their potential. They experienced a stereotype lift.

To reduce stereotype threat and improve collective efficacy among students and teachers, schools must redesign and restructure the broken systems that have been in place for decades that created these dynamics in the first place.

Developing Collective Teacher Efficacy via Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn™ (C3) Teams

The most powerful lever for developing collective teacher efficacy requires the development of Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams.

Within these teams, staff share their expertise and resources, continually building each other’s capacity to teach a diverse range of students.

The C3 Teams represent multiple classrooms at the same grade level in elementary schools. At the secondary level, the C3 Teams represent multiple sections of a grade level and subject area.

These teams also include teachers of students receiving special education services, teachers of students receiving gifted services, teachers of students receiving multi-lingual services, interventionists, and other staff as needed (e.g., school counselors).  To maximize collective teacher efficacy, these teachers must always be included on C3 Teams at all times.

For example, if an elementary school has three sections or classrooms at the third-grade level, the C3 Team will co-create lessons for all three classrooms of students. At the secondary level, if Algebra 1 includes four sections, then the C3 Team will plan for the four sections.

Of course, if support teachers are fully involved on C3 Teams (e.g., teachers of students receiving special education services, teachers of students receiving gifted services, teachers of students receiving multilingual services), then the school’s structure will need to be realigned to match teacher and staff expertise with student needs at each grade level.

This realignment will then allow these specialist teachers to serve on the C3 Teams and provide services in small heterogeneous groups in the classroom, rather than educating students in special programs, low-tracked classes, or pull-out rooms.

The majority of C3 Teams meet a minimum of two times per week, for 45 minutes to an hour. Each C3 Team member must prioritize the time allocated for meetings, and meetings must not be scheduled when some members are available but others are not.

C3 Teams’ work then centers on lesson design that lifts all learners academically, emotionally, and behaviorally with the following structure:

  • Research-based instructional strategies
  • Identity-relevant instructional practices
  • Heterogeneous small-group instruction
  • Universal design for learning and backward mapping

Purposely designed to develop educator capacity across areas of expertise, C3 Teams can foster a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility for student success and thus improve Collective Teacher Efficacy.

Assessing Your Teacher Teams with C3 Teams and Collective Teacher Efficacy

We provide the following table for you to reflect on to what extent your current teacher teams reflect C3 Teams, and in so doing, are maximizing their ability to develop collective teacher efficacy.

 

Typical Teacher Teams

Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to Develop Collective Teacher Efficacy
Team Membership Team Membership
Typically grade level teachers. Support and special teachers attend only when they can. Included in the entirety of all meetings are teachers of students receiving special education services, teachers of students receiving gifted services, teachers of students receiving multi-lingual services, interventionists, and additional staff as needed (e.g., school counselors).
Team Responsibility Team Responsibility
Grade-level teachers are responsible for grade-level students. Support and special teachers are responsible for “their” students. All team members responsible for all students
Team Purpose Team Purpose
– Examine student data to figure out how to fix students typically via ability grouping, tracking, or special pullout programs.
– Decide on student accommodations after lessons have been planned.		 -Design proactive, identity-affirmative, rigorous lessons for all students in small heterogeneous groups
-Use data to ask “What is it about the system that contributed to these data in the first place?”  “What is it about the system can we change to improve these data?”
-Individual student needs are built into the lesson design to ensure students are provided opportunities to practice needed skills, in context, throughout the entire day.
Teacher Collective Efficacy Teacher Collective Efficacy
– Blunted when not all staff serve on teacher teams and team purpose and function further separate teacher expertise – A natural result of all teachers developing their shared expertise through lesson design for all students
Download the Reflection Tool

Conclusion

Collective Teacher Efficacy is a compelling concept that promises substantial improvements in educational outcomes. Educators can rethink collaborative teaching teams toward the work of Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) teams. Educators can then design lessons that avoid ability grouping, tracking, and pullout programs and the associated stereotype threat that accompanies these practices. Instead, educators on C3 Teams can design rigorous, identity-affirmative lessons for small, heterogenous, group instruction. In so doing, these C3 Teams can maximize the principles of Collective Teacher Efficacy and create more supportive and effective teaching environments, ultimately leading to enhanced student learning and success.

,

The Danger of Simplifying Inclusive Hiring Practices in Education

By Nasif K. Rogers, MBA

In the realm of K-12 education, the hiring season is not just a mere routine; it’s a crucial process that shapes the educational landscape for the upcoming academic year and years to come. Schools are not just seeking educators but looking for educators who can lead high-quality teaching and learning for all students.

However, given the urgency of filling positions and the prevalent teacher shortage, district and school leaders looking for a quick fix often neglect or over-simplify equitable and inclusive hiring principles.

This article delves into the complexities of inclusive hiring practices in schools, emphasizing the need to go beyond simplistic approaches to ensure the best outcomes for educators and students.

The Current Landscape: Challenges and Realities

Across the United States, school districts are grappling with a severe teacher shortage, further exacerbated in rural communities. Rural districts must compete with their urban and suburban counterparts, who can offer more attractive pay and benefits. All districts find themselves resorting to emergency-certified teachers who haven’t completed all requirements or the requisite experience for a teaching license to fill vacancies.

Reasons for the Teacher Shortage

There are several reasons for this teacher shortage, which include the following:

Lower Pay

Teaching often offers lower salaries than other professions requiring similar education, training, and experience. This can deter potential educators, especially considering the profession’s demands. According to the National Education Association, teachers made 26.4% less than other similarly educated professionals in 2022—the lowest since 1960.

High Workload and Stress

Teachers often face high workloads, including administrative tasks, lesson planning, grading, a range of meetings, and extracurricular responsibilities. The stress and workload can lead to burnout and cause some teachers to leave the profession.

Lack of Support and Resources

Inadequate support and resources, such as insufficient professional development opportunities, nonexistent collaborative teaming, limited classroom materials, and a shortage of staff members to support them, can make teaching more challenging.

Retirements and Attrition

Many experienced teachers are reaching retirement age, leading to a significant number of vacancies. Additionally, some teachers are leaving the profession due to dissatisfaction, further exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic and the disproportionate impact on some communities and districts. According to a RAND survey during the pandemic, nearly one in four teachers said they were likely to leave their jobs by the end of the 2020–2021 school year, compared with one in six teachers who were likely to leave, on average, before the pandemic. Black teachers reported that they were particularly likely to plan to leave the profession.

A Systems Approach to Inclusive and Equitable Hiring

Addressing the teacher shortage requires a systemic, multi-faceted approach, including efforts to improve teacher compensation and working conditions, increase support for educators, provide meaningful professional learning opportunities, enhance recruitment and retention strategies, and provide more pathways into the teaching profession.

The current situation underscores the urgency of comprehensive teacher hiring practices that not only address immediate staffing needs but also uphold and operationalize the values of equity and target the goal of high-quality teaching and learning for all.

Understanding the History of Equitable and Inclusive Hiring in Schools

Historic Legislation

Oppression and marginalization in education for educators and students are historical, structural, cultural, and systemic. Congress has passed significant legislation over the past 75 years aimed at addressing inclusive and equitable hiring practices. Starting with the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), this case sought to advance civil rights in education and promote equal opportunities for Black students. Yet, the spirit and reach of this legislation has not seen its potential and intended impact fully actualized as tens of thousands of Black educators lost their jobs in Brown’s aftermath.

In addition, federal legislation such as Affirmative Action – created in 1961 and still hotly debated and challenged in court – and Equal Opportunity Employment policies were created in response to historical and systemic discrimination in the hiring process faced by certain groups, particularly people of color, women of all races, and people with disabilities.

As a result of various civil rights legislation, the student and teacher populations have become more diverse. Yet, in spite of decades of educational reform and federal mandates, schools have failed to make systemic changes to improve the conditions of teaching and learning for every child and educator.

Instead, the more diverse the student population became, the more schools, universities, and education companies responded with policies, programs, curriculum, and practices that resulted in segregation and marginalization. More specifically, as our school systems increased in diversity by gender, race, social class, language, and (dis)ability, educators created more ability grouping, tracking, and segregated programs under the auspices of “helping.”

With that, specialized teachers with specialized training have been hired to teach specific student groups in separate schools, programs, and classrooms, often contributing to inequities and widening opportunity and achievement gaps among students.

Recent Inclusive Hiring Practices

Research consistently underscores the importance of diverse educator backgrounds in fostering student success. More recently, various DEI consultants and professionals and research-driven organizations like the Harvard Business School have highlighted the importance of creating inclusive and equitable interviewing practices for hiring teachers and staff by utilizing the following strategies:

Inclusive Job Descriptions

Develop job descriptions that embrace diversity and inclusivity to attract a wide range of candidates.

Diverse Sourcing

Actively seek out candidates from various backgrounds by using diverse recruitment channels, including job boards targeting underrepresented groups, networking events, and partnerships with community organizations.

Awareness of the “Just Like Me” Bias

Provide training for interviewers on the advantages of diverse teams to mitigate bias towards candidates similar to themselves.

Video Interview Prep

Ensure fairness in video interviews to those who may not be familiar with the technology by providing video interview best practices ahead of time to candidates.

Structured Interview Process and Questions

Employ a standardized set of questions for all applicants to maintain consistency.

Shifting Questions to Capabilities

Opt for questions emphasizing candidates’ skills and capabilities rather than direct experience.

Skills-Based Assessments

Use practical assessments, simulations, or work samples to evaluate candidates’ skills and abilities rather than relying solely on resumes or on candidates to assess their skills.

These tips and others certainly are an improvement on traditional hiring practices that may have intentionally or unintentionally excluded certain groups. However, they represent an oversimplification of more significant and necessary changes and strategies in teacher hiring.

Our Take: Inclusive Hiring in Education Goes Deeper Than You Think

While fair and equitable hiring practices are essential, they alone are insufficient to maximize student learning outcomes. A genuine commitment to equitable hiring embodies a commitment to equity on a deeper, more systemic level, ensuring that individuals from all backgrounds have equal opportunities to learn,  teach, and lead. But most schools and districts – while well-meaning and conscientious of the history – are still missing these two crucial points:

  • Eliminating inequities begins with ourselves.
  • The system – not the student – is responsible for student failure.

Oppression and marginalization are historical, structural, cultural, and systemic. As a result of that fact, any equity changes schools make must address the entire educational system and the people who lead and operate within that system. The historical and systemic nature of oppression often socializes educators to a white, English-speaking, able-bodied, middle-class, cis-gendered, heterosexual norm that simply doesn’t reflect the spectrum of intersectional identities and histories of this country.

For hiring to be inclusive, schools must adopt holistic strategies that encompass the entire HR system with other departments such as Teaching and Learning, Special Education, and Student Services. Doing so allows professional learning to be integrated and relevant to unpacking that aforementioned history, understanding identity development processes, and equity research about pedagogical best practices, just to name a few.

Here are the critical considerations for advancing inclusive hiring practices:

Creating Equity Non-Negotiables

Often, school districts’ inclusive vision and mission are aspirational without any set of specific guidelines for making decisions to achieve high-quality teaching and learning for all.

That is why a fundamental step in the journey towards inclusive hiring of teachers and staff is creating district-wide Equity Non-Negotiables. The Equity Non-Negotiables may also be called Principles of Excellence,  High-Quality Teaching and Learning Non-Negotiables, District Principles, or simply Non-Negotiables, as examples.

The purpose of Equity Non-Negotiables is to interrupt a culture and history of educational marginalization and operationalize high-quality teaching and learning without any experiences of marginalization or oppression for each learner. Equity Non-Negotiables are the path to clarifying the district’s mission and vision and shifting the vision from aspirational to operational.

Experienced equity consultants should facilitate the creation of the Equity Non-Negotiables and develop them collaboratively with school leadership teams, school board members, district leaders, and staff in a structured, systematic, iterative process.

Fundamentally different from equity belief statements or district commitments as part of strategic plans, to develop Equity Non-Negotiables, school staff identify the challenges of the current school structures to students and staff and then create an inverse of each problem, which becomes a non-negotiable. Once they are finalized, they become the foundation for every decision in the district, from the classroom to the board room, serving as the road map and guard rails for the equity journey. The process of developing the Equity Non-Negotiables will help transform the hiring process beyond equitable and inclusive hiring practices.

The Non-Negotiable development process may take several months over an academic year to finalize.  It is critical not to rush the process or simply “borrow” another district’s Equity Non-Negotiables because they need to be reflective of the specific work of the school and district to be operationalized. Most importantly, everyone must be involved in the discussions surrounding them and participate in the necessary professional learning leading up to their creation.

Aligning HR Systems with the Equity Non-Negotiables

Once you have established the district-wide Equity Non-Negotiables, the entire human resource system needs to be aligned with them. For example:

Position Postings as a Gateway to Equity

Position postings represent the first point of contact between prospective applicants and the district. By aligning postings with Equity Non-Negotiables, districts communicate their commitment to fostering high-quality teaching and learning for all students, thereby attracting candidates who share this commitment.

Crafting Purposeful Interview Questions

Generic statements about equity are insufficient; interview questions must align specifically with each Equity Non-Negotiable. The interview questions then operationalize the district’s commitment to high-quality teaching and learning for all, equity, inclusivity, and identity-affirming practices. By probing applicants’ understanding of equity and their strategies for addressing the spectrum of learning via the Equity Non-Negotiables, districts can discern candidates’ alignment with the Equity Non-Negotiables and their openness to learning and coaching.

Assessing Candidates’ Capacity for Learning

In addition to evaluating candidates’ qualifications, assessing their willingness to learn, grow, and adapt to the district’s Equity Non-Negotiables is crucial. Candidates who demonstrate a sincere interest in contributing to an inclusive, identity-affirming, and identity-relevant learning environment in line with the Equity Non-Negotiables are more likely to thrive in diverse educational settings.

Recognizing Potential Over Experience

While experience is valuable, it should not overshadow candidates’ potential to contribute to an inclusive school culture. Despite lacking experience in certain areas, new graduates may have a strong commitment to equity and a willingness to learn and collaborate in alignment with the district’s Equity Non-Negotiables.

Empowering Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3)(™) Teams

Collaboration and effective teaming are central to high-quality teaching and learning, necessitating the formation of collaborative teams focused on co-planning, co-serving, and co-learning.  Purposely designed to develop educator capacity across areas of expertise, these teams can foster a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility for student success by integrating candidates into these teams from the outset.

Moving Beyond Simplification: Embracing Complexity

There are no quick fixes or one-size-fits-all solutions in the pursuit of inclusive hiring. It requires a nuanced understanding of equity and high-quality teaching and learning, a commitment to continuous improvement, and a willingness to challenge conventional hiring practices. By embracing the task of dismantling existing HR systems, schools can cultivate diverse and inclusive learning environments that empower every student and educator to thrive.

Conclusion: Navigating the Path Ahead

School districts must recognize the dangers of simplifying inclusive and equitable hiring practices as they navigate hiring new teachers and staff. It’s not enough to simply say you are an equal opportunity employer, seek diverse candidates, or seek candidates with a commitment to equity. Instead, by aligning HR systems with Equity Non-Negotiables, crafting purposeful position postings and interview questions, and prioritizing candidates’ humbleness and willingness to learn, schools can foster inclusive, identity-affirming learning environments where every student feels valued and supported. In the journey towards equitable and inclusive hiring, let us embrace the complexity, challenge the status quo, and champion the principles of equity, belonging, and high-quality teaching and learning in education.

Sample Questions for Inclusive Teacher Interview

Equity Non-Negotiable:

School District employees share responsibility for the prevention of student failure.

Interview Question:

Give examples of some instructional strategies you have used to provide high-quality teaching and learning with a range of students in the classroom setting. 

Equity Non-Negotiable:

Our district provides high-quality teaching and learning for all learners in each classroom/course using a framework of engagement, representation, and expression.

Interview Question:

Learner variability is the norm, not the exception. What training, experience, or strategies do you have that prepare you to address learner variability in your classroom?

What to Look for in Applicant Responses

  1. A clear understanding of how the district operationalizes equity via the Equity Non-Negotiables.
  2. An ability to identify strengths and growth areas to align with the Equity Non-Negotiables.
  3. A sincere interest in wanting to work in such a district and a willingness to grow.

Importantly, new graduates may not have learned in their programs how to collaborate within Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn C3 Teams™, and experienced applicants may not have any experience on such teams. 

For example, when interviewing a speech pathologist for a high school, the principal could share: “In our school, we do not pull kids out for speech. If you work here, you will be a member of co-plan to co-serve teams to help students receive speech support throughout the day within their courses.”

A Speech Pathologist (recent graduate) might respond: “I was not trained to do this, but I am really interested and want to learn how.”

,

How to Hire an Independent Education Consultant for Your School District

In the ever-evolving landscape of K-12 education, school district leaders constantly seek ways to improve student outcomes, improve teaching practices, and foster a positive learning environment for all students.

Independent education consultants can guide schools as they evolve, offering expertise, strategies, and support to achieve meaningful change. However, navigating the process of hiring an education consultant for your school district can be daunting. With so many options available and varying levels of expertise and experience from consulting firms, it’s essential to approach the process thoughtfully and systematically.

In this comprehensive guide, we’ll walk you through the steps involved in hiring an educational consultant, ensuring that you find the right fit for your district’s needs to maximize the impact.

What is an education consultant?

An education consultant is typically someone with teaching or administrative experience now serving as an advisor in the field of education. Their focus is in advising and training district leaders, school boards, teachers, and staff for instructional, climate, and institutional change.

Educational consultants stay up-to-date with developments in the education field, including changes in curriculum standards, the latest research, and educational trends.

By offering an independent view of the school’s practices, education consultants can provide new ways of thinking and implementing best practices that result in high-quality teaching and learning for all students.

Free Downloadable Education Consultant Hiring Scorecard

Download our education consultant hiring scorecard

We have created this education consultant hiring scorecard to help you better rank potential consulting firms when you are in the hiring process. Also check out the 9 essential questions to ask during your interview process below.

Download Our Education Consultant Hiring Scorecard!

Why hire an education consultant?

As a school or district leader, you face the difficult challenge of maintaining student and staff well-being while ensuring the acceleration of learning and achievement and balanced budgets. Your school must improve education in the aftermath of the pandemic amid increased levels of parent and community scrutiny and fast-changing technology, all while exploring innovative educational approaches and addressing widening access and opportunities causing achievement gaps.

Leading a school district is increasingly complex and full of high-pressure decisions that impact individual children, families, and society. Unsurprisingly, emotions often run high in parent conferences, school board meetings, and other public forums.

That’s why hiring an independent consultant may be helpful for your district. Education consultants leverage data, research, best practices, and proven implementation strategies from other schools to help support K-12 school systems and district leaders in their goals.

Because they are less personally involved in the situation, they can offer a fresh perspective on the problems you face every day and look at the numbers and data through a new lens.

Hiring an educational consultant can help your school district measure and analyze learning outcomes, child well-being, inclusive practices, and collective teacher efficacy and recruit, develop, and retain high-quality teachers and administrators.

Understanding your district’s needs

Before diving into the search for an education consultant, you must take stock of your school’s and/or district’s priorities and goals. By identifying your needs upfront, you can narrow down your search and find a consultant with the right expertise and approach.

Consider which of the following areas you are looking to analyze and improve:

  • student achievement/achievement gaps
  • graduation rates
  • attendance rates
  • literacy achievement
  • math achievement
  • Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)
  • special education
  • teacher effectiveness and collective teacher efficacy
  • inclusion and equity in your school
  • leadership development for school administrators, school board training, and principal preparation
  • educational policy development
  • and district strategic planning and finance.

To understand the full breadth of your needs, we recommend hiring a firm to perform a school district evaluation or equity audit. This process brings awareness and understanding of your current practices and data compared to best practices and goals.

The evaluation process should engage a variety of stakeholders across all identities and their intersections, including teachers, school administrators, school board members, demographically representative community members, and demographically represented students at the middle and high school levels.

Education Consultant at School District talking to School Administrators and School Board Members

What are the different types of educational consultants?

The field of education includes many types of educational consultants, including equity consultants, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) consultants, and school improvement consultants. When hiring a consultant, it is essential to understand the expertise, experience, and process each practice has before making a decision.

While there may be some overlap in the services they provide, each type of education consultant has distinct focuses and objectives. Here’s a breakdown of the key differences:

School Improvement Consultants:

  • Focus: School improvement consultants specialize in helping schools and school districts identify areas for improvement and implement strategies to enhance student learning outcomes and overall school performance.
  • Target Audience: Their primary clients are schools, school districts, and educational leaders (such as principals and other administrators).
  • Services: They conduct needs assessments, analyze data, facilitate strategic planning processes, provide professional development for educators, and offer ongoing support and monitoring to ensure the successful implementation of improvement initiatives.
  • Examples: School improvement consultants may work on initiatives such as curriculum redesign, instructional coaching, school culture and climate improvement, leadership development, and data-driven decision-making.

Educational Equity Consultants:

  • Focus: Educational equity consultants focus on addressing issues of equity within the education system. Their goal is to reduce opportunity gaps and ensure that all students have access to equitable opportunities and resources across identities and their intersections.
  • Target Audience: Equity consultants may work with schools, school districts, educational organizations, teachers, staff, and community groups to design and implement more equitable schools for all.
  • Services: They help organizations identify barriers to equity, develop inclusive policies and practices, provide cultural competency training for educators, and facilitate conversations around systemic oppression.
  • Examples: Equity consultants may work on initiatives such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, culturally relevant curriculum development, restorative justice practices, and community engagement efforts to address disparities in educational outcomes.

DEI Consultant for Schools:

  • Focus: DEI consultants for schools concentrate specifically on fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion within the school community.
  • Target Audiences: DEI consultants often work with individuals such as school leaders,  teachers, and staff to identify their own biases.
  • Services: They assess the school’s culture, policies, and practices to identify areas for improvement in diversity, equity, and inclusion, especially around racial and ethnic identities. They may offer policy recommendations, develop training programs, facilitate discussions, and provide guidance or coaching on creating inclusive environments through recruitment, hiring, and retention practices.
  • Examples: DEI consultants may provide anti-bias professional development training for teachers or staff or examine recruitment and interview practices to mitigate biases

Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Consultant:

  • Focus: A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) consultant helps educational institutions implement and continually improve their MTSS framework by assessing student performance, behavior, and attendance data to identify improvement areas.
  • Target Audience: MTSS consultants collaborate with school leadership and staff to maximize student achievement and support students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs from a strengths-based perspective.
  • Services: They are hired to design and implement a comprehensive MTSS framework tailored to the school or district’s needs. This includes establishing tiered levels of support, defining and designing interventions, and creating systems for progress monitoring.
  • Example: MTSS consultants provide training and professional development opportunities for educators and staff to ensure they understand the principles of MTSS and are equipped to implement the framework effectively. This may include workshops, seminars, and ongoing coaching sessions.

Literacy Consultant:

  • Focus: A literacy consultant might be a former teacher or reading specialist with expertise in literacy instruction who works with educators to improve literacy outcomes for students. Their focus is on enhancing reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills among students across various grade levels.
  • Target Audience: The target audience for literacy consultants includes classroom teachers, reading specialists, literacy coaches, and other school staff involved in literacy instruction.
  • Services: Literacy consultants help schools analyze literacy assessment data to identify trends and areas for improvement. Literacy consultants may provide professional development to educators on best practices in literacy instruction, including strategies for teaching reading comprehension, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and writing skills. Example: They assist schools in developing or refining their literacy curriculum to ensure alignment with research-based practices and educational standards. This may involve selecting appropriate instructional materials, observing classroom instruction, and providing feedback to improve teaching practices.

Researching potential consultants

Once you clearly understand your needs and the different types of consultants, it’s time to start researching potential candidates. Begin by using online resources and directories to identify professionals in your area. Seek recommendations from trusted sources, such as other educational professionals. Personal referrals can provide valuable insights into a consultant’s expertise, professionalism, and effectiveness.

As you research potential consultants, be sure to evaluate their qualifications and expertise. Look for individuals with experience as well as any certifications or credentials that demonstrate their expertise. Additionally, review testimonials and case studies to gauge their track record of success.

Initial consultation and interview

Once you’ve compiled a list of potential consultants, reach out to schedule initial consultations or interviews. Meet with each K-12 education consulting firm and be clear about what you are looking for and what the firm needs to consider to partner with you.

Prepare a list of questions to ask during the interview (see our suggestions below), covering topics such as the consultant’s experience, approach to consulting, and track record of success. Additionally, pay attention to their communication style and rapport, as these factors can impact the effectiveness of your collaboration.

Evaluating proposals and plans

After meeting with potential consultants, review their proposals and plans for addressing your needs. Pay close attention to the proposed strategies and approaches, ensuring they align with your goals and objectives. Consider the feasibility of their proposed plans and whether they offer a clear roadmap for achieving your desired outcomes.

Be sure to seek clarification on any ambiguities or questions you may have about the proposal.

Checking references and credentials

Before making a final decision, take the time to check the consultant’s references and credentials. Request references from previous clients and reach out to ask about their experiences working with the consultant. Additionally, verify any qualifications or certifications that the consultant claims to have.

Conducting thorough due diligence at this stage can help ensure that you’re partnering with a qualified and reputable consultant who can deliver results.

Finalizing the agreement

Once you’ve selected a consultant, it’s time to finalize the agreement. This involves negotiating terms and conditions, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and establishing communication channels.

Work with the consultant to draft a contract or agreement outlining the scope of work, timeline, pricing, and other relevant terms or expectations.

Education Consultant at School District talking to School Administrators and Teachers and Staff

>> Our Take: What to look for in an educational consultant

If district leaders are looking for long-term school improvement, it is crucial they understand that any work done with a consultant is just a starting point.

Improving education is life-long work at the individual and organizational level. There are no quick fixes. A partnership to eliminate educational disparities in a school district could take years to implement initially, and – to be truly successful – the district will continue to build on and deepen the work forever.

The superintendent and district leadership team need to understand why the work is needed, what the work will be, and expect to lead the work throughout the district. They will need school board support to do so, which is why the board members should be involved in the hiring process.

While there may be instances where hiring a focus area specialist for professional development can be effective, districts should partner with a consulting firm whose ultimate goal is high-quality teaching and learning for all students.

This type of work simply cannot be accomplished with a one-off school board training, a stand-alone book study, or a series of professional development sessions.

In the long run, hiring a consultant to put a quick-fix “Band-Aid” on a broken system will waste your school’s precious time and resources.

When hiring an educational consultant for your district, we recommend looking for a comprehensive process that:

  1. Addresses systemic district disparities across all programs and services (e.g., special education, advanced/gifted learners, MTSS, alternative education, etc).
  2. Addresses all student identities and their intersections.
  3. Provides a clear implementation process to every educator in the district including the administration and school board.
  4. Addresses all staff and the district office and school board.

The best school consultants will analyze the root cause of the problem you are trying to fix, determine which systemic issue is in place that perpetuates that problem, and target your resources and training at fixing the system – not the symptom.

Hiring an education consultant with the right experience and approach can be a transformative experience, providing valuable guidance and support to help you achieve your school district’s goals. By following the steps outlined in this guide, you can confidently navigate the process of hiring a consultant.

Ideally, as a result of the consultant’s work, you can build collective capacity within your leadership teams so you don’t need to rely on an outside consultant to continue improving education at your school.

For more details on finding the right education consultant, please see our scorecard and 9 essential questions to ask during the interview process.

Written by Dr. Colleen A. Capper, Dr. Elise M. Frattura, and Nasif Rogers. Learn more about the education consulting firm team at ICS Equity.

9 essential questions to ask when hiring an educational consultant

  1. What baseline data do you collect, and what is your process of analyzing it? 
  2. Do you align your work with the most effective teaching and learning strategies and practices? What are some examples?
  3. Do you align your work with the equity research on what is most effective? Is there a specific equity framework you use in your work?
  4. Do you address all identities and their intersections (e.g., gender, sex, race, ethnicity, language, religion, social class, sexual identity, disability) and their intersections? or do you focus mostly on one identity (e.g., race or disability)?
  5. Do you take a district-wide approach? Or school by school?
  6. Does your team have expertise and experience across educational systems and structures? For example, special education, gifted/advanced learners, students who are multi-lingual, Multi-Tier Systems of Supports (MTSS), literacy, math, and other subject areas, as teachers and administrators?
  7. Do you have a systematic implementation process based on implementation science and change management practices? 
  8. Do you have empirical evidence that what you do actually works?
  9. Do you address all staff in the district, including the district office, school board, and community members?

 

Download Our Education Consultant Hiring Scorecard!
ICS Equity logo

Eliminating inequities for all.

Sign up for our newsletter to learn more about equity in education and to get our free education consultant hiring scorecard.

Subscribe
PARTNER WITH ICS
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
LOG IN TO DIGITAL MODULES

© 2025. Integrated Comprehensive Systems, LLC. All Rights Reserved | WordPress Web Design by Bizzy Bizzy

Privacy Policy • Terms & Conditions