The Pitfalls and Promise of Equity Audits

By Colleen A. Capper, Michelle D. Young, Elise Frattura, and Nasif Rogers

Educators have long employed the process and practices of equity audits, and multiple tools support that work. Though increasingly popular, educational equity audits may not be the panacea for equity change. In fact, without careful consideration, equity audits can become just another equity practice that, in the end, can perpetuate inequities (Safir & Dugan, 2021).

This blog provides guidance on evaluating and determining which equity audit tools and processes will ensure that equity will be advanced and that the tools and processes we select will not inadvertently perpetuate inequities. We must recognize possible negative side effects of equity audits and, in so doing, endeavor to avoid these equity audit traps when effectively implementing equity audits.

How Equity Audits Can Perpetuate or Positively Impact Inequities

Equity audits can perpetuate inequities or positively impact inequities in at least nine interrelated ways. The positive ways of implementing equity audits are not just “considerations” or “nice to have.” If we do not adhere to the positive aspects of equity audits, we can become complicit in perpetuating inequities. These nine ways are as follows:

  1. Not center versus center the collection and analysis of data on eliminating all forms of segregation;
  2. View the data through a deficit versus asset lens;
  3. Attempt to fix or improve the data with practices that increase segregation versus improving the data through systems change;
  4. Use the data to justify harmful and inequitable practices versus critically reflecting on our current practices;
  5. Focus on data differences between students versus addressing the broader implications of the data for all students;
  6. Ignore or focus only on special education versus including special education as part of an equity audit;
  7. Address only one identity versus addressing all identities and their intersections;
  8. View the equity audit as a “big,” infrequent school/district project versus an annual measure of equity progress, and
  9. Ignore stakeholder perspectives versus include students, staff, and community perspectives (see Table 1).

 

Table 1: How to Select Equity Audit Tools and Processes

Avoid the Pitfall of Equity Audits Ensure the Promise of Equity Audits
Not center data collection, analysis, and next steps on eliminating all forms of segregation Center data collection, analysis, and next steps on eliminating all forms of segregation
View the data through a deficit lens of students and families View the data as a reflection of the current system
Address the data by fixing students and families Address the data by fixing systems
Compare the data to other schools, districts, and states to justify harmful and inequitable practices Critically reflect on current practices and hold the bar as high as possible for your school or district
Attempt to fix inequities between student groups and ignore the broader data implications Address data differences between students and the broader implications of the data for all students
Ignore special education or only focus on special education Include special education as an essential aspect of the school and district
Address only one identity Address all identities and their intersections
View the equity audit as a “big,” infrequent school/district project View the equity audit as an annual measure of equity progress
Ignore student, staff, and community perspectives Include student, staff, and community perspectives

 

Download the PDF

1. Center Data Collection and Analysis on Eliminating All Forms of Segregation.

The number one goal for increasing achievement for all students requires eliminating all forms of segregation. Segregation includes within-class ability grouping (aka “strategy groups,” “skills groups,” “flexible groups,” or “soft clustering”), tracking, pull-out programs and rooms, sending students out of the district, or placing students in settings or schools that are not their home schools.

The primary way to measure the extent of segregation focuses on proportional representation. Most equity audits do not include collecting data on to what extent students are proportionally represented in all settings. Proportional representation means that the demographics of students identified for special education, students identified for English Language Learning services, and students labeled advanced learners or gifted in the school are proportionally reflected in every classroom, course, activity, setting, and experience. For example, if 12% of students in the school are labeled with a disability, then 12% of students in any classroom, course, activity, setting, or experience are labeled with a disability.

In sum, the anchoring philosophy of proportional representation should be the primary consideration when considering equity audit tools and processes from data collection through data analysis, goal setting, and implementation. The equity audit tools and processes should also be able to link the representation data back to the school structure and, in turn, link those data to student outcomes to make the connection that the degree to which students experience segregation and lack of opportunity for high expectations and course rigor all negatively impact student outcomes. The data from the equity audit tools and processes that we select should measure the effectiveness of our current practices in this way.

2. View Equity Audit Data Through an Asset-Based Lens

Viewing the equity audit data through a deficit lens reveals a second way that equity audits can perpetuate inequities. Thus, the equity audit tools and processes we choose should ensure we view the data through an asset-based lens (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).

Sometimes, school or district leaders learn about the possibilities of an equity audit and want to rush forward and complete the equity audit in the hopes that by making visible equity audit data to educators, educators will be highly motivated to do something about those inequities.

Thus, school and district leaders often want to begin their equity work with an equity audit.

If educators learn about the equity audit data prematurely, educators often respond defensively to the data. They already feel they are working as hard as they can to eliminate inequities in their school. They can often feel blamed for the inequitable data. Thus, in defense, educators can often blame students and their families for the inequitable data. Principals have reported, for example, that educators will sometimes blame the influx of new families or transient students or blame poor attendance and then, in turn, blame families for the poor attendance as the reason for low achievement or blame families for not caring about education, among other deficit thinking and language about students and families, especially students and families of color or for whom are experiencing poverty (Gorski, 2017).

Thus, before an equity audit, educators should learn about the history of public school marginalization and how schools produce the inequitable data they were designed to produce. As educators, as bell hooks would say, “We have all become complicit in a system we would not have created in the first place.” Educators can learn the differences between deficit-based and assets-based thinking and language about students and families and practice assets-based thinking and language in all their communications with colleagues, students, and families. This understanding can shift educators’ thinking to focus on student and family assets and learn how to fix the system instead of fixing students and families.

As such, two questions can help us examine data as a lens on the system instead of a deficit view of students and families:

  1. What can we do as a system to prevent this data inequity in the first place?
  2. What can we do as a system to address this data inequity, given that segregating students is no longer an option?

The equity audit tools and processes we select should guide the timing of the work and the prerequisite work needed to ensure we view the data from an assets-based perspective.

3. Address the Data by Fixing Systems

A third related way that equity audits can perpetuate inequities includes addressing the data inequities by fixing students with segregated practices. Thus, the equity audit tools and processes we select should ensure that we do not attempt to fix the data inequities by fixing students via segregation. Often, when examining equity audit data, educators try to fix students’ deficits by focusing on student deficits and trying to target instruction to address those deficits. Educators often rely on within-class segregation via ability grouping, flexible grouping, or strategy groups to target this instruction. Educators often assign students to pull-out programs to focus on these data deficits via interventions, resource rooms, or other out-of-classroom, segregated environments.

To prevent this deficit perspective to segregated practices from happening, when educators analyze the data and determine the next steps, segregation no longer exists as an option. Instead, teams of educators, including all the school staff, can learn how to engage in lesson design to build on student strengths and address student needs, and as a result of that collaboration, develop each other’s capacity to do so. When selecting equity audit tools and processes, ensure that setting goals and next steps exclude segregation as an option.

4. Use the Data to Reflect Critically on Inequitable Practices

A fourth way that equity audits can perpetuate inequities centers on using equity audit data to justify inequitable practices. When selecting equity audit tools and processes, educators should critically examine if, implicitly or explicitly, educators are to compare the data to data outside the school and seek tools and processes that guide educators to critically reflect on their inequitable practices against their highest internal bar of success.

Data can be used to justify inequitable practices when a school compares its equity audit data to other schools, districts, or states. If their data is as good or better, they claim success in their equity efforts and thus see no need to change their current practices. This data justification can also happen when state departments grade a district or school as “exceeding expectations” in line with state accountability measures. Yet, when digging more deeply, the school or district may continue to have glaring data inequities. To counter this data justification, when selecting equity audit tools and processes, educators need to ensure their standards of comparison are theirs, hold their equity bar as high as possible in all aspects, and not succumb to comparing their data to the substandard data of other schools, districts, or states.

5. Address the Broader Data Implications

Educators should ensure that the equity audit tools and processes they select extend beyond fixing inequities between student groups and consider the broader data implications–a fifth way that equity audits can perpetuate inequities. We illustrate this equity audit trap, returning to the previous achievement graph below.

Figure 3 provides an example of math achievement data from a district recognized as a “high-achieving” school district. As we noted previously, we can see math achievement differences between students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch and those who do not.

Figure 3: Math Achievement Showing Students of All Social Classes Underperforming in Math

Math achievement data graph

At the same time, as we can see in this graph, more than one-third (34.6%) of middle to upper-class students who are not receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are scoring basic or below basic in math. These data suggest that while the social class achievement differences are important, this district’s math system for all students, regardless of social class, is ineffective for many students and should be improved. Educators should ensure that the equity audit tools and processes they select focus not only on equities but also include a broader data context that holds implications for all students.

6. Include Special Education

An equity audit tool and process should include special education. Some districts do not include special education in their equity efforts or when trying to improve achievement for all students. Other districts believe that special education is the problem holding the whole district back from being high achieving. Thus, they want to focus on a special education audit. Special education must be included in equity audits as disproportionality often occurs in many aspects of special education, including the over-representation of students of color and the over-representation of students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch in special education, the over-representation of students receiving special education services in discipline data, the under-representation of students receiving special education in gifted and advanced placement courses, and the fact that students of color receiving special education services are more likely to be segregated compared to students who identify as white, to name a few.

At the same time, special education is not to blame for inequities across a district. The state of a district’s special education outcomes reflects the quality and effectiveness of the district’s teaching and learning in the core for all students. Thus, focusing only on special education for an equity audit without also conducting an equity audit on the district as a whole will miss this point and, in doing so, perpetuate inequities. Thus, educators selecting equity audit tools and processes should ensure that special education data is included, along with multi-lingual services, 504 services, advanced learning services, and interventions.

7. Address All Identities and Their Intersections

Since public schools are charged with educating all students, an equity audit tool and process should address all identities and their intersections. When thinking about student differences, leaders must think beyond single identity categories. Student diversity and identity are multi-dimensional. While addressing one aspect of diversity at a time may seem more manageable and comfortable, an intersectional approach is required for addressing equity. Leaders must resist this inclination and push toward a more holistic approach. Similarly, given limited resources and various factors, such as organizational resistance, leaders may be more inclined to take a bounded approach. While starting small can prove effective in getting the process started and one’s teams socialized to the process and tools, a more comprehensive approach is recommended to gain a more holistic picture of the equity issues in one’s schools.

The equity audit form should include data related to race (disaggregated by race), free/reduced-price lunch, language, ability, sex, sexual identity, and gender identity. Although we offer these areas of difference in list form, leaders should consider multiple dimensions of diversity and identity together, challenging themselves to examine these aspects of intersectionality to understand the complexities of inequities in their classrooms, schools, and districts.

The equity audit form should disaggregate race and ethnicity, including African American, Asian, Latinx, Native American, and multi-racial. Disaggregating racial data can uncover additional racial inequities that can be masked when only examining data by race in general. Sexual identity and gender identity require a different set of data, given that usually, students are not asked to self-identify in this way. The equity audit form should include questions to measure equitable practices for these students in three areas:

a) law and policy,

b) school culture,

and c) curriculum.

8. View the Equity Audit as an Annual Measure of Equity Progress

An equity audit tool and process should ensure that the equity audit can be completed annually. For most educators, the first time they complete a school or district equity audit, the undertaking can feel massive in collecting and analyzing data obtained across departments and databases. Unfortunately, and somewhat surprisingly, equity audit data is not readily available for most districts and schools. The equity audit may be the first time many schools have collected such data. Many educators report that though their school/district collects some data, it is often not analyzed nor used to inform instruction or change educator practice toward equitable ends.

Thus, the first time that the equity audit data is collected, educators learn that finding some of the data is difficult because either the district or state does not require the collection of such data (e.g., the percentage of students labeled with disabilities who receive free/reduced-price lunch) or the data is collected in the school or district but not housed in one single place.

The district and school educators should not view the equity audit process as a “big project” completed once or every five years. The equity audit data should form the core of the regular district and school improvement process, where the data collected inform annual district and school goals. Educators can learn from the first time they conduct an equity audit how to integrate the efforts into routine district and school data collection and efficiently and effectively repeat the process annually. What systems and practices can be implemented in the district to make that so? An annual equity audit will help districts track measurable progress with their equity efforts. Districts should take advantage of the equity audit process to establish a centralized, efficient database system for equity data that allows all educators in the district to have instant access to equity data that the district updates annually.

We also suggest that educators annually produce 5-6 graphs of the positive gains in their school due to the work. This could include data not explicitly collected by the initial equity audit. Examples include fewer students receiving reading interventions outside the classroom and more students receiving speech services within the classroom as part of the regular curriculum.

9. Include Student, Staff, and Community Perspectives

In addition to the quantitative aspects of an equity audit, the equity audit tools and processes that educators choose should include students, staff, and community perspectives on their experiences. Focus group interviews of staff can provide important insights into current challenges and opportunities for all students to succeed. Community focus groups should be demographically representative of the community and can include key community organizations.

Opportunities to include student perspectives can include student interviews, student panels, and attending meetings of student groups (e.g., the Gay/Straight Alliance, the Black Student Union). One principal partnered with a local university and conducted focus group interviews of high school students to gain their perspectives on what was working well at the school and what could be improved. Here we share two quotes from students interviewed by a local university as part of a focus group:

The first quote is from a student who identifies as a Black female:

“Before we come into high school, there’s always these pre-set notions that if you’re in Mrs. Hartman’s grade in middle school (which is the advanced English or Math) and through that you kind of get on the trail of becoming or going to advanced classes your whole high school career. What you kind of see is, for example, in English, um, there aren’t many… actually, I’m the only minority in advanced AP 12. You’ll see that minorities are often skipped upon in that route in middle school, and they never end up being able to achieve that at the end of their senior year, the highest English route. And it’s just maybe because they’re not even considered.”

The second quote is from a student who identifies as a Black male:

“Yeah, because like, maybe like last year for history, like, I asked my history teacher if I should take AP, and they were like yeah, probably not, so, I thought, I guess I’ll just stick with regular history so it kind of like made my like confidence go down about it.”

These students (similar to students we have experienced in our combined 100+ years of in and partnering with schools) are well aware of our schools’ segregated, deficit-based system. We can also see that the data from our equity audit reflects that system rather than our students’ capabilities and potential. We need to consider students’ power differences when conducting these focus groups.

Other principals have incorporated student panels that present to the staff as one way for staff to learn student perspectives about the school. However, we offer some caution.

  1. It is best to have graduated high school students come back to share their experiences versus current students, who may be reluctant to share their perspectives because of the power differences between them and staff.
  2. It is important not to have former students share their experiences until staff have engaged in the deficit to assets-based language and perspectives work previously discussed, which will help staff be open to student perspectives.
  3. To ensure equal voice in student sharing, use a 3-minute timer when students share with silence if they do not take the whole 3 minutes.

Conclusion

Educators must become adept at evaluating the outcomes of their current practices and monitoring the progress of their equity efforts. Equity audit tools and processes can hold promise toward these ends but are not a panacea. Educators must be alert to and avoid how equity audits can perpetuate inequities and ensure that high-quality teaching and learning for all students will be advanced in their equity audit tool and process selection.

References

Capper, C. A. , & Frattura, E. (2009). Meeting the needs of all students: Leading beyond inclusion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Frattura, E. , & Capper, C. A. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gorski, P. C. (2017). Reaching and teaching students experiencing poverty. Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap, 2nd Ed.. NY: Teachers College Press.

Green, T. L. , & Dantley, M. E. (2013). The great white hope? Examining the white privilege and epistemology of an urban high school principal. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(2), 82–92.

Steele, C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. NY: W. W. Norton.

Public School Funding Issues: Deficit-Based Systems Are Costly

Staffing and program reviews can be crucial components in the conversation about public school funding. However, one of the most critical school funding issues in many schools today includes the continued reliance on deficit-based educational policies and practices. Deficit-based policies and practices not only perpetuate inequities but also result in soaring costs that burden the system while failing to improve outcomes for the majority of students. Deficit-based policies and practices are the most expensive and least effective ways to provide education.

In contrast, assets-based education policies and practices provide a more inclusive, academically effective, AND cost-effective solution. Let’s explore why funding a deficit-based public school system is costly and counterproductive and how an assets-based approach could offer a more sustainable alternative.

Get the School Funding Scorecard

The History of School Funding and Its Inherent Problems

Before delving deeper into deficit and assets-based public school systems, it’s important to understand the history of how public schools are funded in the United States and why this funding model creates inherent challenges. Public schools are funded through a combination of local property taxes, state contributions, and federal aid. Unfortunately, this reliance on local property taxes has resulted in significant disparities in funding between wealthy and lower-income districts.

Schools in affluent areas benefit from higher property values, generating more revenue for school resources, while schools in lower-income communities struggle with far fewer resources. According to the U.S. Census data, the highest-spending districts in the country spend over three times more per student than the lowest-spending districts. These disparities are further exacerbated by inconsistent state funding and insufficient federal contributions, accounting for only about 8% of public school funding.

This funding structure creates a cycle of inequality: wealthier districts can invest in more experienced teachers, resources, and facilities. Meanwhile, schools in lower-income areas, often predominantly attended by students of color, face underfunding, larger class sizes, outdated materials, and lower teacher salaries. This inequitable distribution of resources not only limits students’ potential but also lays the foundation for the deficit-based systems that many schools–regardless of their access to resources–continue to rely on.

Deficit-based Systems: A Costly Cycle of Failure

In a deficit-based school system, student failure is often seen as the result of individual shortcomings—whether it be the student, their family, or their community. Instead of recognizing and addressing systemic issues, a deficit-perspective often blames students for falling behind. Then, instead of proactively addressing the system that contributes to students falling behind, educators often then label students to receive special services, which in turn leads to a host of costly interventions. Separate programs and classes are perceived to be quick fixes but are not focused on long-term solutions, which inevitably results in higher costs in the long run. On average, deficit-based educational structures and practices set up an estimated 70% of students to not meet grade-level standards. This high rate of failure results in many students being pulled out or ability-grouped in classrooms for additional services, such as:

  • Special education
  • English-Language Learner (ELL) programs
  • Remedial or extended learning courses in Math and English/Language Arts through Multi Systems of Support (MTSS)

These specialized services often require additional testing, which takes staff time and resources. These services often require separate physical spaces, additional teachers, paraprofessionals, behaviorists, and classroom supplies. In some cases, students are sent to entirely different schools, which can involve bussing students across or out of the district and away from the school closest to their home.

These deficit-based practices segregate and marginalize students, grouping them by their perceived abilities and reinforcing the notion that some students are inherently “less capable” than others and that most students don’t belong. Such segregated practices also result in racialized and minoritized learning environments that do not represent the natural proportions of the larger community population across race, gender, socio-economic, ethnicity, and language.

This within-classroom, within-school, within-district, or out-of-district segregation comes at a significant financial cost for school districts and ultimately the taxpayers. The need for specialized staff and an increased number of paraprofessionals means that schools must constantly hire and train additional personnel amid an already difficult teacher shortage in many districts. Extra resources, from individualized materials to separate classroom spaces or buildings, are required to accommodate this divided, deficit-based approach. According to a report from the National Education Association (NEA), the cost of special education alone can be nearly double that of educating a general education student, adding significant financial strain to already underfunded schools.

Moreover, these deficit-based practices and policies perpetuate a vicious cycle of marginalization and exacerbate resource inequity. The students pulled out for these services often miss core classroom time, resulting in wider gaps in their education and socialization. As they continue to struggle, the demand for additional, costly interventions grows, reinforcing the cycle of failure.

Assets-Based Systems: An Inclusive, Academically Effective, and Cost-Effective Approach

In contrast, an assets-based school system takes the opposite approach. Instead of viewing students’ differences as deficiencies, an assets-based system focuses on the strengths and potential of each learner and aims to fix the real problem – the broken and costly system. In an assets-based school system, students learn in heterogeneous classes and courses, where individuals of all abilities are taught together. The instruction is led by a Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn™ (C3) Team, who co-design rigorous, identity-affirmative instruction for each and every learner.

One major benefit of an assets-based system includes reducing the need for extensive pull-out services and specialized instruction. Instead of sending students to separate rooms for individualized help, educators within the classroom and course work together to meet the needs of all students. This collaborative teaching allows for universally designed, differentiated instruction to take place, meeting the individual needs and affirming the strengths of all students without the high financial and academic costs of a deficit-based system.

Improving School Funding Issues with C3 Teams

One of the key innovations in an assets-based system relies on Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) teams. These teams consist of a range of educators who work together to design and deliver instruction that meets the needs of all students. By focusing on collaboration among classroom teachers and specialists who proactively design lessons, C3 teams reduce the need for constant hiring and training of additional support staff.

C3 teams assist in developing the capacity of all teachers through the sharing of expertise as they design instruction for all learners through the use of heterogeneous grouping practices. C3 teams also create a more sustainable teaching and learning process by fostering ongoing professional learning within the school and knowledge and skill sharing among teachers. In other words, all teachers develop each other’s capacity to teach a diverse range of learners.

Align Decisions to the Equity Non-Negotiables

A district’s equity non-negotiables serve as the basis of all practice and policy decisions in an assets-based system. A fiscally responsible district ensures that every single decision related to public school funding or resource allocation aligns with the district’s equity non-negotiables. The district no longer spends any money on resources, curricula, practices, professional learning, or policies that are deficit-based and not aligned with the equity non-negotiables. Proactive districts conduct a financial audit on all their spending to ensure this is the case.

For example, districts can consider the ICS School Funding Scorecard to reflect on their current school funding and resource allocation practices:

  1. Do ALL our professional learning opportunities align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., developing teacher capacity within Tier 1?)
  2. Do all our curriculum and resource purchases/adoptions align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., do any of our curriculum adoptions require students to be ability-grouped?)
  3. Do all our transportation funding decisions align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., separate buses, transporting certain students to certain schools, out-of-district placements?)
  4. Does the addition of new staff or positions align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., are we hiring someone to develop the capacity of teachers in Tier 1? Or will this person reinforce separate programs?)
  5. Do the grants that we are applying for align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., they do not require students to be segregated in any way?
Get the School Funding Scorecard

Conclusion

A deficit-based school system is not only inequitable but also financially unsustainable. By segregating students based on perceived abilities and relying on costly, specialized interventions to fix students rather than developing a proactive, assets-based system, schools are reinforcing inequality while driving up costs.

In contrast, an assets-based proactive system provides the most equitable, academically effective, cost-effective, and sustainable education possible. For public schools to truly serve all students and achieve high-quality teaching and learning for all, a shift from deficit-based to asset-based policies and practices remains essential. An assets-based, proactive system will create a more inclusive and effective learning environment and save precious resources that can be reinvested in enriching education for everyone.

, , ,

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.

, ,

Why Schools Should Embrace Asset-Based Language Over Deficit-Based Language

The language we use in our daily interactions in schools holds immense power. It shapes perceptions, influences behaviors, and empowers or marginalizes students, staff, and communities. In this article, we delve into the significance of shifting from deficit-based language to asset-based language in education, exploring its implications in various contexts and advocating for a more inclusive and empowering linguistic approach.

Why language matters

Language is powerful. The words adults use to talk to and about students and their families matter. As Nelson Mandela reminds us, “Without language, one cannot talk to people and understand them; one cannot share their hopes and aspirations, grasp their history, appreciate their poetry, or savor their songs.”

Throughout the history of public education in the United States, our school system was developed and continues to be based on a deficit-based view of students, families, and communities, which then contributes to a “deficit” or reactive system.

The language of education has stemmed from this deficit-based system and thinking, and well-meaning educators continue to cause harm to students and families by using this deficit-based language.

A deficit view of individuals different from ourselves becomes reflected in the deficit language we use about individuals different from us. This deficit language, in turn, can blame students and families for student failure. This deficit language then informs practices that become deficit-based as well.

What is deficit-based language or thinking?

Deficit-based language and thinking operate on the premise of identifying shortcomings or deficiencies within individuals or communities. It perpetuates a narrative of inadequacy, blaming individuals for their circumstances rather than examining systemic inequities. This language can range from labeling to overt stereotyping, and its impact extends far beyond mere words. It reinforces harmful narratives, undermines self-esteem, and perpetuates cycles of marginalization and exclusion in schools and society at large. For the person or group being talked about, deficit-based language can have a stigmatizing effect and impact identity, behavior, and even student performance.

The idea of deficit-based thinking came from the work of Richard Valencia, who first described a deficit ideology in his book The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Valencia frames deficit-based thinking as “the notion that students (particularly those of low income, racial/ethnic minority background) fail in school because such students and their families have internal defects (deficits) that thwart the learning process (for example, limited educability, unmotivated; inadequate family support). Deficit thinking, an endogenous theory, ‘blames the victim’ rather than examining how the schools are structured to prevent certain students from learning.”

Additionally, Paul Gorski defines deficit ideology as “ … a worldview that explains and justifies outcome inequalities – standardized test scores or levels of educational attainment, for example – by pointing to supposed deficiencies within disenfranchised individuals and communities.”

Gorski explains that deficit thinking focuses on what is wrong with the student/family/community, what is not working, what is lacking, what they cannot do, or what they do not have. A deficit ideology blames students and families for low student achievement rather than examining the systemic and structural inequalities that perpetuate low performance.

Examples of deficit-based language in education

The language we use to refer to how we educate students can perpetuate a deficit perspective. What follows are eight different identities for which we provide guidance on asset-based, person-first, inclusive language.

Avoid these deficit-based terms:

  • clustering
  • tracking
  • ability-grouping
  • the intervention kids
  • the extension kids
  • inclusion classroom
  • inclusion program
  • inclusion kids
  • included – recess, arts, lunch
  • subgroups
  • the bilinguals
  • the monolinguals
  • the at-risk kids
  • minority
  • pull-out
  • push-in (We say, in a caring and loving community, no one is pushing or pulling anyone around. Simply use the phrase “providing services in the classroom.”)
  • the transition kids (or whatever label we use to refer to students who are new to the district)
  • Refugee kids
  • Illegals

What is asset-based language or thinking?

In contrast, asset-based language and thinking (also known as strength-based language) focuses on recognizing and highlighting the strengths, talents, and resources that individuals and communities possess. It reframes the narrative from deficit to abundance, fostering empowerment, resilience, and inclusivity. Asset-based language promotes a more holistic understanding of individuals’ capabilities and contributions by acknowledging and celebrating the diverse assets within communities.

Luis Moll and colleagues developed the phrase “funds of knowledge” to describe the household and cultural knowledge and skills within families — all strengths that they bring to school that may be in contrast to White, middle-class norms.

Asset-based language also includes person-first language. Person-first language means that we put the person first before any diagnosis or label. However, some individuals, for example, who identify with a disability, prefer that their disability come first prior to the person. In this way, it’s best to simply ask a person how they would like to be referred to – – person first or not.

Using asset-based language is one of the first steps in interrupting the patterns of marginalization and inequities within a school system. Asset-based language focuses on what the student/family/community can do and what skills, gifts, and knowledge they have.

Impact on education and learning environments

The language used in educational settings plays a critical role in shaping students’ experiences and outcomes. Asset-based language brings to the forefront the structural and systemic inequities in schools that educators have control over, which can impact students and families in significant ways.

Educators, including school leaders and teachers, should practice asset-based language with all identities and their intersections. This approach starts with awareness and conscientious language and evolves to broader asset-based thinking, which can significantly impact equity in any given education system.

“Language is very powerful. Language does not just describe reality. Language creates the reality it describes.” – Desmond Tutu

A comparison between deficit-based and asset-based approaches highlights the transformative potential of mindset and linguistic shifts. However, it is important to recognize that asset-based thinking is not just about being positive and using better language. Asset-based thinking centers the humanity of the child, family, and community first and works to affirm identity and culture. It informs policy and practice, the design and construction of systems, and how individuals experience those systems. Studies have found that exclusionary discipline policies and practices (which negatively impact learning and achievement) disproportionately impact students who are minoritized, students who receive special education services, and students who experience poverty. These harmful policies and practices can be linked to the manifestation of deficit-based thinking in schools about children and families who are minoritized, who receive special education services, and those who experience poverty.

Influence on social and cultural narratives

Beyond the classroom, language shapes societal narratives and perceptions. An analysis of media, politics, and societal discourse reveals the pervasive influence of deficit-based language in reinforcing stereotypes and perpetuating inequality. However, research showcases the power of assets-based language in challenging dominant narratives and reshaping societal perceptions. Individual educators play a crucial role in promoting positive language shifts by advocating for linguistic equity and challenging oppressive language practices.

Steps toward an asset-based approach in education

Recognizing and eradicating problematic language from our schools isn’t about avoiding the challenges confronting our communities or adhering to a notion of “political correctness.” On the contrary, it compels us to communicate more clearly and precisely, steering clear of harmful stereotypes.

Steps to implement asset-based thinking and language in education include the following:

  1. As an individual, it starts with an awareness of the language you use. Start by breaking habits and reframing dialogue using person-first, assets-based language.
  2. Make assets-based thinking/language/practice part of a “group agreement” and help each other remember and model this. Support and hold colleagues accountable and address deficit thinking each time it presents itself, and turn conversations back to assets of the student and family.
  3. Consider using Paul Gorski’s book Reaching and Teaching Students in Poverty as a book study with staff. This research-based book takes an assets-based perspective of poverty with practical strategies for educators.
  4. Ensure all district communications (e.g., school newsletter, staff announcements, faculty meeting agenda, and data reports) rely on assets-based language.

Adopting this linguistic approach may encounter resistance and barriers despite the benefits of asset-based language. Common challenges include ingrained biases, institutional norms, and fear of change. Strategies for navigating resistance and promoting understanding include education, facilitated dialogue, and inclusive language policies informed by equity non-negotiables.

Professional learning opportunities and equity workshops can be a great starting point for operationalizing assets-based language in your school.

Examples of Asset-Based Language in Education Practice

One district realized that when reviewing and revising their board policy, many of the board policies were written with deficit language. Thus, when they engaged in their annual board policy update, they included in that update the adoption of asset-based, person-first language throughout all the policies. As a principal in this district explained, “The one major piece that jumped out at me was the lack of “person first” language that filled these policies.  A couple of examples would be Special Education Students and ELL Students, rather than Students with a disability and Students receiving ELL services.  Also, we changed “ELL” to “ML” (multi-lingual) since we focus on the fact that a student who is multilingual has a tremendous asset there, versus someone who is learning English like we are trying to fix a problem that they have because they don’t speak it proficiently. I’ll also add that we made changes to “he/she”, “her/his”, etc. language as well by using “They/Their” in place of these references out of respect for a person’s individual identity.

Administrator reviewing school policies for asset-based language

Examples of Asset-Based Language in Schools

Below, we show an example of this district’s school board policy before and then after shifting to asset-based language.

Before Considering Asset-Based Language: The Board of Education recognizes that within the District there are students whose primary language is not English. The Board shall provide educational and support services for students to help them acquire English language skills that will enable them to function successfully in an all-English classroom and help them meet established academic standards. The degree of curricular and instructional modification or accommodation, the type of support services, and their duration shall be determined individually, based on student need.

After Considering Asset-Based Language:  The District shall provide appropriate identification and transition services for District students who are identified as English learners. The purpose of these services is to develop English language skills that will enable the students to function successfully in an all-English classroom and complete the District’s required curriculum. These services shall include the identification of students who are Multi-Lingual Learners (MLS), the implementation of curricular and instructional modifications, the assessment of the Multi-Lingual Learner (ML) student’s academic progress, identification of ML students that achieve English Language Proficiency (ELP), and continued monitoring of HELP students. The degree of modification, the duration, and the type of services shall be determined individually and shall be based on the needs of each student.

Shifting Grade Card Language. In another school, while working to shift their language from deficit to asset-based in all their school communications, the staff realized that their student report cards could be revised to be more asset-based. Thus, staff collaborated on revising the language that ended up being adopted across all the elementary and middle schools in the district.

Shifting Language During Parent Teacher Conferences. Another school worked with staff on shifting from deficit to asset-based language and, in doing so, practiced how to engage in parent/teacher conferences differently by staff using asset-based, person-first inclusive language when meeting with the parents. They reflected afterward on how much more positive these conferences were compared to previously when they were not intentional about being asset-based.

Calling Each Other In with Language. As educators shift their language to be asset-based, we will invariably forget and fall back into deficit-based language. Educators have successfully role-played these scenarios about how to gently remind staff about asset-based language when they hear deficit-based language being used.

Deficit to Asset-Based Language Self-Check

  1. In all my communications with students, families, and staff am I using asset-based language at all times? (e.g., announcements, newsletters, emails, etc.).
  2. Are we using asset-based language about students and families in all my meetings with colleagues? When we slip up, are we effectively “calling each other in” to continue to develop our collective equity capacity?
  3. How could our current structure for educating students in our school reinforce deficit thinking about students even though we think we are helping?

Conclusion

Language is not just a means of communication but a catalyst for social change. Shifting from deficit to asset thinking, language, and practice begins with ourselves. We must continually critically self-reflect on the deficit perspectives we hold about others whose identities, histories, and experiences are different from ourselves and how we perpetuate the deficit view in our language and thoughts.

The shift from deficit-based language to assets-based language is not just a linguistic change but a transformative shift in perspective. By recognizing and valuing the assets within individuals and communities, we can create more inclusive, resilient, and empowered students and more positive educational experiences and outcomes for all.

Deficit-based language vs. assets-based language examples and with different identities

 

Deficit-based language Assets-based language
Special education student or special ed kid Student receiving special educational  services
English Learner Student who is bilingual, multi-lingual
Monolingual
Wheelchair-bound Student who uses a wheelchair
Autistic students* Students with autism
Homosexual Person who is LGBTQIA+, or Gay, Lesbian
He/she They/them (mitigating mis-gendering)

*Importantly, some individuals prefer to be called by their preferred identity as a way to reclaim that specific identity and power from being marginalized. For example, a person who identifies as autistic may prefer to say, “I am autistic” rather than “I am a person with autism.”  Or, someone who identifies as Black or African American may reclaim their racial identity by referring to themself as a “Black male.”

In all ways, individuals reclaim on behalf of themselves; others cannot reclaim for anyone but themselves. Therefore, when we describe or identify other people, we want to use person-first, asset-based, inclusive language unless the person asks us to do otherwise.

Language, race, ethnicity, and culture

The United States is a nation of immigrants, and each racial and ethnic group brings inherent assets to the country’s pluralistic makeup. Language addressing the race/ethnicity of groups and individuals should reflect and respect all racial, ethnic, and cultural heritages.

When discussing the race/ethnicity of individuals or groups, use the following:

  • Native Americans/American Indian/Indigenous Americans
  • Asian-Americans/Asian Pacific Islanders (Ethnic background specific: Japanese American, Taiwanese-American, Korean-American, Hmong, etc.)
  • Black and/or African American
  • Latinx-American/Hispanic
  • Muslim American

Refer to individuals or groups based on individual preferences. Preferences may differ over time and geographic regions in the U.S. When unsure, simply ask the person(s) how they prefer to be addressed.

Avoid language that portrays groups in stereotypic ways or generalizing statements, such as:

  • “All Asians are good at math and science.”
  • “Native Americans are alcoholics.”
  • “All Muslim Americans are terrorists.”

Language and students who are multilingual

Unfortunately, in the U.S., we often do not value that students from other countries come to the U.S. knowing/speaking their home language, and thus, learning English is a second language for them. When discussing this population of learners, avoid using English Language Learner (ELL) and Limited English Proficient (LEP), as these terms define the student based on their acquisition of English.

To demonstrate the value of multilingualism, use the terms “students who are multilingual” or “students who are linguistically diverse.”

Similarly, we do not want to refer to students for whom English is their first language as “monolinguals,” as language divides. These students are learning another language (as all students in the school should be learning) and also should be referred to as multilingual. These terms emphasize growth in both English and the native language of the individual. Some students who are linguistically diverse receive language services and receive various labels based on their state (e.g., ELL, ESOL, EL). To demonstrate how we place this label on students, we can use the phrase “students receiving ELL services” to differentiate these students from students who are linguistically diverse and not receiving ELL services.

Language and (dis)abilities

Language about (dis)ability often is discriminatory and focuses on stereotypes associated with a (dis)ability. We write “(dis)ability” with parentheses around the “dis” to emphasize the proactive, asset focus on abilities.

When referencing (dis)abilities, avoid singling out an individual’s (dis)ability simply for the sake of identification. Too often, individuals with (dis)abilities are identified as a group with a disability that depersonalizes and makes the individual invisible.

Some tips to remember:

  • If you must discuss a (dis)ability, focus on student assets, gifts, abilities, and interests.
  • Focus on describing the facts about the (dis)ability.
  • Avoid using words that imply victimization or create negative stereotypes about those with a (dis)ability. For example, don’t use descriptors such as “victim” or “sufferer” for someone with a (dis)ability or disease, identify the disease.
  • Avoid using words such as “poor,” “unfortunate,” or “afflicted.”
  • Identify an individual as a person  with disabilities rather than a stereotypical one such as a “disabled person.”
  • Don’t use “blind person.” Instead, use “individual or person with a vision impairment.”
  • Don’t use “retarded” or “slow learner.” Instead, use “student or person with cognitive or intellectual disability.”
  • Do not accept student/adult use of the term “idiot,” which was a word used to denigrate individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Language and gender

Language often conveys hierarchical power relations between members of different genders. This dichotomy acknowledges only the existence of a binary perspective of gender as male/female. Such language reinforces the dominant view of males and male-identified characteristics as superior and /or normative.

Use language that eliminates references to gender. Use language that is gender-neutral and gender-inclusive.

Some guidelines:

  • Degender words, but don’t regender them (e.g., degender chairman to a chair, don’t regender it to chairwoman; freshman to first-year student).
  • Replace occupational terms containing man and boy, if possible, with terms that include members of either gender. (e.g., fireman to firefighter, manpower to personnel, businessman to businessperson)
  • When referring to a group, do not assume the gender of the group/ or individuals in the group (e.g. good morning, ladies).
  • Use plural pronouns to reference a group when the gender identity of the individuals is unknown. We prefer always to use the terms “their” and use plural pronouns to avoid the need to use the phrase s/he, which reinforces the gender binary.
  • Avoid occupational designations having derogatory -ette and -ess endings (e.g., don’t use “stewardess,” use “flight attendant”).

Language and social class

When referencing individuals’ social class, inappropriate language can lead to characterizing individuals with a temporary and/or social condition as if it were an inherent trait.

Avoid the following terms:

  • Poor
  • Ghetto
  • Underprivileged
  • Urban
  • At-risk
  • Vulnerable
  • Economically disadvantaged youth
  • Inner-city
  • And marginalized.

We also want families/students to be able to self-identify. Thus, though we may view a family as experiencing poverty based on poverty stereotypes, the family themselves may not experience themselves as experiencing poverty. Thus, we prefer the phrase “students/families who identify as experiencing poverty.”

Within schools, we can say, “students receiving free/reduced lunch” or “students with free/reduced lunch status” instead of “economically disadvantaged students.”

Language and sexual identity

We use language to refer to students who are LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexual, questioning). Use sexual identity instead of sexual orientation. Do not use the term “sexual preference” because this suggests sexual orientation is a choice, that a person simply chooses whether to be LGBTIQ+ or not or simply prefers one gender over another. Research supports this, and APA confirms that sexual orientation is not a choice but is biologically determined. Do not use the term “gay lifestyle” or the phrase “lifestyle” in reference to LGBTIQ+ identity. Do not use the word “homosexuals” when referring to LGBTIQ+ individuals, as this historically referred only to males and is dated.

,

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