Part I School Digital Module 6: Conduct an Equity Audit

© 2012 to 2025. Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. Part I School Digital Modules for ICS Equity. All rights reserved. You may not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission.

Learning Targets

1. Understand why the equity audit occurs at Step 6 and not Step 1 in the ICS Framework and Process.
2. Define proportional representation and understand why it anchors the process.
3. Identify the 2 groups of data the equity audit collects across identities:  achievement and representation.
4. Develop graphs of key data of achievement and representation.
5. Describe how the data is an outcome of the current structure from Digital Module 1.
6. Develop a district process for annual equity audit data collection, identifying positives.
7. Integrate student perspectives as part of the process.

1. Current Practices Based on Common Assumptions and Future Considerations

Toward the end of the first year of the ICS Implementation Process, the District Leadership Team (DLT) and School Leadership Teams (SLT) collect and analyze school and district-level equity data. The Equity Audit determines a baseline of equity data at this point in time as the district and schools move forward with the ICS Implementation Process and provides one concrete way to measure progress along the way.

The ICS Equity Audit process occurs as Step 6 and not as Step 1 in the implementation process, because we need to learn how to view the data through an asset-based lens. If we try and present the equity audit data as Step 1, hoping to motivate staff to engage in the work, doing so a) can reinforce deficit views of students and families, b) result in trying to fix students instead of fixing the system, and, in turn, c) result in seeking segregation as a solution to fix students. 

More specifically, we have had principals or district leaders become excited about the ICS Framework and Process, and hoping to motivate staff to engage in the work, want to present the equity audit data as a first step in the process. Doing so has always gone poorly. Instead, staff believe they are already working as hard as possible to meet student needs. Thus, they feel shamed or blamed for the data, and then it is easy to turn to families or students as the reason for the data. Thus, it is critical to wait to engage in the equity audit until Digital Module 6, after the staff have worked through the first five Digital Modules and have continued to deepen their assets-based lens of families and students and are seeking to fix the system versus fixing the students.

As such, two questions can help us examine data as a lens on the system instead of as a reflection of deficits in students:

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?

We have learned that educators “overwhelmingly do not have a clear, accurate, or useful understanding of the degree of inequity present in their own schools and school districts” (Skrla, McKenzie, Scheurich, 2009, p. 5). Though most state departments require plentiful student data submissions from districts, the ICS Equity Audit reveals new data and new views of data that can help districts benchmark their current status and provide clear evidence of student gains as a result of the ICS Framework and Process.

The ICS Equity Audit process includes four key steps: 1.) Proportional Representation anchors the Equity Audit, 2.) the DLT and SLT collect the data for the Equity Audit using the ICS Equity Audit Form, 3.) the DLT and SLT develop graphs of the achievement data and representation data, and 4.) the DLT and SLT conduct the ICS Equity Audit annually as part of an annual process of measuring high-quality teaching and learning.

Proportional Representation Anchors the Equity Audit

Proportional representation means that the demographics of students identified for special education, for students identified for English Language Learning services, and for 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 students labeled with a disability.

Some districts, not in partnership with ICS, have decided that a “ballpark” of proportional representation is good enough. For example, a district may determine that as long as any one classroom or section does not have more than 30% of students with IEPs, or no more than 25% of students who are multilingual is close enough. Yet, this particular district did not make progress toward high-quality teaching and learning for all.

Activity #1: Discussion

In small groups, discuss the question: Why is proportional representation so important?

If we compromise on proportional representation, we become personally responsible for perpetuating a separate, unequal system and perpetuating racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, sexism, and other prejudices. 

As we will explain further in Digital Module 7 (Re-Align Students and Staff), proportional representation applies to students receiving special education services, students identified for English Language Learning services, and students identified as advanced learners/gifted. This is because, typically, students who are receiving free/reduced-priced lunch and students of color are usually over-identified for special education. Thus, proportionally representing students by disability results in students of color and students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch also being proportionally represented.

Proportional representation does not apply to achievement measures such as achievement scores on standardized tests or participating in ACT exams and Advanced Placement courses. For example, per proportional representation, at least 12% of students taking the ACT should be students labeled with disabilities, yet with achievement measures such as the ACT, proportional representation is the minimal goal. That is, the ultimate goal should be that 100% of students labeled with disabilities, who do not have an intellectual disability, participate in the ACT exams and Advanced Placement courses and score in the top range on standardized state achievement tests.

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

Figure 1: Example Proportional Representation Graph

In the next bar, we see that 6.8% of students identified as gifted are receiving free/reduced-priced lunch. Thus, students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are under-identified as gifted. Instead, 19.1% of students identified as gifted should be receiving free/reduced-priced lunch. 

In the last bar, 33.8% of students identified for RTI are receiving 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, and are significantly under-identified as gifted/advanced learners. 

The DLT and SLT Collect the Equity Audit Data: Achievement and Representation

ICS includes the ICS Equity Audit spreadsheet (in the tab at the top of the Digital Module) which can assist districts and schools in collecting the data. The data should be collected at each school. Typically, the DLT helps SLTs collect the data. Importantly, the DLT establishes a data collection process for each school and across the district, that can be repeated without undue burden annually to mark progress.

The ICS Equity Audit Form collects data related to race (disaggregated by race), free/reduced-price lunch, language, ability, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Within each area of difference, except sexual orientation/gender identity, data is collected in two major areas: representation and achievement.

For achievement, the equity audit form collects data related to literacy and math achievement data disaggregated by identity, including participation in and scores on the ACT/SAT.

For representation, the equity audit form collects school/district demographic data (e.g., by race and disaggregated by race, disability, students identified as ELL, free/reduced-price lunch, and then compares these data to the percentage of these demographics in students labeled for special education, identified for Response to Intervention, identified as gifted/advanced learners/Advanced Placement courses, in attendance, and in truancy, suspensions, and expulsions.

We include space at the end of each identity section of difference for districts to add additional questions they wish to address pertinent to their situation, such as participation in extra-curricular activities and participation in parent/family organizations, among others.

The ICS Equity Audit Form requires that race data be disaggregated for each race 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. For example, the data may show that students of color are not over-represented in Response to Intervention. However, when disaggregating the race data further, African American students may be over-represented in this program. Further, in districts that enroll Hmong students from Southeast Asia, the data for Asian students should be further disaggregated between students from Southeast Asia and students who are not if possible.

Sexual orientation and gender identity require a different set of data, given that students are not asked to self-identify in this way. Thus, the ICS Equity Audit Form includes questions to measure equitable practices for these students in three areas:  a.) law and policy, b.) school culture, and c.) curriculum. Questions include if the school anti-harassment policy specifically addresses sexual orientation and gender identity; the extent to which teasing, bullying, and harassment data are collected specifically to sexual orientation and gender identity, and whether or not the school supports a Gay Straight Alliance.

Unfortunately, and somewhat surprisingly, for most districts and schools, equity audit data is not easily available and the Equity Audit we describe here is the first time many schools have collected such data. Many educators report that though their school/district collects some data, this data 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. Districts should take advantage of the ICS 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 is annually updated.

Develop Graphs of Key Achievement and Representation Data

After the DLT and SLTs have completed the Equity Audit Form, these two teams then develop easy-to-read graphs of the achievement and representation data. These graphs help to easily communicate key findings from the audit to staff, the school board, and the community. 

We provide the following graphs from ICS district partners as examples. 

Representation Graphs

In the first graph (see Figure 2), the first bar on the left is the percentage of students with disabilities in the district at 13.9%. We can see students with disabilities are over-identified for in-school suspensions at 100%, over-identified for out-of-school suspensions at 32.0%, and over-identified for expulsions at 40%. We draw the proportional representation line across to help show this.

Figure 2: 

In the second representation graph (see Figure 3), on the far left bar, 16.5% of students at this school receive free/reduced-priced lunch. Students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are over-identified for special education (27.2%), under-identified as gifted (10.2%), and under-identified for advanced courses at the middle and high school. 

Figure 3:

The next graph (see Figure 4) shows racial representation in discipline for students of color. On the far left side, 11.0% of students in this district identify as students of color. Students of color are not over-identified for in-school suspensions (3.7%), but for out-of-school suspensions, are over-identified (19.4%). 

Figure 4:

In this same Figure, when we disaggregate the race and out-of-school suspension data, we can see that students who identify as Black (1.3%) are over-identified (4.9%), students who identify as multi-racial (3.8%) are over-identified (9.0%), and students who identify as Latinx (3.8%) are over-identified. 

The last representation example graph (see Figure 5) shows representation and advanced placement courses. In this district, students with disabilities (10.8% of the district) are under-identified for advanced placement courses (0.5%). Overall, students of color in the district 11.0%) are under-identified for advanced placement courses (6.6%). Students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch in the district (16.5%) are under-identified in advanced placement courses (7.0%), and zero students identified as receiving ELL services in the district (1.9%) are enrolled in advanced placement courses.

Figure 5:

Achievement Graphs

The DLT and SLTs should also create achievement graphs of key achievement data that will better communicate student achievement.

The first graph provides an example of achievement data from what many would consider a “high-achieving” school district (see Figure 6). 

Figure 6:

In the top left-hand corner of the graph, we can see that 34.6% of students in grades 3-8 not receiving free/reduced-priced lunch or could be considered middle to upper-class scored basic or below basic on the state math assessment. Likewise, 61.6% of students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch scored basic or below basic on the same assessment.  

We see similar math achievement differences between the same two groups of students who scored advanced or proficient (64.4% compared to 38.5%).  

From an equity lens, these graphs clearly show math achievement differences between students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch and students not receiving free/reduced-priced lunch. We see similar differences in reading achievement in the lower right-hand corner.

At the same time, returning to the math achievement data as an example, in this district, again, more than one-third (34.6%) of students who are middle to upper class or not receiving free/reduced priced lunch are scoring basic or below basic. 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 broken.  

Similarly, in the reading graph, when more than one-third (37.1%) of students who are middle to upper class are scoring basic or below basic, then this district’s reading system is not working well for all the students in the district.

The examples from these two graphs reflect back to the work of Digital Module 0 The Introduction and Digital Module 1, The History of Public School Marginalization. The ICS Framework and Process toward high-quality teaching and learning benefits all students in the district. Typically, all students in the district are not achieving at their highest potential within our current structures, and the ICS Framework and Process benefits all students.

The next graph (see Figure 7) shows reading achievement data, disaggregated by race. We can see clear achievement differences, with a higher percentage of students who identify as Black scoring basic or below basic than any other racial group. 

Figure 7:

At the same time, from this same graph, we can see that 41.0% of students who identify as White scored Basic or Below Basic. If we only focused our reading efforts on increasing the reading achievement of students of color, we would miss the point that in this district, when 41.0% of students who identify as White are scoring basic or below basic, the reading system is not maximizing students’ reading potential across all racial demographics, and that the reading system itself needs to be fixed, not the students.

The next graphs (see Figure 8 and Figure 9) show similar reading and math achievement data as the previous graph between students identified for ELL services and students who are not identified for ELL services.

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Activity #1: Examining Our Equity Audit Data

1. 1. Provide enough time: Because of the time it takes to collect the data and the amount of data collected, it’s important to provide plenty of time for staff to review the data, and doing so will take most of an entire hour of facilitation time with staff.
   2. Review the Community Agreements/Digital Module 2 Key points: Remind staff of the importance of “no blame, no shame, no judgment” of each other, students, families, and communities. 
   3. At this point in the data review, we are not seeking to blame or identify the reasons for the data. We are only taking in key data points that we may not have realized previously.
   4. The equity audit goal establishes baseline data and identifies where we are at this point in time. Then as we move forward, we will be able to identify where are making progress more easily.
   5. We suggest the SLT/DLT share pertinent representation graphs and achievement graphs in small groups with staff. 
   6. The graphs can be divided amongst the staff in different ways. One way is for each group to examine data from a different identity, e.g., one group examines key disability data, another group examines key free/reduced lunch data, etc. What data stands out to you? Similar to a jigsaw activity, then groups could rotate with one person sharing out one or two key data points with the rest of the staff.
   7. Another way to divide up is to look at just one area, e.g., reading achievement. The reading achievement graphs are divided by identity, one for each group (e.g., one group examines reading achievement and free/reduced-priced lunch, another group examines reading achievement and students of color). Or, reading achievement could be divided up by grade level, with K-2 examining DIBELS scores, grades 3-5 examining MAP reading data, and another grade 3-5 group examining state reading achievement test data.

Then, at the same meeting or another meeting, focus just on attendance data, or focus just on discipline data, etc.

Activity #2: Our Equity Audit Data and Our Current Structure Discussion

After the discussion of the critical data points that stand out, which may take more than one facilitation session, then, each small group pulls up the Current Educational Structure from Digital Module 1 and the List of Challenges to the Current Structure from Digital Module 1. 

Discussion Question:  What do the inequities that stand out to you in the equity audit data say about the effectiveness of your current structure?

Including Student Voice

Opportunities to include student perspectives can include student interviews, student panels, and attending 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 for their perspectives on what is working well at the school and what could be improved. We need to consider the power differences among students 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 cautions:

1. It is best to have graduated high school students come back to share their experiences versus current students who may be reluctant to honestly share their perspectives with the power differences between them and staff.
2. It’s important to not have former students share their experiences until Digital Module 6/Step 6 as otherwise, to help staff be open to student perspectives.
3. To ensure equal voice in sharing, use a 3-minute timer when students share with silence if they do not take the whole 3 minutes. 

Here we share two quotes from students who were interviewed by a local university as part of a focus group:

The first quote is from 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, and 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 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.”

We can see from these quotes that most students are well aware of the segregated, deficit-based system in our schools. We can also see that the data from our equity audit is a reflection of that system and not of the capabilities and potential of our students.

Develop a District Process for Annual Equity Audit Data Collection and Identifying Positives

As we started this Digital Module, it’s important that districts and schools not view the equity audit process as a “big project” that is part of the ICS implementation process that is completed once. The DLT and SLT should learn from the equity audit process the first time, how they can efficiently, and effectively repeat the process annually. What systems and practices can be put into practice in the district to make that so? 

An annual equity audit will help districts track measurable progress with the work as we can expect our data to change in a positive direction in the first year of the work. 

We suggest that schools produce 5-6 graphs annually of the positive gains in their school as a result of the work. This could include data not explicitly collected by the initial equity audit. Examples from districts include fewer numbers of students who are receiving reading interventions outside the classroom, and more students receiving speech services within the classroom as part of the regular curriculum, among others.

2. Future Considerations

This consciousness-raising aspect of data collection is critical. We cannot make changes regarding inequities if we are not clear as to the extent of the inequities.

3. ‘Operationalizing’ Our Work

Educators must become adept at evaluating the outcomes of their current practices in quantifiable ways. While student, family, and educator anecdotes can enrich the quantitative data, leaders must establish measurable effectiveness criteria for their practices on a routine and ongoing basis. Finally, educators must endeavor to carefully and systematically weave evaluation into the core of all their efforts and then learn to share these results with others in clear, easily understood ways.

 

 

For School Leadership Teams: In the ICS Equity Action Plan, table included in the Materials section of the Part I School Digital Module 0, discuss and write in the second to the last column, the current knowledge of staff related to this Digital Module such that the team can build on that knowledge when facilitating this Digital Module.

In the last column, write ways the School Leadership Team can build on this knowledge when facilitating the Digital Module. Also, the SLT can add what they want to remember/consider when facilitating this Digital Module and the next steps for the team to best prepare themselves to facilitate this Digital Module.