RPIC ICS Implementation Digital Module 4: Apply the Equity Research

1.    Current School/District Practices

In ICS Equity Digital Module 4/Step 4, we consider three aspects of the ICS Equity research: a.) your Equity Audit data, which we will go into more depth in Digital Module 6/Step 6, b.) the research that undergirds the ICS Equity Framework and Process, and c.) the outcomes of schools and districts working toward implementing the equity research via the ICS Equity Framework and Process. In addition to the equity research cited here, Drs. Frattura and Capper’s equity research has produced three books and over sixty referenced journal articles and book chapters related to ICS Equity over the past 25 years. These publication citations are included at the end of this Digital Module.

Equity Audit Data (See Digital Module 6/Step 6)

When considering the ICS Equity Research, it is critical that we pay attention to the Equity Audit data that we annually collect (described in detail in Digital Module 6/Step 6) and link that data to our current educational structure that we drew in Digital Module 1/Step 1 – The History of Public Education. What does our Equity Audit data say about the effectiveness of our current model? We can become attached to particular ways of educating students (e.g., ability groups, tracking, pulling students out) and convinced about the efficacy of our efforts, yet, oftentimes our Equity Audit data tells a dramatically different story.

The Research that Undergirds ICS Equity

ICS Equity draws from over 45 years of equity research. In this section, we provide a brief overview of the eight strands of research that undergird and support ICS Equity. The eight research strands include:

• Heterogeneous Classrooms/Academic Benefits of Diversity
• Tracking
• Ability Grouping
• Students Labeled with Disabilities Proportionally Represented
• Education of Students Labeled as English Language Learners
• Education of Students of Color
• Students who are Labeled as Gifted
• Response to Intervention

Heterogeneous Classrooms/Academic Benefits of Diversity in Classrooms

Research is clear that students make greater academic and social gains in heterogeneous classrooms — that there are clear academic benefits of diversity in classrooms.

Academic Benefits of Diversity

• Student diversity promotes learning outcomes, better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares students as professionals (American Educational Research Association, 2016, p. 25).

• Diverse classrooms provide “Improved cognitive skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving, because of students’ experience with individuals different from themselves, as well as to the novel ideas and situations that such experience brings, challenges their thinking and leads to cognitive growth” (American Educational Research Association, 2016, p. 25).

• Students having difficulty at school, especially students experiencing poverty, learn more when they are working in heterogeneous rather than in homogenous ability groups (Oakes, 1985; Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002). Relatively high expectations for learning, a faster pace of instruction, peer models of effective learning, and curricula that are more challenging, are among the reasons offered for this advantage (Leithwood, Lois, Anderson, & Wahlston, 2004).

Students Labeled with Disabilities Proportionally Represented Across Settings

This section relies in part on the work of Peterson and Hittie (2009) who reviewed the research on including students with disabilities. The research on the inclusion of students labeled with disabilities originated in the early 1980’s, shortly after the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 that mandated a free, appropriate, public education for all students regardless of disability. That research unequivocally suggests that when students labeled with disabilities are proportionally assigned to general education environments, they make greater academic and social gains than when segregated. Further, students without disability labels also benefit more academically and socially when they are educated alongside students labeled with disabilities than when they are not.

Academic Gains When Students Labeled with Disabilities Are Proportionally Represented in Classrooms/Courses/Sections

• More than 100 studies found that students labeled with disabilities make more academic gains when proportionally assigned (Baker, 1994; Carlberb & Kavale, 1980; Cole, 2004; Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Downing, Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004; Hall & Wolfe, 2003; Lindsay, 2007; Katz & Mirenda, 2002; Wang & Baker, 1986).

• For students labeled with mild cognitive and learning disabilities, no additional gains in reading or math were made in segregated settings (Cole, 2004; Lindsay, 2007).

• Students labeled with significant learning disabilities made equal academic progress in segregated or proportionally represented settings (Walderon & McLeskey, 1998).

• Students with mild learning disabilities made greater reading gains in proportionally represented settings and similar gains in math in proportionally represented or segregated settings (Waldron & McLeskey, 1998).

• Students labeled with disabilities receive higher grades and achieve higher scores on standardized tests in proportionally represented settings than students with disabilities placed in separate classrooms (Rea, Mclaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002).

• Students labeled with disabilities reach more IEP goals in proportionally represented environments than in segregated settings (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Hunt, Goetz, & Anderson, 1986; Westling & Fox, 2009).

• These academic gains for students labeled with disabilities in proportionally represented settings are true for all disability labels including mild disabilities (Banerji & Daily, 1995; Cole, 2004; Deno, Maruyama, Espin, & Cohen, 1990; Fishbaugh & Gum, 1994; Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O’Connor, Jenkins, & Troutner, 1994; National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998), students with significant learning disabilities (Waldron & McLeskey, 1998), and students with intellectual disabilities (Freeman & Alkin, 2000).

• For students with moderate to significant intellectual disabilities, achievement is enhanced or at least equivalent in integrated versus segregated settings (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995; Saint-Laurent & Lessard, 1991).

Academic Gains for Students Without Disability Labels in Proportionally Represented Environments

• For students without disability labels, there is no evidence that academic progress is impeded when students labeled with disabilities are proportionally represented in general education settings, and in some cases, academic progress for students without disability labels increases when students with intellectual disabilities proportionally represented in general education settings (Cole, 2004; Fishbaugh & Gum, 1994; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Kalambouka et al., 2007; Odom, Deklyen, & Jenkins, 1984; Saint-Laurent, Glasson, Royer, Simard, & Pierard, 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994; Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994; Wang & Birch, 1984).

•  Achievement of lower-achieving students (not labeled with a disability) increases (Huber, 2001).

• Students without disabilities increase problem-solving and decision-making skills and experience increased cognitive growth similar to the research cited above on the academic benefits of diversity in classrooms.

Social Gains for Students Labeled with Disabilities

• Students labeled with disabilities make more social gains, gain more friendships, spend more time and interactions with peers, have larger social networks, spend less time alone, have improved behavior, and the peer interactions carry over to after-school contexts behavior (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Fryxwell & Kennedy, 1995; Kennedy, Shulka, & Fryxell, 1997).

• These social gains accrue across disability labels from mild disabilities (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994; Cole & Meyer, 1991; McLeskey, Waldron, & Pacchiano, 1993; Saint-Laurent & Lessard, 1991) to students with significant intellectual disabilities (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Hall, 1994; Hunt et al., 1994; Hunt, Soto, Maier, & Doering, 2003; Katz & Mirenda, 2002; McDonnell, Hardman, Hightower, & Kiefer-O-Donnell, 1997; Ryndak et. Al., 1995; Salisbury, Paombaro, & Hollowood, 1993; Staub, Schwartz, Gallucci, & Peck, 1994; Westling & Fox, 2009).

Social Gains for Students Without Disability Labels

• Students without disability labels make more social gains, including learning to be more understanding and empathetic, developing an increased sensitivity to differences, heightened self-esteem, and improvement of behaviors.

Ability Grouping/Tracking

The research suggests that students of all abilities learn more in heterogeneous versus homogenous ability groups. The students who are isolated the most in ability groupings often are the furthest behind (Hnushek, Klin, Markman, & Rivkin, 2003). Ability grouping has an effect size of .12 (effect size needs to be .40 or above to impact learning) (Hattie, 2013). The two most common forms of ability grouping are:

1. Within-class grouping, where students of similar ability are placed into small groups usually for reading or math instruction.
2. Between-class grouping where students are separated into different classes, courses, or course sequences (curricular tracks) based on their academic achievement, otherwise referred to as tracking.

According to the National Education Association (NEA), proponents of ability grouping believe that such practice allows teachers to tailor the pace and content of instruction much better to students’ needs and, thus, improve student achievement. For example, teachers can provide needed repetition and reinforcement for low-achieving students and an advanced level of instruction to high achievers.

Opponents of ability grouping believe that ability grouping not only fails to benefit any student, but it also channels students with low incomes and students of color to low tracks where they receive a lower quality of instruction than other groups. This contributes to a widening of the opportunity gaps.

The NEA supports the elimination of ability grouping. The NEA believes that the use of discriminatory academic tracking based on economic status, ethnicity, race, or gender must be eliminated in all public school settings (italics added for emphasis) (NEA Resolutions B-16, 1998 & 2005).

Below is a 3-minute video clip from Jeannie Oakes who describes her research on ability grouping:

Tracking, where students are placed in tracks (the same classrooms/sequence of courses) at the elementary, middle, or high school, is also an example of grouping students by ability. Boaler (2019) describes the academic benefits of students in the San Francisco Unified School District who, what we call “leveled up” (versus detracked), their middle school math. They report that “students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the percent of students taking advanced courses rose by one third… The cohort of students in [heterogeneous] eighth-grade mathematics in 2015 were 15 months ahead of the previous cohort of students who were mainly in advanced classes.”

Boaler (2019) also reports that “Tracked groups are often more limiting for students, as they allow teachers to presume they know what students need, and provide narrow questions that do not allow students to achieve highly and do not encourage students to engage in complex, interesting thinking.”

Boaler (2019) interviewed ninth graders in two different school districts, one group whom had experienced a tracked math middle school and the other group who attended schools without tracking, but with highly rigorous math teaching and learning across all students. Compared to the students in tracked math, students with the heterogeneous math experience held more positive expectations of themselves and their math potential.

Students Labeled as Gifted

Research suggests that students being labeled as gifted does not necessarily lead to higher achievement and educational outcomes. Also, when students labeled as gifted are proportionally represented across sections/courses/classes, their achievement is not harmed.

We first include information that summarizes the research on students labeled as gifted. Potter (2019) reviews studies and explains, “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.”

The de-tracking research was reviewed at the high school and elementary levels, and found that across more than a dozen studies across more than 40 years, that the practice of sorting students based on perceived academic ability into different classes, harms the students assigned to lower levels. At the same time, students labeled as gifted are not harmed by de-tracking, or what we call “leveling up”, where all students are provided a rigorous curriculum and learning experience in proportionally represented classrooms (Burris, Wiley, Welner, & Murphy, 2008). (See Digital Module 10/Step 10 for a further detailed discussion about this.)

Burris, et al. (2008) conducted research on a high school that offered the International Baccalaureate program to all students. Students previously labeled as gifted continued to excel, and the number of students and “the overall proportion of students scoring at the highest levels on exams increased” (cited in Potter & Burris, 2019).

Bui, Craig, and Imberman (2014) studied 14,000 fifth graders in a large urban district. They studied students who had barely made the cut-off into the separate gifted and talented school, and students who had barely failed to make an achievement score cut-off and who remained in the regular school. They learned that after a year and a half, there were no differences in achievement between students attending the segregated gifted school and those attending the regular schools.

The National Center for Research on Gifted Education conducted a 2019 study of gifted education across 3 states and including 2,000 students. They learned that “third-grade students in gifted programs were not making significant learning gains in comparison with their peers in general education… [and that] pull-out programs or self-contained classrooms [for students labeled as gifted], were, on average, not helping to boost academic achievement” (cited in Potter & Burris, 2019).

Potter & Burris (2019) summarizes their review of the research:

“…identification for gifted programs is a problem, but fixing the entrance criteria for a system still based on separating children into differently tracked classrooms is not enough to promote equity. This very practice of separation is not supported by research.” (italics added for emphasis)

Students labeled as gifted who are homogeneously grouped also have limited opportunities to learn across differences. Some studies suggest that such groupings increase student test anxiety, lower self-esteem as students are in an environment that increases comparison among students, and can negatively impact raw course grades and class rankings (Bui, Craig, & Imberman, 2011; Ireson, Haliam & Plewis, 2010; Preckel, Gotz & Frenzel, 2010; Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999).

Boaler’s (2019) review of the research suggests that “separating ‘gifted’ students has not led to better achievement.” In a Stanford study that Boaler conducted, university students reflected on how being labeled “gifted” in their K-12 education impacted them. Boaler also interviewed elementary students who attended a school without such labels, and where all students were viewed as smart and capable, and learned that learning is ongoing and our brains are expansive.

See the 7 minute video below, used with the permission of Jo Boaler, youcubed.org:

Students Labeled as English Language Learners (ELL) in Heterogeneous Settings

When students labeled as English Language Learners (ELL) are proportionally represented in classrooms/courses, versus placed in sheltered English or segregated in particular classrooms or courses, they learn more academic English, make greater achievement gains, have more peer models of English, experience higher teacher expectations, and teachers in the heterogeneous settings model a higher level of English, paired with higher levels of discussion and discourse (Brisk, 2006; Scanlan & Lopez, 2013; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). Further, students labeled as ELL in heterogeneous settings become bilingual language role models for students for whom English is their home language.

Research on “sheltered” ELL courses and other types of ELL tracking in low-level courses suggests that students labeled as ELL in these segregated settings experience lower achievement, lower expectations for learning, and less opportunity to advance English skills. Further, once students labeled as ELL are tracked into these settings, it becomes nearly impossible for the students to advance to higher-level courses (Kanno & Kangas, 2014).

Response to Intervention

A 2015 national study funded by the Institute for Education Sciences examined RTI implementation in 13 states, 146 schools, and 20,000 first grade students. Assignment to RTI interventions across Tier 1, 2, and 3, not only did not improve reading outcomes, but decreased reading achievement. “For those students just below the school-determined eligibility cut point in Grade 1, assignment to receive reading interventions did not improve reading outcomes; it produced negative impacts” (American Educational Research Association, p. 1).

Equity audit data from nearly 100 schools across the elementary, middle, and high school levels reveals that students from low-income families, students labeled as ELL, and students of color are all over-represented in RTI. Further, in nearly every school, African American students are more over-represented in RTI than any other demographic group.

Data collected in the Green Hills School District* (see detailed case study below) demonstrated that adhering to the equity research and implementing the ICS Equity Framework and Process resulted in achievement gains for students with and without disabilities, along with narrowing the opportunity gap between students. Yet, when the district implemented a pull-out implementation block in response to perceived expectations to do so at the state level, the achievement for students with disabilities decreased and the opportunity gap between students with and without disability labels increased (Frattura, 2015) (see Figures 1 and 2 below).

*Please note all school/district names in this module are pseudonyms as required by the Internal Review Board for data collection that requires actual school names not to be used.

Figure 1:  Green Hills School District Elementary Mathematics

(District A) ICS = Higher achievement

Ability grouping through RtI = Lower achievement

N = 3500

Figure 2:  Green Hills School District – High School Social Studies

(District B) ICS = Higher achievement

Ability grouping through RtI = Lower achievement

N = 1700

Activity 1:  Apply the Equity Research – Research Card Exchange

We have attached to this Digital Module a PDF that includes each piece of research cited in this Digital Module in addition to the poverty research cited in the ICS Equity Digital Module 2/Step 2 – Shift from Deficits to Assets-Based Thinking and Practices, which includes about 70 individual pieces of research. This PDF can be laminated and cut into cards for this activity. Each card identifies a research finding and then also includes the question, “How is this research reflected in your setting?” This activity encourages you to consider to what extent your current practices reflect or do not reflect the equity research.

Place one research card for each person face down on the table. The facilitator keeps time.

Each person stands and finds a partner across the room. At the signal, the first person has 90 seconds to read the research on their card and answers the question on the card, “How is this research reflected in your setting?”. When the end of the time is signaled, the other person in the dyad repeats the process within 90 seconds. At the end of time, the individuals in the dyad exchange cards, then find a new partner across the room. The facilitator starts time and the process is repeated. We suggest repeating the process about four times, depending on how much time is available.

We have included directions on how to conduct this activity virtually within the Digital Module 4/Step 4 presentation slides attached at the end of this Digital Module.

Transition Between the Equity Research and Data From Schools/Districts Implementing ICS Equity

Activity 2: Reflecting on the Architectural Barriers in Education and the Equity Research

Teams will need to have available the Current Educational Structures that they drew in Digital Module 1/Step 1 – The History of Marginalization.

As a transition between reviewing the equity research and data from schools/districts implementing the ICS Equity Framework and Process, we share the perspective of Norm Kunc, a disability rights activist. In the following video clip, Norm shares an analogy about architectural barriers in education. His discussion asks us to reflect on our current structures (Digital Module 1), our deficit to asset-based thinking and language (Digital Module 2), our identity development (Digital Module 3), and the equity research (Digital Module 4).

After watching the video, small groups can discuss: How do our current structures that we drew in Digital Module 1, 1.) reflect the research we just reviewed and 2.) reveal architectural errors?

 

ICS Equity Outcomes in Schools/Districts who have Implemented ICS Equity

In this section, we review the equity outcome data of selected districts and schools that have implemented ICS Equity. As noted above, all school/district names in this module are pseudonyms as required by the Internal Review Board for data collection that requires actual school names not to be used.

Districts and schools that have made equity gains have maintained fidelity to the ICS Equity implementation framework and process. To achieve equity gains requires an uncompromising equity commitment of the superintendent, principals, and to the work of the process.

Green Hills School District

Green Hills School District is a small, suburban, Wisconsin school district. The district includes 5,264 students attending 5 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and 1 high school. Of these students, nearly 18% receive free/reduced-price lunch, 11% are labeled with disabilities, 1.4% are labeled as English Language Learners (ELL), 89.2% white, and 10.8% are students of color (based on 2015-2016 data).

In 2011, two of the district’s principals had recently completed their Master’s degrees and principal licensure, where they first learned about the ICS Equity Framework and Process. That same year, the district completed an audit of their special education services. The District Leadership Team (DLT) and some of the district’s school principals then attended the first National Leadership for Social Justice Institute in 2012 to learn about the ICS Equity Framework and Process. The district leadership team and school leadership teams relied on the Annual ICS Equity Institute for continued professional development on ICS Equity and presented their ICS Equity work at the 2015 and 2016 ICS Equity Institutes. The DLT judiciously used the considerable team time during the ICS Equity Institute to analyze their current practices and plan concrete steps forward. In 2013, the district hired a new superintendent who also attended the ICS Equity Institute to learn about the work and they have been supportive of the work to date.

The DLT began their equity work focused on students labeled with disabilities and over the ensuing years, shifted to address the range of student identities in their district. In 2011, they labeled 15% of their students with disabilities and bussed 43 students labeled with challenging behaviors out of the district, at a cost of $600,000. Their student/teacher caseloads for students labeled with disabilities were high, with a 14:1 ratio at the elementary level (with a high of 20:1); 19:1 ratio at the middle school level (with a high of 31:1); and 21:1 at the high school level (with a high of 30:1). Special education teachers taught within categorical silos (e.g., teachers of students with learning disabilities only taught students labeled with learning disabilities).

The District and School Teams implemented nearly all the steps of the ICS Equity Framework and Process.

By 2015, students labeled with disabilities had decreased to 11%, only 6 students with challenging behaviors were bussed to other districts, and staff/student ratios for students labeled with disabilities were reduced to elementary 7:1, middle school 11:1, and high school 16:1. All special education teachers taught across student disability labels (e.g., cross-categorical). By this time, the district shifted to address the range of inequities in their schools across social class, race, and students who are linguistically diverse.

Additional positive benefits from the ICS Equity work included reading achievement gains that were higher than expected across all students (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Green Hills School District; High School, Reading Achievement Higher Than Expected

Gains in reading achievement for students labeled with disabilities were also higher than expected at both the high school and elementary levels (see Figures 4 and 5 below).

Figure 4:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Green Hills School District; Reading Achievement for Students w/ Disabilities Higher Than Expected

Figure 5:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Green Hills School District; Elementary, Reading Achievement Higher Than Expected

River Bluff High School

River Bluff High School is one of two comprehensive high schools in a district of 6,785 students. The district includes 12 elementary schools and 5 middle schools. At the high school, 76.7% of students are white and 23.3% of color. Of the students of color, 4.6% are Black, 8.5% Hmong or Southeast Asian, 3.1% Hispanic, and 1.2% Native American. The high school also includes 39.8% of students who receive free/reduced-price lunches, 16.4% are labeled with a disability, 2.5% labeled as ELL (according to 2015-2016 data).

River Bluff’s High School principal first learned about the ICS Equity Framework and Process as a graduate student in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They followed that up with attending the National Leadership for Social Justice Institute the next summer with their 9th-grade leadership team and with their District Leadership Team. In the fall of 2012, the principal began implementing the ICS Equity work. As part of that work, the ninth-grade team shared Digital Module 1/Step 1 with the rest of the staff and together they drew their current service delivery model. The School Leadership Team (SLT) also spent extensive time with the rest of the staff on Digital Module 2/Step 2 and Digital Module 3/Step 3. The SLT also relied on equity audit data to identify equity goals and measure progress.

Within the first year of implementation, the River Bluff staff focused on eliminating as many pull-out programs as possible and leveling up — making more higher-level courses available to all students, increasing the number of students enrolling in at least one Advanced Placement (AP) or Honors Course, and reducing the number of lower-level courses.

Figure 6:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School: Leveling Up

At River Bluff High School, the percentage of all students enrolled in AP courses tripled (see Figure 7 below).

Figure 7:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; Percentage of All Students Taking AP Increased

Figures 8-10 illustrate how the percentage of students who enrolled in at least one AP/Honors course increased across students of all social classes and all races. These examples continue to show how all students benefitted from the ICS Equity work at River Bluff High School.

Figure 8:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; Percentage of Students from All Social Classes Taking At Least One AP/Honors Course Increased

Figure 9:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; Percentage of Students Enrolled in AP/Honors Class Increased for Students of Color

Figure 10 below shows that the percent of time students with intellectual disabilities, including students with significant intellectual disabilities, were proportionally represented across all courses increased dramatically. Though, at 56% the school continues to work to increase this percentage.

Figure 10:  ICS Equity Outcomes -River Bluff High School; Percentage of Time Students with Intellectual Disabilities Integrated in General Education Increased

The next set of Figures 11-16 shows two key aspects of the ICS Equity outcomes that other schools and districts who are implementing ICS Equity also report. First, reflecting the equity research strands that undergird ICS Equity, that the implementation of ICS Equity benefits all students, not just students who are typically marginalized. At River Bluff High School, when the staff leveled up to additional honors/AP courses and eliminated many low-level courses, fewer students failed overall, not just the students who are typically marginalized.

Second, previously River Bluff High School relied on lower-level courses that were co-taught with special education teachers, with students labeled with disabilities over-represented in these courses. ICS Equity shifts the roles of special education teachers to serve on Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams and to support staff as needed in more rigorous courses. Figures 11-16 illustrate on the left side, previously special education teacher co-taught courses and the percent of F grades in those courses along with the percent of F grades in the associated higher-level courses. The right side of each figure shows only the higher-level courses that are more demographically proportionally represented and the dramatic decrease in the percentage of F grades for all students.

Figure 11:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; Percentage of F Grades Decreased After Leveling Up to One Biology Class

Figure 12:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; Algebra 1, Percentage of F Grades Decreased After Leveling Up to One Algebra Class

Figure 13:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; Geometry, Percentage of F Grades Decreased After Leveling Up to One Level of Geometry

Figure 14:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; English 10, Percentage of F Grades Decreased After Leveling Up to One English Course for All Students

Figure 15:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; World History, Percentage of F Grades Decreased After Leveling Up to One World History Course for All Students

Figure 16:  ICS Equity Outcomes – River Bluff High School; US History, Percentage of F Grades Decreased After Leveling Up to One History Course

Templeton School District

Templeton School District was one of the first school districts to implement the ICS Equity Framework and Process starting in 2004-2005. Templeton School District is a small, rural district of 3,161 students. The district includes 1 high school, 1 middle school, and 3 elementary schools. District demographics in 2015-2016 included 28.1% of students receiving free/reduced-price lunch, 10.2% labeled with a disability, 2.5% labeled as English Language Learners, and 14.7% of students identified as of color. Of the students of color, 3.6% identified as Black, 4.9% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian.

The ICS Equity Framework and Process was initiated by the Director of Special Education and Student Services who was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and had also worked closely with Dr. Frattura.

Similar to other districts implementing the ICS Equity Framework and Process, all students benefitted from the work. Figure 17 below illustrates how the graduation rates of students with disabilities increased as the district shifted to assigned students with disabilities in proportional ways across environments. In so doing, the graduate rate for students without disabilities also increased.

Figure 17:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Templeton School District; Graduation Rates Increased for Students With and Without Disabilities

Likewise, as high school courses became more diverse, ACT scores increased (see Figure 18 below).

Figure 18:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Templeton School District; ACT Scores Increased (red bar is the Templeton district, gray bar is the state average)

Similar to most schools and districts implementing the ICS Equity Framework and Process, the percent of students labeled with disabilities decreased (see Figure 19 below).

Figure 19:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Templeton School District; Percentage of Students Labeled with Disabilities Decreased

Chavez Elementary School

Chavez Elementary School is located in an urban school district of about 28,000 students. District data from 2015-2016 suggests that nearly 50% of district students receive free/reduced-price lunch, about 57% identified as students of color, 13.9% are labeled with a disability, and 19.4% are labeled as English Language Learners. Of the students of color, 20.5% identified as Hispanic, 18% identified as Black, 8.9% identified as Asian, and 9.1% identified as having two or more races.

The principal at Chavez Elementary learned about the ICS Equity work in their university principal preparation program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and also brought strong expertise in the inclusion of students with disabilities, though they did not have formal training in special education. They began their principalship at the school in 1999. The available demographic data closest to their time at the school appeared in the 2005-2006 school year. That data showed that the school enrolled about 370 students. Of those, 154.3% received free/reduced-price lunches, 16.2% were labeled as ELL, and 64.1% identified as students of color.

At a staff meeting, the new principal of Chavez Elementary School drew the current education model (Digital Module 1/Step1) on the board for the staff to discuss the challenges with the model. The model featured students with labels being pulled out of many classes. The school included a separate room for students labeled with significant intellectual disabilities, and separate rooms for Title I reading, ELL pull-out, and special education resource rooms. Many opportunity gaps existed including low attendance for students of color and students from families experiencing poverty, and low achievement across students who are typically marginalized.

Over three years, the principal implemented many principles of ICS Equity. By the end of three years, the school no longer removed students from the classroom for instruction. Figure 20 below shows fourth-grade assessment data and achievement gains across subject areas.

Figure 20:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Chavez Elementary School; 4th Grade Assessment Data, Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced

Figure 21 below illustrates the increase in reading achievement across student demographics.

Figure 21:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Chavez Elementary School; 4th Grade Assessment Data, Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced Reading

Figure 22 illustrates how the percentage of students labeled with disabilities decreased over time. Most schools and districts implementing ICS Equity report a similar decrease in the percentage of students labeled with disabilities.

Figure 22:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Chavez Elementary School; Percentage of Students Labeled with Disabilities Decreased Over Time

Figure 23 below shows how the percentage of students labeled with disabilities increased their achievement at grade level in language arts.

Figure 23:  ICS Equity Outcomes – Chavez Elementary School; Percentage of Students Labeled with Disabilities Achieving at Grade Level