© 2015 to 2023. Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. School Modules for ICS Equity. All rights reserved. You may not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors. Please email [email protected] to obtain such permission.

I.        Current Practices Based on Common Assumptions

Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams are intentionally situated within Digital Module 7/Step 7, as realigning staff is Step 7 in the ICS Equity Framework and Process because it is necessary for all staff to work through the content of Steps 1-6 in Cornerstone 1 prior to doing so. Working through the first 6 steps in the ICS Equity Framework and Process sets up the “why” behind the need to shift structures through re-imagining a proactive, equitable educational system. The first 6 ICS Equity Steps also help us to understand how to not just discuss equity, but to operationalize equity change that intentionally interrupts oppressive structural and instructional practices.

As we have learned in Digital Module 1/Step 1, the current structural and instructional practices in school districts across the country are deficit-based. Specifically, our current system is premised on a deficit perspective that purports that the primary reason for student failure is the student themselves. We contend that the student is not the problem, as the educational system has been historically constructed to maintain a white, male, cisgender, straight, middle class, able bodied, English speaking normative. The educational system then perpetuates oppressive and marginalizing practices for students who do not fit such a normative and in so doing, denies them access to high expectations and high-quality learning.

In Digital Module 2/Step 2, we discussed how myths, stereotypes, and biases can perpetuate deficit perspectives that are reinforced through our language and practices. In Digital Module 3/Step 3 we emphasized the importance of understanding our own identities of marginalization and privilege, as a pathway to better understanding those identities that are different than our own. The more we understand our own identities and those of others the greater our ability to lead and operationalize the work of educational equity.

In a deficit-based system, students are identified for specific services or programs, such as but not limited to:  Tier 2, Tier 3, at-risk, special education, alternative education, or English language learning. The student is then placed in a separate program or is tracked into lower ability groups and classes that remove the student from the core of teaching and learning or add additional minutes of supplemental instruction. These practices are based on an assumption that grouping children by perceived academic performance, assessment, skills, or knowledge is effective. In Digital Module 4/Step 4 we learned that there is little to no data to support practices of tracking and ability grouping or any form of segregation as a means to increase student achievement (Hattie, 2011, Oakes, 1997, NEA, 2013).  As some educators will express, ability grouping may result in the increase of the child’s performance initially, within the setting the instruction is provided, but it does not have any longitudinal impact.

Concomitantly, those students who can synthesize the most information are the students who receive the most cohesive instruction. The lack of cohesive alignment of adults (e.g., special and general educators, ELL teachers, reading specialists, interventionists, speech and language, at-risk, etc.) results in the most fragmented day for the same students who require the most comprehensive, cohesive, proactive support within Tier 1. Furthermore, it maintains a deficit-based system as the adults are not able to collaborate to develop each other’s capacity to serve a diverse student normative. Thus resulting in the students who need the most structure, routine, consistency, and predictability in their day, often being the same students who must leave in the middle of a class to attend a special pull-out session, or clustered to the back of the room, often receiving excessive amounts of remedial instruction through ability grouping, or segregated in separate or lower tracked classes altogether. As a result, these students spend more time in transitions (versus instruction) and are expected to transfer and synthesize information from different environments and teachers back to the core of teaching and learning; all while experiencing a stereotype threat (Steele, 2010).

2. Equitable Best Practices

For continuity and consistency, the Equity Non-Negotiables (Digital Module/Step 5: Develop Equity Non-Negotiables) that intentionally interrupt the problems of such a deficit system, must be agreed upon and used as a guide to reconstructing a system based on student assets and teacher expertise. Below are the ICS Equity Non-Negotiables discussed in Digital Module 5/Step 5:

1. Eliminating inequities begins with ourselves.
2. The system is responsible for student failure.
3. All staff are aligned to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to support cohesive instruction.
4. Students are proportionally represented in the core of teaching and learning.
5. C3 Teams intentionally develop each other’s capacity.
6. Instruction is based on Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning (IRTL) and created for each learner the first time the concept/skill is taught through heterogeneous small group instruction.
7. Policies and funding are aligned to these Equity Non-Negotiables.

Equity Non-Negotiable Number 3 (All staff are aligned to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams (C3) to support cohesive instruction that, intentionally interrupts a deficit-based system.):

To create C3 Teams, all educators, including specialists (e.g., special educators, ELL, at-risk, interventionists, Title 1, etc.) are aligned to grade-level teams. These C3 Teams proactively support the proportional representation of students, all of whom represent a diverse normative. Such a proactive system of supports is grounded in the understanding, and affirmed by federal law that special education, multilingual support, gifted services, reading support, etc., are all services and not locations where students are placed. For example, special educators are assigned to grade-level teams, dependent on student need, and across special education categories (rather than assigned caseloads by disability, content, or intensive program). Within C3 Teams, each teacher’s gifts and talents (expertise and certification) are combined with each other to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn together. In so doing, staff move from aligning their supports to students, to aligning with adults to build Collective Equity Capacity (CEC) and together, proactively educate all learners.

As discussed further in Digital Module 11/Step 11, the district reallocates resources for the development of teacher capacity on C3 Teams. Whereas, the district avoids piecemeal, add-on efforts, such as adding additional teaching assistants or purchasing curriculum or professional learning that perpetuates the segregation of students, efforts serving as band-aids and reinforce the deficit system.

3. ‘Operationalizing’ Our Work

Upon completion of the initial Integrated Comprehensive Systems for Equity Institute Part I:

District and School Leadership Teams (DLT’s and SLT’s), are able to lead the process and content of the ICS Equity Framework and Process. Adhering to the process is essential to the success of the work moving forward. Therefore, the following steps are organized by year of implementation based on the ICS Equity research-based implementation process.

Year 1 of the ICS Equity Process:

During the first year of implementation, the School Leadership Team facilitates all of Cornerstone 1 and the Digital Modules/Steps 1-6 within Cornerstone 1. Cornerstone 1 forms the “why” behind the equity changes in Cornerstones 2, 3, and 4. Oakes (1997) reiterated the importance of this grounding before moving forward with other equity changes:

“… schools that move from homogeneous to heterogeneous instructional groupings confront not only the logistical problems of restructuring but also the deeply held beliefs of colleagues, parents, about intelligence and privilege that [wrongfully] legitimize tracking especially in racially and socioeconomically mixed schools.”

Deeply held beliefs that perpetuate segregation must be challenged. School Leadership Teams may find it necessary to take additional time working through and applying the work in Digital Modules/Steps 1-6 with their colleagues, in order to better connect these steps to the history and culture of their schools and local communities in an authentic and meaningful manner.

When School Leadership Teams begin the work of Digital Module/Step 8 and re-imagine school structures to C3 teams, they must first work out the details on paper within the School Leadership Team. This step is necessary, whether your school is one that is grounded in Cornerstone 1 and the understanding of historical educational practices of marginalization, or your school requires more time to complete additional Cornerstone 1 activities such as a shared book reading, community panels, etc. Therefore, at the end of Year 1, the School Leadership Team will practice re-imagining how all staff are aligned on paper first, to build Collective Equity Capacity (CEC) through Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams. The following is a symbolic visual of C3 Teams. The image reflects three-grade level teachers and those educators who represent the disciplines required for that specific grade and student make-up to develop their Collective Equity Capacity.

Next, we list each of the stages and steps the School Leadership Teams will work through to re-imagine and intentionally create Co-Plan to C0-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams.

Stage 1: List the Staff and Certification

Table 1:  Step a: In the ICS Application section, you’ll list all staff in the school (general and special educators, title staff, reading and math interventionist, Learners who are Learning English, at-risk, speech and language, advance learners support, etc.)

Stage 2: List the Student Data

2. List all grade levels in your school
3. List the number of students in each grade level
4. List number of students by disabilities, ELL, receiving Tier 2 and 3 interventions, and advanced learners
5. Align staff to function as Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn teams (C3) based on needs of the students and staff expertise.
6. Add FTE for related service staff
7. Confirm appropriate certification

Schools were created for students who they believe represent the “perceived normative”, and segregated and marginalizing programs and practices were created for students outside of that normative. Therefore, it is essential when re-imagining the educational structure, to begin with how the school is currently structured, such as by grade levels, multi-age, courses, academies, etc. In the elementary example provided, the school is structured by traditional grade levels.

Table 2:  Step b. In the ICS Application section, you’ll list all grade levels in your school

In Table 3, Step c, the School Leadership Team will list the number of students at each grade level. This includes any child that is educated in a clustered or separate program. Specifically, when we use the language “all learners”, we mean that every single child that attends your school and their specific grade level.

Table 3:  Step c. List the number of students in each grade level

Step d includes any child that is educated in a clustered or separate program. Specifically, when we use the language “all learners”, we mean every single child that attends your school and their specific grade level.

Table 4:  Step d. List the number of students by disabilities, ELL, receiving Tier 2 and 3 interventions, and advanced learners

In Table 5, Step e, the School Leadership Team begins the process of re-aligning all staff to specific grade-level teams. The alignment of staff is completed by acknowledging the needs of the students at each grade level, as well as the expertise of the general education teachers at each grade level. The most important goal is to create teams that have complementary skills across individuals.

As an example, if the content teachers assigned to that grade level do not have a strong reading background, then it may be important to align the reading specialist to that specific grade level team for a greater percentage of the time, and less time on a team where teachers have such expertise. As a second example, if there is a child at a specific grade level who has a specific need, such as autism, it will be important to align the special educator to that team who has greater expertise and certification (when appropriate) in the area of autism.

Table 5:  Step e. Align staff to function as Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams based on needs of the students and staff expertise.

In Table 6, Step f requires the School Leadership Team to list the related service staff that should be aligned to each C3 Team based on the needs of the students in that specific grade level.

Table 6:  Step f. Add FTE for related service staff.

Lastly, in Table 7, Step h, the School Leadership Team confirms that all educators have the appropriate certification for the grade level in which they are assigned.

Table 7:  Step h. Confirm appropriate certification

The following is a completed template for the realignment of an Elementary School to function in a proactive manner through Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams.

Table 8:  Completed Example of Elementary Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Serve (C3) Team

Stage 3: Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Planning Times

In Table 9, the School Leadership Team specifies when each C3 Team will meet to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn. Many schools work hard to provide consistent times for C3 Teams to meet. For example, meeting opposite specials, before or after school, during early release opportunities, etc. Scheduling time for co-planning is difficult, but is one task, if not the most important task, a School and District Leadership Team can address. When determining meeting times, it will be important to attend to those staff members who are split between two or more grade levels and thus schedule times meetings on different days and/or times. In this manner, all staff on all C3 Teams are consistently able to attend each Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn meeting.

Table 9:  C3 Team Meeting Times

References:

Frattura, E., & Capper, C. (2006). “Segregated Programs Versus Integrated Comprehensive Service Delivery for All Learners: Underlying Principles and Implications for School Leaders.” Remedial and Special Education, 27(6),355- 364. 

Hattie, J. (2011). Which strategies best enhance teaching and learning in higher education? In D. Mashek & E. Y. Hammer (Eds.), Empirical research in teaching and learning: Contributions from social psychology (pp. 130–142). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395341.ch8

Steele, Claude. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi : and other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York :W.W. Norton & Company.

---