Tag Archive for: Equity Non-Negotiables

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in lower-income areas, often predominantly attended by students of color, face underfunding, larger class sizes, outdated materials, and lower teacher salaries.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.

, , ,

7 Steps to Literacy Equity in the Science of Reading

Introduction

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 35% of fourth graders in the United States read at a proficient level, and the gap between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds is stark.

This statistic underscores a critical issue in our education system: literacy disparities. Literacy equity is not just a goal; it is essential for ensuring that every student has the opportunity to succeed–not just in school–but in life. For school administrators and leaders, fostering literacy equity is a vital responsibility that can profoundly impact student outcomes and overall community well-being.

What Is Literacy Equity?

Literacy equity ensures that all students, regardless of their background, have access to the resources and support they need to become proficient readers.  Literacy equity requires a commitment to providing proactive, integrated, equitable literacy instruction to all students, addressing systemic inequities, and removing barriers that disproportionately affect historically marginalized and minoritized groups.

Current Disparities in Literacy Achievement

The current state of literacy in schools reveals significant disparities. Students who experience poverty, students of color, students who are multi-lingual, and those identified with disabilities often face systemic barriers that impede their literacy development. These disparities are not just academic concerns; they have profound social and economic implications.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), an access gap persists (often defined as an achievement gap) between students from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds who are often removed from core instruction for literacy instruction in ability groups, separate classrooms, or separate academic tracks. Students who identify as Black and Hispanic and students whose families experience poverty, consistently score lower in reading proficiency compared to their peers who identify as White and are from families experiencing affluence.

However, the disparities in student literacy simply reflect disparities within all of education. Our entire education system has been designed around White, middle-class, ableist, English-only, cis-gendered norms, and thus the foundation of the education system as a whole responds to a narrow normative that does not exist nor represent the expansive intersectional identities defining America’s student population. Our education system continues to be complicit in creating disparities and educational harm, as documented and substantiated by decades of research and lived realities.

Literacy rates can also be a predictor of the so-called “school-to-prison pipeline,” particularly for students of color. The school-to-prison pipeline is a well-documented concept acknowledged by the Department of Justice, which states, “The link between academic failure and delinquency, violence, and crime is welded to reading failure.” Over 70% of inmates in America’s prisons cannot read above a fourth-grade level. Research shows that students who struggle with reading are more likely to disengage from school, leading to higher dropout rates and increased risk of incarceration.

These alarming statistics explain why achieving literacy equity as part of high-quality teaching and learning for every child is critical to broader equity in schools and in society.

So, the question remains: How do we improve literacy for all students? The answer may lie in the Science of Reading.

What is the Science of Reading?

The Science of Reading is a vast body of scientifically-based research that outlines the most effective methods for teaching reading. It synthesizes findings from psychology, neuroscience, and education to provide a comprehensive understanding of how students learn to read. As humans, our brains are not hard-wired to naturally read; therefore, brain-based research has shown that reading is a skill that has to be explicitly taught. This research emphasizes the importance of systematic, explicit instruction in the foundational skills of reading. The goal is to use evidence-based practices to ensure all students, across the spectrum of learning, are proactively taught and develop strong reading skills.

Key Components of the Science of Reading:

  • Phonemic Awareness: Understanding and manipulating sounds in words. This skill is crucial for learning to decode words.
  • Phonics: Linking sounds to letters and using this knowledge to read and spell. Systematic phonics instruction helps students understand the relationship between letters and sounds.
  • Fluency: Reading with speed, accuracy, and proper expression. Fluent readers can focus on comprehension because they do not need to decode words laboriously.
  • Vocabulary: Knowing the meaning of a wide variety of words and how to use them. A robust vocabulary supports reading comprehension and overall language development.
  • Comprehension: Understanding and interpreting what is read. Comprehension strategies help students make sense of texts and engage with reading material

The Science of Reading framework is designed to be inclusive of all students. For example:

  • Students with Learning Disabilities: Structured literacy approaches, which are part of the Science of Reading, have been shown to be effective for students with dyslexia and other reading disabilities.
  • Students who are bilingual or multi-lingual: Phonics instruction helps these students build foundational skills in English, while vocabulary and comprehension strategies support their language acquisition, development, and reading proficiency.

The Science of Reading Legislation

This article from Education Week outlines the rise of “Science of Reading” laws across the United States. Since 2013, 38 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation mandating evidence-based reading instruction. These laws were inspired by Mississippi’s success, where significant improvements in reading scores were observed after implementing structured, phonics-based teaching methods. Mississippi was not the first state to implement such policies. In fact, Mississippi’s legislation was based on a 2002 law in Florida that saw the Sunshine State achieve some of the country’s highest reading scores. However, educators on both sides of the aisle are hopeful that similar legislation will improve reading scores across the country.

Science of Reading legislation–which varies from state to state–typically includes provisions for teacher training, certification requirements, professional development, specific evidence-based curricula, and early intervention strategies. Though this legislation can be promising, successful implementation is complex and requires more than legislative changes alone.

Wisconsin Act 20

One recent example of Science of Reading legislation is Wisconsin’s Act 20, which mandates evidence-based reading instruction in schools. This legislation requires that reading instruction be grounded in the Science of Reading.

Wisconsin’s new reading legislation, signed into law by Governor Tony Evers in 2023, marks a significant shift towards phonics-based reading instruction in the state’s education system. The law, which includes a $50 million investment, mandates the establishment of an Office of Literacy to provide support through 64 full-time literacy coaches. These coaches will aid teachers in implementing the new phonics-centered curriculum, which focuses on phonemic awareness, vocabulary building, reading fluency, and oral language development. The aim is to replace previous methods that relied on pictures, word cues, and memorization, which have been less effective. The legislation also requires individualized reading plans for students who are below grade level and prohibits the use of the “three-cueing” method of literacy instruction beginning in the 2024-25 school year, according to Wisconsin Public Radio, WisPolitics.

The law has garnered bipartisan support, with proponents highlighting its potential to address Wisconsin’s reading proficiency crisis, particularly among students who identify as Black in Wisconsin who have historically faced the largest opportunity gaps in the nation.

Our Take: Leverage Literacy Legislation to Advance Literacy Equity

At ICS, we embrace the new Science of Reading legislation–and specifically, WI Act 20–as a means to advance equity and high-quality teaching and learning for all students–depending on how we interpret and in turn, implement this legislation.

Regardless of policy intentions, policy alone does not create, accelerate, or sustain student growth and success. Often, policies are compliance-driven and not quality-driven, resulting in meeting the letter of reading regulations but in doing so, maybe in opposition to what research suggests works best and never reaching the spirit in which the reading regulations were written.

We usually interpret the implementation of any policy, including reading policy, through our own beliefs and assumptions about students and learning. If we believe that students learn best when ability-grouped, tracked, or pulled out, we will then interpret and implement the reading policy in practice to ability-group, track, or pull students out for reading instruction–even if the policy does not explicitly require this.

Prior to the most recent reading legislation, when students struggled with reading, districts typically attempted to fix the student rather than examining the district reading system as a whole to determine systemic issues contributing to reading inequities.

When attempting to fix the student in reading, districts typically would ability group students in classrooms based on their reading levels or pull students out of classrooms for reading instruction. We can see from the previously cited national reading data which was the genesis for the new reading legislation, that these approaches did not work for most students.

Separate reading groups, reading programs, and pull-out instruction or special reading courses offer quick fixes for adults but are not focused on long-term solutions for students, which inevitably results in higher costs and diminished equity in the long run.

Reading practices that separate students into ability groups or pull-out reading instruction, by default, do not develop the collective reading capacity of educators to competently teach reading to a range of students and the spectrum of learning needs.

To illustrate, if the second-grade teacher sends students out of the room for reading help, then the next year, when students need reading help, they will send students out again. Sending students out of the room this year will not increase their capacity to teach students reading next year. Thus, the way that separate programs and classrooms de-skill teachers and limit their growth is yet another hidden cost of reading instruction that segregates students.

But If We Don’t Ability-Group Students for Reading Instruction, How Do We Teach Reading and Meet the Legislation Requirements?

Seven Steps to Leverage the Science of Reading Legislation for Equity

We identify 7 steps for districts to ensure that they implement reading legislation proactively to eliminate rather than perpetuate inequities.

  1. Alignment with Equity Non-Negotiables

The implementation of the Science of Reading should align with a district’s equity goals and equity non-negotiables, which in turn align with reading research and evidence-based practices that benefit all students. Doing so will ensure that the Science of Reading implementation will support the diverse needs of all learners.

  1. All Teachers as Proficient Reading Teachers via Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (™) (C3) Teams

The Science of Reading legislation expects all teachers, especially at the elementary and middle school levels to become proficient reading teachers. Providing comprehensive professional learning, development and coaching for teachers in the Science of Reading is crucial for successful implementation to obtain the skills necessary to deliver effective reading instruction. However, such professional development will not be enough.

In addition, it will be important for districts to realign staff to function in Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to proactively co-design reading instruction such that students are provided reading practice throughout the entire school day. Within these teams, staff share their reading expertise and resources, continually building each other’s capacity to teach reading.

  1. Reading Curriculum That is Identity Affirmative

The curriculum to implement the Science of Reading should be inclusive and culturally responsive, ensuring that all students see themselves reflected in their learning materials. Identity safety is essential to maximize learning and develop proficient readers; thus, districts must ensure that educators operate within an Identity-Relevant Teaching and Learning framework. An identity-affirmative curriculum incorporates diverse texts and materials that resonate with students’ experiences and backgrounds, ensuring identity safety and asset-based learning environments.

  1. Evidence-Based Practices That Celebrate Student Differences

Science of Reading implementation toward equity begins with the understanding that all students have reading gifts and talents regardless of their varying skills within the phonics scope and sequence. These student differences should be celebrated, affirmed, and supported instead of focusing on what students cannot do and their deficits and trying to only fix these deficits.

  1. Personalized Whole Class Instruction

Most teachers rely on ability grouping to try to meet different students’ reading needs. Instead, the literature on the Science of Reading includes a model of instruction in which “all students do all things” approach in whole-class instruction. With this approach, all students are working on the same skill in pairs or small heterogeneous groups with a variety of materials that address their unique gifts and challenges.

  1. Assessment and Data-Driven Instruction Focused on the System

Using data to identify and address literacy gaps is vital. Tools and methods for effective assessment, such as formative assessments and progress monitoring, help tailor instruction to meet the needs of each student. Regular assessments provide valuable insights into student progress. Such data and assessment practices should be used to interrogate the coherence and effectiveness of the instructional literacy system and not as a lens on inaccurate and misplaced perceived deficits within students. Likewise, assessments should not be used to group students by ability in certain groups or pull students out for instruction

  1. Literacy equity reflects just one aspect of the district’s education system focused on high-quality teaching and learning for all.

Literacy equity should be viewed as one aspect of a district’s high-quality teaching and learning system. To successfully implement the previous six steps, policy and funding should be leveraged to rethink and restructure high-quality teaching and learning from the ground up using a comprehensive and systems-wide equity framework.

Even with the financial inequities between schools and districts, and even with the pressures of underfunded or unfunded federal and state mandates, school leaders have no excuse for not fully implementing a proactive education system for all learners. This requires rethinking educational structures, services, and instruction for all students in ways that will maximize staff and student achievement and growth, especially in reading and literacy. As leaders, we can no longer ethically continue to develop and sustain segregated programs, classrooms, and practices of grouping students by perceived ability when we have the research, knowledge, and skills to intentionally interrupt such deficit-based practices.

A comprehensive system redesign for equity involves re-evaluating and restructuring every aspect of the educational system to ensure that it promotes equity and supports every child. This includes revisiting policies, practices, curricula, and assessments to ensure they are aligned with a district’s equity goals and the Science of Reading methods.

Conclusion

In summary, literacy equity is a critical component of student success, and the Science of Reading provides a robust framework for achieving it. School administrators play a pivotal role in this process in ensuring new curricula, professional development and implementation are operationalized with an equity-first approach. By committing to this, districts can lead their schools towards a future where every student has the opportunity to become a proficient reader and confident life-long learner.

Together, we can improve literacy rates and create a more equitable education system where every student thrives.

,

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.”

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