EQUITY AUDIT Date Name School Grades: XXXXXX Schools

EQUITY AUDITDate

NameSchoolGrades: XXXXXX Schools

What is systemic equity?

Systemic equity is about every student receiving a quality education. In the book, Equity Audits, a definition of systemic equity was provided by Scott (2001, March):

Systemic equity is defined as the transformed ways in which systems and individuals habitually operate to ensure that every learner-in whatever learning environment that learner is found-has the greatest opportunity to learn enhanced by the resources and supports necessary to achieve competence, excellence, independent, responsibility, and self-sufficiency for school and for life (Skrla, 2009, p. 6).

What is systemic equity?

Systemic equity should insure every student receives equal education in every part of the educational system. There are some principles of equity in education. It requires closing the achievement gaps in education.

Developing an Equity Audit TeamIn discussion with the school principal, we

chose to include people who are knowledgeable about placement of students, past and present school practices, programming decisions, and data analysis relevant to the achievement of students. We chose two teachers and a second grade/preschool parent. We included the preschool director, who also serves as an assistant principal at the school, and the district curriculum director. We used the questions posed by the principal in our initial meeting to guide our decisions.

Equity Audit Team Members

TEAM MEMBERS: All team members were interested and curious, eager to engage in discussion.

XXXX, Principal XXXX, Assistant Principal XXXX, Director of Curriculum XXXX, Special Education Director XXXX, 2nd Grade Teacher Parent Parent Parent

Main Components of Equity Audit

These areas address key indicators within a straightforward, manageable audit of equity patterns in a school, following the formula

Teacher Quality Equity + Programmatic Equity = Achievement Equity (Skrla, McKenzie & Scheurich, 2009)

Teacher Quality Audit Education and Experience Class Placement Practices

Programmatic Equity Audit Students with Disabilities Gifted and Talented English Language Learners Discipline

Achievement Equity Audit District State Proficiency Test Results Grade Level Assessments

Teacher Quality Education

QUESTIONS: To what extent are teachers

distributed equitably or inequitably across classes and student groups within the school?

How are students assigned to classrooms?


TEACHER CERTIFICATION and EXPERIENCE

15 second grade classrooms, all students assigned to a regular education classroom

Mean Class Size 22 students ALL teachers have equivalent areas of certification:

Kindergarten – Grade 8 or Grades 1-8 Years of Experience:

Range of Years 3 yr – 31 yr Mean Years of Experience 15.4 years (73% of

teachers have more than 10 years of experience)


CLASS PLACEMENT PRACTICESInformation gathered in discussion with team members

ALL STUDENTS ARE INDIVIDUALLY PLACED

Heterogeneous Groupings – based on DIBELS and grade level MATH assessments, teacher personality and style, special needs

“Clustering” – placements based on additional teacher certification areas/experience with specific student groups/2nd grade teacher requests

Observation of Student First Grade Teacher Recommendations – learning

style, temperament, leadership behaviors Parent Input Card – conflicts with specific student

Programmatic EquityStudents with Disabilities All students with disabilities are placed in regular

education classrooms, with increased levels of support throughout the day to address specific needs.

Students with disabilities are placed in predetermined “inclusive classrooms” based on teacher certification and past experience with students with similar needs; teachers often make requests for specific “clusters” of students.

XXXXXX Elementary was built XXXXX years ago. Prior to that, the majority of second grade teachers taught at another single-grade building, where most (60-70%) of the second grade population attended. Due to structural limitations of the main second grade building, a lower percentage of students attended a different building for second grade; this included most students with disabilities. Consequently, prior to XXXXX years ago, many teachers had not experienced students with disabilities in their classrooms.

Programmatic EquityStudents with Disabilities

QUESTIONS:

Do the participation rates of students with disabilities match the proportional representation of students with disabilities in the district?

How do numbers of students identified as students with disabilities compare with state percentages?

Are there groups of students (Low Socioeconomic Level, Racial Minority) who are over- identified within the group of students with disabilities?


There are 57 second graders identified with disabilities at XXXXX. Total enrollment is 489 students. Percentage of students with disabilities: 17.3%

Total district enrollment: 7,789District percentage of students with disabilities: 16.7%

State percentage of students with disabilities: 15.1%


Percentage of special education students with low SES at XXXXXX: 8.8%

Percentage of students with low SES at XXXX: 6.7%

Percentage of students from racial minority groups enrolled in special education at XXXX: 10.5%

Percentage of students from racial minority groups at XXXXX: 9%

Programmatic EquityEnglish Language Learners

QUESTIONS:

Do the participation rates of students receiving English Language Learner services match the proportional representation of students receiving ELL in the district?

Should we be servicing XXXXX students?

Programmatic EquityEnglish Language Learners

Percentage of XXXXX graders at XXXXX receiving ELL services: 0.9%

District percentage of ELL students: 0.8%

Percentage of XXXXX students with communication disabilities who come from homes with a second language: 7.8%

Percentage of XXXXX students receiving ELL services: 0%

Programmatic EquityGifted and Talented

QUESTIONS:

Do the participation rates of students identified as Gifted and Talented match the proportional representation of Gifted and Talented students across the district?

How do numbers of students identified as Gifted and Talented compare with state percentages?

Programmatic EquityGifted and Talented

Percentage of students identified as Gifted and Talented at XXXXXX: 7% (elementary students assessed only upon request of parent)

District Percentage of students identified as Gifted and Talented: 44% (due to significantly higher math scores across this district, and overall, higher cognitive quotients as predicted by state achievement tests, specific GT identification begins at 4th grade)

State Percentage of Students identified as Gifted and Talented: 19%

Programmatic EquityDiscipline

At the second grade level, only one student has been formally disciplined this school year, with one day of in-school suspension.

Through team discussion, it was determined that classroom discipline is teacher-specific. Discipline philosophies have been cyclically implemented throughout the district, but no particular program is mandated by school leaders. Example programs include a “Red Light/Green Light” behavioral system and the Love and Logic program.

Achievement Equity

QUESTIONS

What predictions can be made about the achievement expectations at XXXXX?

Across the district, what patterns can be found in the proficiency scores of students in non-dominant demographic groups (minority, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, limited English proficient)?

Achievement Equity

XXXXX students do not take state assessments. We can predict performance by looking at the fall semester proficiency test scores of the third grade class. Data is available in the areas of reading and math (2007-08): Reading: XXX/489 pass rate 97% Math: XXX/399 pass rate 94%

XXXXX grade Terra Nova test results from 2008-09 yielded an average standard score of 108, compared with a national mean of 100.

Achievement Equity

We can look at district wide performance across demographic categories:

Minority 95.5% v. Non-Minority 96% Disability 81% v. Without Disability 98.8% LEP 77.8% v. Non-LEP 96% Economically Disadvantaged (ED) 81.6%

Non – ED 96.3%

Achievement Equity-Reading

Reading

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-Minority

Minority

Reading

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-SWD

SWD

Reading

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-LEP

LEP

Reading

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-ED ED

Visual Representation of Reading Scores - three sequential years of assessment

Achievement Equity-Math

Mathematics

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-Minority

Minority

Mathematics

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-SWD

SWD

Mathematics

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-LEP

LEP

Mathematics

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

05-06 06-07 07-08

Non-ED ED

Visual Representation of Math Scores - three sequential years of assessment

Discussion – Equity Consciousness

Do we have an awareness of equity issues with respect to broad categories such as race and income level AND of more subtle “subgroups” that might exist within our highly homogeneous student population? What are those subgroups? Is there an interest/need to address these areas?

How much does “past practice” or “status quo” play into decisions made?

Discussion – Equity Consciousness

TEACHERS’ REPORTED LEVELS OF EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS

Teachers were surveyed and asked to rate themselves on a scale of equity consciousness:

1. No Equity Consciousness2. Limited Equity Consciousness3. Inauthentic Equity Consciousness4. Vascillating Equity Consciousness 40%5. Authentic Equity Consciousness 60%

Discussions

“We don’t really have those subgroups here”…more than one person started from this perspective when we engaged in “challenging conversation”

Inequities may exist when there are differences in the level of “connectedness” between teacher and student-these are more subtle but significant factors of personality and attitude which affect how teachers and students relate

Inequities in acquisition of materials for new and “veteran” teachers- not thinking to coach new teachers

Inequities in planning and collaborative professional development time (PLCs) between buildings brings about inequities for children

Discussions

Perceptions of students based on how they are dressed – other children can be mean (parent)

Coaching child with words and actions to counter cultural attitudes about children with disabilities (parent)

Issues of “cultural identity” for children who do not fit the majority culture, culturally insensitive practices

More than one team member acknowledged district wide use of the phrase “trailer park kids”

“Achievement” for students culturally defined – Hudson has culture of “high achieving” students (high test scores), which makes the norm higher

DiscussionsClassroom groupings

Some teachers do not feel adequately trained to teach students with disabilities or those not fitting the “norm”

Fear, lack of experience “I want a good class next year.” Burnout, needing a change in order to remain effective

over time Teacher personality a significant factor in “matching”

a child – focus on self esteem of child

Teacher expectations- vary expecting performance based on knowledge of student

abilities Some teachers may lower expectations or rationalize

lower student performance once they have received the cognitive quotient scores from district wide achievement testing (higher grades)

Drawing Conclusions from Data

TEACHER EQUITY

The school spends a considerable amount of time choosing a good “match” between children’s learning styles and personalities and those of the teachers. The goal is a heterogeneous classroom with “clusters” of students representing different skill sets and learning styles. While the individualized approach is a strength, there remains a high level of subjectivity, especially when parents have specific requests.


STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Do the participation rates of students with disabilities match the proportional representation of students

with disabilities in the district? There is a slightly higher percentage of students identified at XXXX, which may suggest that we take a closer look at objectivity in the assessment process and alternatives to special education.

How do numbers of students identified as students with disabilities compare with state percentages?XXXXXX’s percentage of students with disabilities is 2.2 percentage points higher than the state average.

Are there groups of students (Low Socioeconomic Level, Racial Minority) who are over- identified within the group of students with disabilities?There is a slightly higher percentage of students identified at XXXXXX, which may suggest that we take a closer look at objectivity in the assessment process and alternatives to special education.


GIFTED AND TALENTED

Do the participation rates of students identified as Gifted and Talented match the proportional representation of Gifted and Talented students across the district? The numbers are lower because they only reflect those students whose family members requested the assessment.

How do numbers of students identified as Gifted and Talented compare with state percentages? MUCH HIGHER across the district


ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Do the participation rates of students receiving English Language Learner services match the proportional representation of students receiving ELL in the district? XXXXX’s percentage of ELL students is 2.2 percentage points

higher than the district percentage, with the exception of preschool, which offers not ELL services.

Should we be servicing Preschool students?YES


DISCIPLINE There is not an objective, equitable

system of discipline across classrooms, but general similarities from teacher to teacher. Nothing is specifically mandated by the school leader.


ACHIEVEMENT What predictions can be made about the achievement

expectations for second graders at XXXXX School? Expectations are high, based on the history of high test performance and the average score of 108 on the proficiency exams.

Across the district, what patterns can be found in the proficiency scores of students in non-dominant demographic groups (minority, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, limited English proficient)? Significant differences between students with disabilities, limited English skills, and those in lower socioeconomic groups were noted, but not when looking only at minority racial groups.

Proposed Solution #1

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

The first solution we propose is the use of differentiated instruction by all teachers, and we should consider the use of “Response to Intervention” strategies to resolve student concerns before identifying as “special education”, especially for English Language Learners and children from low socioeconomic levels.


Through the data and discussion, the number of the students in special education is increasing every year, and there are large numbers of special education students in this district. The teachers should try to use different instructions and teaching skills with the students, and give the students time and space to improve, and then label them as special education or not.


Value awareness, personal growth, and change as outcomes of the learning process: Teaching that balances different learning styles and is explicitly organized around goals of social awareness, knowledge, social action, although proportions of these three goals change in relation to student interest and readiness (Marshall, 2008).


Before we label a student with a disability, we should try to use different teaching skills, more care to the student who may be just needing differentiated instructions, and the result will be much different. The teachers should treat the students equally to make sure the students can receive the best education.


Brown’s (2006) empirical research explores the relationship between particular instructional strategies and the development of the leader’s awareness and actions concerning issues of diversity and equity.

This represents a link in the discourse on teaching strategies for developing leaders for social justice (Marshall, 2008).


Students with disabilities continue to be viewed as “special,” often merely tolerated, seen as a burden, or expected to assimilate rather than supported to be active members of the classroom community (Marshall, 2008, p.175).


The “Major Elements of Social Justice Education Practice” framework asks educators to

1. Balance the emotional and cognitive components of the learning process;

2. Acknowledge and support the personal (the individual student’s experience) while illuminating the systemic (the interactions among social groups);

3. Utilize reflection and experience as tool for student-centered learning; and

4. Value awareness, professional growth, and change as outcomes of the learning process (Marshall, 2008).

Proposed Solution #1 What is response to intervention ？

A practice that includes: High-quality instruction matched to student needs The use of learning rate over time and level of

performance to make instructional decisions

Increased intensity in critical areas of reading Explicit and systematic instruction Increased opportunities to practice Responsive intervention (National Center on Response to Intervention)


The second solution we propose is that English Language Learning instruction should be added for preschool, and we should serve for the second language learner.

There is no second language learning for preschoolers in this school, but there are some students from the other countries, whose native language is not English. These students need the help from English Language Learning instruction. We should be more aware of the students with second language learning needs.


In many schools, students who are English Language Learners (ELLs) are ignored and they are not served well in general or special education (Klinger, Articles & Mendez Barletta, 2006; McCardle, Mele-McCarthy & Leos, 2005). ELLs educated in English-immersion classes had a greater likelihood of being placed in special education settings than ELLs who participated in other language programs. (Articles, Rueda, Salazar & Higareda, 2005; Marshall, 2008).


Barrera Metz (1988), Harry et al., (2002), Maldonado-Colon (1986), and Ochoa et al., (1997) found that language and culture were not adequately considered during the assessment process.

Psychologists and others tended to ignore or give insufficient attention to students’ native languages, sometimes relying on a teacher’s or other’s opinion of the English proficiency of the student.

(National Center on Response to Intervention)

Proposed Solution #2 Yet more research is needed to better

understand the interactions of these factors with other aspects of first and second language acquisition, as well as the most valid ways of assessing language and literacy skills in both language.

Harry et al. (2002) suggest acknowledging the arbitrariness of the assessment process and identification decisions as a starting place for discussions about more useful and valid ways of determining how best to help students.

(National Center on Response to Intervention)


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The third solution we propose is that the teachers’ choice of students should not be based on their preferences; the teachers have the responsibility to teach every student in the class.

Some teachers would argue about the “clusters” of students in the class. The school leaders should help the teachers with their professional development, to increase awareness to teach every one in the class and achieve cultural proficiency.


CULTURAL PROFICIENCY

Culturally proficient educators adjust their behaviors and values to accommodate the full range of diversity represented by their school populations. They recognize that some individuals from minority cultures find success in varying degrees in schools where only the dominant culture is acknowledged and valued (Lindsey, 2009).

Proposed Solution #3 Some teachers are unaware that the

students are all different. They have to adapt themselves with different instructional techniques for the students, not to ignore them. The leaders in the school should provide the professional development in cultural proficiency.

Unawareness of the need to adapt means failing to recognize the need to make personal and school changes in response to the diversity of the people with whom one interacts, perhaps because it never occurs to anyone in the dominant group that is a problem (Lindsey, 2009).

Final Reflection

TEAM FINDINGS – How did team members respond?

Was interesting to see the numerical data to support the questions Not surprised that Gifted and Talented and Students with Disabilities

are over-represented when compared with the state Hadn’t thought much about the lower socioeconomic demographic

group…Hmmmm Interesting to think about that low average to average learner and how

they might struggle in Hudson Glad to see numbers supporting need for differentiated instruction or

some shifts in thinking, especially given past practices of teachers requesting specific student groupings

Look at the trends for the ED group…this may be reflecting some changes in the socioeconomic makeup of Hudson

Final Reflection

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS – How did team members respond?

Reflective Cautious Worried about stress of meeting all students’ needs in

addition to curricular mandates Interested, but practical…will need to proceed slowly with

changes Agreement about personality, attitude, areas less

objectively defined, such as empathy as significant factors impacting student experiences and learning

Need for cultural sensitivity…let’s think about this some more How to balance it all? Administrators more likely to agree with the Differentiated Instruction Current practices do not support an RTI approach

Final Reflection To what extent, if any, will the campus school leader

encourage this team to continue their work on your campus? Why or why not?At this time, I think it is unlikely the school leader will adopt the needed paradigm shift to seriously address the majority of these issues, unless there are parent-generated complaints related to them Why?

1. The leader seems to agree to meet with us out of obligation rather than a true interest. The amount of time he schedules is brief. This seemed more of an obligation to help us complete a graduate school assignment than to address the social injustices facing children and families who live on the margins; I always felt like his responses were guarded; he watched the clock a lot and allowed others to interrupt us. I would classify his equity consciousness as “inauthentic.”2. Based on the teacher survey, most people cannot or would not rate themselves as needing to improve their equity awareness…many of them are content with “status quo.”

References

Marshall, C. & Oliva, M.(2008). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Pearson Education, Inc.

National Center on Response to Intervention: http://www.rti4success.org/

References

Randall B. Lindsey, R.B., Robins, K.N., & Terrell, R.D.(2009) Cultural proficiency: A manual for school leaders. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Skrla, L., McKenzie, L.B. & Scheurich, J.J.(2009) Using equity audits to create equitable and excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Documents

EQUITY AUDIT Date Name School Grades: XXXXXX Schools