******* High School Equity Audit

1. ******* High SchoolEquity Audit

2. Systemic Equity Teacher Quality Equity + Programmatic Equity = Achievement Equity Equitable teacher quality as defined by proportional numbers of teachers with advanced degrees, low teacher mobility, and documented best practices used in the classroom plus equitable programming that has proportional percentages represented by the student population in areas of special education, gifted and talented education, with discipline referrals representative of the student population should theoretically yield achievement equity that is defined by success in standardized testing, graduation rates, and annual yearly progress.

3. Systemic Equity Unfortunately, many of us, teachers and administrators, have little real knowledge about our students, their home lives, their families, and their communities, and this space of ignorance is subsequently often occupied by prejudices and biases that are negative for the students and, thus, become a trap for equity (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004, p. 612).

4. Equity Audit Team Members XXXXXX-Aspiring School Leader XXXXXX – Community Principal XXXXXX – Campus Principal XXXXXXXXXX– English Teacher XXXXXXXXXXXX– Math Teacher XXXXXXXXX– Science Teacher XXXXXXXXX– English Teacher XXXXXXXX– Science Teacher XXXXXXXXXX– SpanishTeacher

5. Main Components of an Equity Audit Teacher Quality Equity Programmatic Equity Achievement Equity

6. Teacher Quality Equity • Defined by NCLB (Skrla et al., 2009, p 31) • Certified / licensed • College degree • Demonstrated content knowledge • We used • Certification • Bachelors / Masters Degrees • Years experience

7. Teacher Quality Equity • Data • District Report • ODE website • Ask

8. Teacher Quality Equity

9. Teacher Quality Equity

10. Teacher Quality Equity

11. Teacher Quality Equity

12. Teacher Quality Equity

13. Teacher Quality Equity

14. Programmatic Equity • “the quality of educational programs into which students are placed or from which they are excluded” (Skrla et al., 2009, p 41) • No data available to compare advanced, standard, and special ed classes based on: • Gender • Race • Economic background • Discipline not tracked for these factors

15. Programmatic Equity

16. Programmatic Equity

17. Programmatic Equity

18. Achievement Equity • Student achievement • “equitable achievement on low level state test is not true achievement equity when large gaps remain on other , higher-level measures of student performance” (Skrla et al., 2009, p 49) • State tests • Drop out rates • Graduation tracks • SAT / ACT / AP / IB results • We looked at • State test scores • OGT /Proficiency scores • Graduation rates • ACT scores

19. Achievement Equity

20. Achievement Equity

21. Achievement Equity

22. Achievement Equity

23. Achievement Equity

24. Achievement Equity

25. Achievement Equity

26. Achievement Equity

27. Achievement Equity

28. Achievement Equity

29. Achievement Equity

30. Achievement Equity

31. Discussion • In discussing equity with the principal I realized that he sees equity as an important part of education, but knows that true intentions will always shine through. • We must work to dispel negative beliefs about children and start looking at the whole child. • Empower teachers who are making a positive difference and learn from their success. • It is important for Administrators to model and teach best practices and hold teachers accountable to those actions. • In our school it is apparent that we need to define what academic success is and how we are going to measure it.

32. Discussion • In discussing equity with the other team members I realized that these teachers are the ones that need to be empowered to lead other staff members as they understand the needs of our students and how to instruct in a way that is meaningful to them • When looking at the question of how many teachers are conscious of equity in our building, this team decided concluded the number of teachers aware of inequities is 20 percent. • This alludes to the fact that we have a problem with the adults in our school and that may be the reason why our children are not performing at high levels.

33. Drawing Conclusions from Data The data clearly indicate our students are performing far below the state on the ACT. We administer the test to all of our students and therefore we are performing far below the standard for college readiness.

34. Drawing Conclusions from Data The data suggest a significant difference in the race/ethnicity of students and teachers, which may call for the teachers to understand a more culturally relevant pedagogy.

35. Proposed Solutions As administrators we must be able to understand how to assess and gather data on student learning then disaggregate the data for better understanding, then create an action plan (Sanders, 2008). An action plan to address the areas proposed in the audit should include ways to increase culturally relevant pedagogy and critical thinking skills.

36. Proposed Solutions Educators often have a deficit view of the students and blame the families and the community for failing the child before they even come to school (see McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). These scholars offer viable solutions to eliminating the deficit view including neighborhood walks, gathering oral histories, and three way conferencing. All of which are viable options for including the community in the education of the children.

37. Final Reflection In conclusion, we must understand the students we serve is our number one priority and whatever means it takes to provide them with a high quality education, we must be willing to do so. We know we must do a better job of teaching educators to value our children and all that they bring to the table, how to challenge our students, and how to incorporate a culturally relevant pedagogy in an effort to keep them engaged and interested in their education.

38. References Anderson, G. L., (2001). Promoting Educational Equity in a Period of Growing Social Inequity the Silent Contradictions of Texas Reform Discourse. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 320 – 332. Bartlett, L., & Little, J.W. (2010). The Teacher Workforce and Problems of Educational Equity. Review of Research in Education, 34, 285 - 328. Castagno, A. E., (2008). Improving Academic Achievement, But at What Cost?: The Demands of Diversity and Equity at Birch Middle School. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 11(1), 1 - 9. Grogan, M. (2004). Keeping a Critical, Postmodern Eye on Educational Leadership in the United States: In Appreciation of Bill Foster.Education Administration Quarterly, 40(2), 222 – 239. Karpinski, C. F., (2006). And the Band Played On? Social Justice and the Wilson Middle School Arts Program. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(4), 41 - 52. Luo, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling for High School Principals‘ Data-Driven Decision Making: An Analysis of Information Use Environments.Education Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 603 – 634. McKenzie, K. B., (2009). Pragmatism or Gaming the System? One School District’s Solution to Low Test Scores. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 12(4), 17 - 28. McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J.J. (2004). Equity Traps: A Useful Construct for Preparing Principals to Lead Schools That Are Successful With Racially Diverse Students. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601 - 632. McNeal, L.R., (2009). Using Diverse Data to Develop and Sustain School, Family and Community Partnerships: A District Case Study. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 36(4), 530 – 545. Sanders, M.G., (2008). The Re-Segregation of Public Education Now and After the End of Brown v. Board of Education. Education and Urban Society, 41(5), 562 – 574. Talbert-Johnson, C., (2004). Structural Inequities and the Achievement Gap in Urban Schools. Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 22 – 36