******* High School Equity Audit. Systemic Equity. Teacher Quality Equity + Programmatic Equity = Achievement Equity
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
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.
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).
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
Teacher Quality Equity
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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