Transcript 20140708 Equity Audit_audit commissionx

Equity Audit: Purpose,
Orientation, and Initial Findings
Atlanta Board of Education Audit
Commission
Rubye K. Sullivan, PhD
7/8/2014
1
Context
The Equity Audit is the first project emerging from
the Atlanta Educational Research Board (AERB).
The AERB is a collaboration between the Office of
Research & Evaluation for School Improvement and
Georgia State University's College of Education
establish to develop a common research agenda
that is beneficial to the children of our city.
7/8/2014
2
“Systemic equity can only be created in an
environment that embraces a set of underlying
assumptions about the right of every learner to
receive the best possible public education.”
- Bradley Scott
7/8/2014
3
What is Systemic Equity?
“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,
independence, responsibility, and selfsufficiency for school and for life.” (Scott, 2001,
p.6)
7/8/2014
4
Equity versus Equality
7/8/2014
5
Brown v. Board 60th anniversary
• Monumental legislation – a result of a
collection of cases spanning over a 100 year
period
• Strategy of using social science research to
inform a ruling
“Change does not roll in on the wheels of
inevitability, but comes through continuous
struggle.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
7/8/2014
6
PURPOSE
7/8/2014
7
Goals of an Equity Audit
• The goals of an equity audit are dependent on
the purpose as defined by the requesting party.
• The Equity Audit commissioned by our district
focused on a comprehensive view of equity.
• The vision of systemic equity requires“…the use
of equity audits as a practical tool for educators
and leaders to promote equity across the entirety
of the public school system.” (p. 9)
7/8/2014
8
Goals of our Equity Audit
Short Term Goals



Disaggregate data to reveal
information on potential
inequities;
Generate discussion of
uncomfortable issues (Skrla,
Scheurich, Garcia, Nolly, 2004);
and
Provide a corrective to potential
biases (deficit thinking, etc.) that
may affect policy (Valencia,
1997).
Long Term Goal

Document progress toward
“Systemic Equity” (Scott, 2001)
where resources are allocated in
a way that is consistent with the
district's desire to provide
equitable opportunities for all
students to achieve their highest
potential.
Framework necessary for interpretation
ORIENTATION
7/8/2014
10
Areas Examined
• Teacher Effectiveness Equity
• Programmatic Equity
• Infrastructure Equity
7/8/2014
11
Data Sources
• 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) from the
US Census Bureau
• Administrative data from the 2012-13 school year
– These sources include data from the student
information system (Infinite Campus), our Human
Resources system (Lawson), assessment files, Teacher
and Leader Effectiveness platform, financial data
reported to the state, along with other departmentspecific data sources (e.g., facilities, PTA and
Foundation budgets).
7/8/2014
12
Significance
• Statistically significant – pay
attention to the confidence
intervals.
• Practically significant – is
the difference meaningful?
7/8/2014
13
Definitions
• Academically disadvantaged – any student who did not reach
proficiency on at least one subject of the CRCT or the EOCT
• Economically disadvantaged – any student eligible for free or
reduced lunch
• Positive learning environment – teacher provides a well-managed,
safe and orderly learning environment that is conducive to learning
and encourages respect for all.
• Academically challenging learning environment – The teacher
creates a student-centered, academic environment in which
teaching and learning occur at high levels and students are selfdirected learners.
• Differentiated instruction – The teacher challenges and supports
each student’s learning by providing appropriate content and
developing skills which address individual learning differences.
7/8/2014
14
Consequential Validity
• Messick (1989) was the first to introduce consequences
to the validity argument.
• Shepard (1993, 1997) introduced the need to
investigate both positive and negative consequences
during the validity argument.
• Apply the notion of consequential validity to consider
potential unintended consequences, both positive and
negative, when making district-level decisions.
• Explicitly consider the unintended consequences
related to how the decision might perpetuate systemic
inequities or help address them.
7/8/2014
15
INITIAL FINDINGS
7/8/2014
16
“There exist substantial variations across
schools in the APS system in all of the areas
where equity was examined. These include
differences in indicators of teacher quality,
academic programming, financial resources
(particularly enhanced by PTA and foundation
funds), playgrounds, student academic
achievement, and classroom instruction.”
- Equity Audit, p. 4.
7/8/2014
17
Emerging Themes
• Substantial variation existed across schools in
all areas where equity was examined.
• No systemic mechanism currently exists for
compilation of disparate data sources into
information tools to guide decision-making.
• More time and ability to examine specific
equity concerns over time.
• If specific actions are determined, the district
must monitor progress.
7/8/2014
18
Planning Implications
• Leverage Equity Audit as a resource to be used to
better understand the unique needs of each
community we serve.
• For example, acknowledging that the majority of
households in your school community are headed by
single parents requires school leadership to consider
providing child care during parent meetings.
• Additionally, understanding the number of vacant
houses our children must pass en route to and from
school may inform how consistently the busing policy is
applied across all school communities.
7/8/2014
19
Potential Area of Focus
Student identification findings
– Almost double the number of students are eligible for
special education in our alternative schools than in
any other region of traditional schools;
– Highest rates of homelessness in our alternative
schools;
– District-wide, almost half of our students did not meet
proficiency in at least one subject area;
– Twice the number of students in the North and East
regions are identified as Gifted when compared to the
South and West regions.
7/8/2014
20
Potential Area of Focus
Extramural fund availability
– Approximately 20% of our schools do not
currently have an active PTA;
– Membership ranges between 2 and 800 and half
of the active PTAs have less than 100 members;
– The amount of money contributed to a school
from the PTA ranges between $30 and $172,000.
7/8/2014
21
Potential Area of Focus
• Equitable access to facilities
– A 2011 audit found that our playground facilities
ranged between 4 and 100 and the average score
was 56;
– Nine (9) schools without a playground;
– Science Labs also varied with high schools ranging
from 8 to 16, middle schools ranging from 6 to 12,
and in elementary school, 28 schools do have a
lab while 24 do not; E. Rivers has 9 science labs.
7/8/2014
22
Policy Implications
• Commitment to systemic equity
– “This report finds substantial variations across
schools on numerous characteristics, but leaves
questions of whether and how to address the
differences to the broad group of stakeholders
concerned with educational outcomes for the
students of APS.” p. 4
• Our neediest students require our best
resources
7/8/2014
23
Potential Area of Focus
• Commitment to systemic equity
– Leveraging at a policy-level will allow us to ensure that
we are not perpetuating inequities.
– Consciously and consistently working toward a system
where each and every one of our students experience
the best educational opportunities available.
– A policy-level commitment with the subsequent
regulations will require that schools, clusters, regions,
and the district be attentive to community needs
when planning, thus putting us closer to meeting the
needs of each, unique community.
7/8/2014
24
Potential Area of Focus
Our neediest students require our best resources
– On average, our students are taught by teachers with 13 years
of experience;
– In our alternative schools, our students spend about 28% of
their time with inexperienced teachers;
– In the Carver cluster, our students spend about 36% of their day
with an inexperienced teacher, and in Carver Health, almost half
of the academically disadvantaged students have an
inexperienced teacher.
– The North region has the lowest percent of inexperienced
teachers (26%) while the South region had the highest (34%).
– In the North region, 12% of our academically disadvantaged
students have inexperienced teachers while in the South region,
22% are taught by inexperienced teachers.
7/8/2014
25
Potential Area of Focus
• Learning Environments
– Students in the East and South regions report that
they experience more differentiated instruction than
their counterparts in the North and West;
– Academically disadvantaged students in the East
region report that their learning environments are the
least positive and least academically challenging when
compared to their counterparts in other regions;
– Students in the Douglas cluster are suspended, on
average 10 times more than students in the North
Atlanta cluster.
7/8/2014
26
Balancing Equity and Autonomy
• How do we address and monitor systemic
inequities while simultaneously addressing a
desire for schools to become more
autonomous?
• A possible solution may be to establish
standards, not merely by school, but by need
when allocating resources.
• Minimal expectations and thresholds would
need to be set and monitored.
7/8/2014
27
Equity Audit Follow-Up
• District leaders must emerge as EquityOriented Change Agents (EOCA).
• District staff should function with increasing
equity consciousness.
• District leaders and staff avoid equity traps.
Next Steps
• Encourage the use of the audit as a resource.
• Begin discussions of what may be in your
locus of control as it relates to policy.
• District should determine specific areas of
equity that will be examined, addressed, and
monitored for improvement.
7/8/2014
29
The Equality & Excellence Commission
Policy details are important, but moral and political
determination are vital. We must avoid a future
that continues to consign millions of poor children
to inadequate schools lacking the great teachers
and principals they need. We hope to kindle a sense
of urgency that is both passionate and
compassionate, keeping our eyes on the prize,
instead of distracting ourselves in searches for
villains and celebrations of heroes.
- The Equality and Excellence Commission, 2013
7/8/2014
30
References
Fortner, K., Faust-Berryman, A., & Keehn, G. (2014). Atlanta Public Schools Equity Audit Report.
McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing
principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601-632.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York: Macmillan.
Scott, B. (2001, March). Coming of age. IDRA Newsletter. Retrieved from
http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/March_2001_Self_Renewing_Schools_Access_Equ
ity_and_Excellence/Coming_of_Age/.
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K. B., Scheurick, J. J. (2009). Using equity audits to created equitable and
excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership
tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40(1), 133-161.
Valencia, R.R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking. London. Falmer.