Equal Opportunity, Different Starting Lines

 As we do our data dives and end-of-year performance reviews to create the plan of action going into next school year, we are reminded that all children are different and have different starting points, foundational skills, learning interests, learning styles, etc.  Our systems give tests that measure both proficiency and growth.  Thank goodness we’ve finally started to focus on growth for every child.  Most people would think that I’m merely referring to students at the bottom that are significantly behind, but I’m also glad we are focusing on growth for the students at the top (identified as gifted and talented) as well as ALL students.  The goal of any public school should be to help ALL students grow and perform at the given maximum capacity.  Performance analysis used to look at primarily proficiency levels to determine the effectiveness of a school.  In this model, the focus is on moving the middle and bubble groups that can increase the proficiency number.  The students most often neglected or not challenged in this type of system at the students at the bottom, where people may feel like they aren’t able to reach proficiency in one school year, and the top, where it’s taken for granted that they will “pass.”  This shouldn’t be the goal of any school in just moving numbers.  Instead, proficiency numbers take care of themselves when we grow ALL students in a school. 

 

One of the arguments from teachers in many schools is that they have many students coming to them significantly behind or reading multiple years below grade level.  While it can’t be used as an excuse for failure, we do have to acknowledge that it is foundationally true.  The great thing is that it isn’t detrimental or “hurt” a school when our focus is on growth and we are held accountable for primarily growth.  This goes back to comparing “equal versus equitable.”  Equity versus equality has been a long debated and scrutinized comparison in education. The key is to provide the least restrictive environment with the appropriate supports needed for success. For many years, people have come up with new and different ways of providing or facilitating education. Instructional leaders have researched and sought after the models that would give them the solution to increasing student achievement and raising test scores. One premise has held true to the test of time……one size doesn’t fit all. We do know that research says that most factors and actions taken in education have some validity in raising test scores. That’s the good news. The fact still remains that every child sitting in our classrooms are very different. We can use research to design programs, methods, and actions that generate the greatest gains in student achievement, however there are differences for each child. The phrase “Do We All Have a Pair of Shoes or Do We All Have a Pair of Shoes That Fit?” is borrowed from a great superintendent in South Carolina that uses that phrase to discuss meeting the needs of all children.  Do we try to fit all children into a one-size-fits-all approach or instructional strategy?  Or do we realize and put into practice that every child learns differently and sometimes requires different methods and vehicles to get to the finish line?  Do we take into account that they all have different starting lines and it's our job to get them as far as we can as fast as we can?  

 

Shifting from proficiency to growth and from equal to equitable requires a fundamental shift in thinking and the way we look at performance and data.  I’ve seen a school that was at 80+% proficiency with a growth rate of -1 and a different school with 45% proficiency and a growth rate of +4.75.  Who did the better job teaching and learning?  Which one had the most significant instructional impact that school year for children?  Which school would you send your child to?  Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need.  It means that every school does everything they can to reach every student every day!