The Appleton Area School District Board of Education met 09/27/2021, and during that meeting Assistant Superintendent of Assessment, Curriculum & Instruction Steve Harrison gave a presentation to the Board regarding the differences between Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction (CLR).
The Board of Education voted in April of 2017 to implement CLR. Assistant Superintendent Harrison told me that these practices were put in place because the “District’s student performance outcomes have shown significant gaps between various groups of students.” Thus far, that achievement gap does not seem to have decreased due to CLR, and Mr. Harrison stated via email that “our achievement gaps have been relatively consistent.” Although not a measure of the achievement gap per se, in the second semester of the 2018-19 school year, the last normal year before the pandemic, depending on the High School, between 32% and 51% of high school students had at least one D or one F on their report card, and those numbers have increased since the pandemic.
You can download the PowerPoint slides below, and I have also included them within the write-up itself. [This is AASD’s presentation of what they view CRT and CLR to be. Insofar as the presentation is directed toward the public, I do wonder if AASD’s leadership and the members of the public who are concerned about CRT are talking past each other. AASD seem to be using a much more rigid definition of Critical Race Theory than that which is used by the public. AASD seems to be focusing on CRT’s origins as an academic discipline; whereas members of the public seem to use the term more informally to refer to a variety of practices that are viewed as having been influenced by or derived from Critical Race Theory.]
Assistant Superintendent Harrison thanked the Board for the opportunity to provide both them and the public with information and greater clarity regarding the key differences between Critical Race Theory and Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction. “Since there’s been a lot of misinformation regarding these two different topics, we certainly hope that today’s presentation provides everyone with a clear understanding for moving forward.” Per Board Governance Policy OE-11 “Communicating with the Public” he stated, “We are here to assure the timely flow of information, the appropriate input, and strategic two way communications between the District and the public that builds the understanding and the support for our district efforts.”
There were three learning intentions that he hoped to achieve with the presentation:
1. Develop a common understanding of what CRT is/is not.
2. Develop a common understanding of what CLR is/is not.
3. Understand SLR work in the AASD.
After that, they would have a time to “collaboratively process our collective Notices and Wonders from today’s presentation,” during which each Board member would be able to provide one key notice from the presentation and one key wonder/question.
“So, with respect to CLR or Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction, our district scorecard does provide the foundation for why this topic is so important within the work that we do as a district. Pillar 1, Inclusive and Engaging Culture to support teaching and learning is to ensure we provide a save and welcoming environment for all students in the Appleton Area School District. Pillar 2, otherwise known as Student Success, is to ensure that every student is academically, socially, and emotionally successful. Pillar 3, Family and Community Partnerships, is the opportunity to build understanding among stakeholders that build support for district efforts. And finally Pillar 4, Resources and Operational Excellence, to align our resources directly to the priorities that ensure success for all students.”
Per Superintendent Harrison, “As part of our roles and responsibilities as district administrators, we are tasked with ensuring the implementation of Board and District policies and procedures as approved by the Board of Education.”
There were two policies in particular that provided the context for the presentation and discussion.
The first was School Board Governance Policy OE-11 which states, that “the superintendent shall provide a guaranteed and viable curricular program that offers challenging and relevant opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes defined in the Board’s Results policies.”
Within that policy there were two areas that indicated that the Superintendent will:
1. Assure that instructional programs are culturally responsive and accommodate the different needs, abilities, interests, and personal goals of individual students.
2. Effectively assess each student’s academic performance, identifying and appropriately addressing significant inequities and gaps within achievement outcomes.
The second policy related to the presentation was a district policy known as policy 361.1 which was their Educational Materials Selection Policy. This policy states that “The District as the responsibility to provide adequate materials and texts, which reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of the American society. In addition, the District shall not discriminate in the selection and evaluation of instructional materials on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, age, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, gender identify, gender expression, or physical, cognitive, emotional or learning disability in its education program and activities.”
Assistant Superintendent Harrison said that this was “Really in generalities, here speaking to the fact that when we talk about a pluralistic nature, knowing that we don’t have a single story within the Appleton Area School District–that we have many different stories because of the diversity, that provides such a rich background for our students.”
He went on to state that, “As outlined within this policy, if parents do have questions or concerns about either Board approved or supplemental instruction materials, they are to first contact their student’s teacher as outlined in policy. This is so that they can share their concerns and to learn of the educational purpose of those materials. And as written within policy, if this does not resolve the issue, the District policy also indicates that parents can then–are to work with the building principal, and then if that does not resolve the issue, district leadership as part of the overall process.”
He divided the presentation into two main sections, the first focusing on CRT and the second addressing CLR. He explained, “These two topics are purposefully placed into two different colored slides to further stress that these are two different concepts, and are not to be confused as being synonymous with one another. To be clear, Critical Race Theory is not Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction as the next few slides will highlight.”
He pointed out that although CRT has been discussed extensively over the last 10 months, it is not a new concept and is an academic concept that has been around since the 1970s. “At its core, CRT asserts that race is a social construct and not one that can be defined biologically. To be clear, CRT does not focus on individuals or people but rather on systems and structures. In particular, CRT examines racism not as the oppressor and the oppressed but on the systems and policies within the legal systems that result in some groups benefiting at the cost of others. Based on legal scholarship and graduate level academics, CRT examines how the social construct of race and implementation of law intersect one another as well as the outcomes that occur as a result.
He went on to give some more historical background on the origins of CRT. “Although there are a number of individuals who are collectively given credit for establishing critical race theory, much of the work stems from the late 1970s following the denial of tenure to a black professor at Harvard University. Specifically, Derrick Bell, an African American professor, was not awarded tenure at Harvard University, despite having a comparable background and accomplishments to white professors who had been previously granted tenure. After he had left, the university failed to replace him with another professor of color as they indicated they were not able to find one. This led to a number of students at Harvard protesting the lack of diversity in the teaching staff there but also eventually extended in a broader examination of practices within policy as well as within law.”
He explained the use of the word “critical” in Critical Race Theory. “Although this word is mistaken for individuals or groups of individuals being critical of another groups, this is not an accurate understanding of the context of this word within CRT. The term ‘critical’ simply asks us to look critically by examining systems, not people, in order to better understand how inequities are perpetuated within systems, policies, and within laws. In other words, the word ‘critical’ in CRT is about analyzing—analyzing systems, not people, so that we can better understand the root causes of inequities.”
He continued, “In order to have a productive conversation as a society about critical race theory, it is important that we have a shared understanding of the key tenets or main ideas that critical race theory is grounded in.
“First, and as mentioned earlier, CRT asserts that race is not a biological entity, but one that is socially constructed. A social construct is not something that exists in objective reality but instead is the result of human interactions. CRT maintains that race is not constructed scientifically but through social classifications.
“Second, CRT indicates that racism is a commonplace experience for people of color and is not an isolated experience by only a few. CRT focuses on examining and analyzing the structures and systems that perpetuate this common experience for some groups but not for others.
“Third, CRT advocates for the listening to and the understanding of those who have an continue to live these experiences of racism in order to better understand the systems and the structures that have created inequities within societies among marginalized groups.
“Finally, CRT is a commitment to social justice and in particular, it asks us to examine how structures and systems perpetuates racism. Again, it is not about labelling people as either being oppressors or oppressed, but instead in examining those systems and structures.”
He said, “While currently much of the public discourse on CRT states that it is the indoctrination of students within public education this is not accurate for a number of reasons.
“First, this slide provides just a few examples of how CRT consists of analyzing structures and systems outside of the field of education. For example, CRT examines why Black woman are 3-4 times more likely to die during pregnancy than white women. In addition, an application of critical race theory is analyzing why incarceration rates of people of color particularly black people is 5 times greater than that of white people for the same crimes, as well as why sentences for the same crimes are disproportionately longer for black people when compared to sentences for white people. Finally, CRT also analyses the housing market in order to ascertain why appraised home values for Black people are considerably lower than comparable housing owned by whites.
“Again, this example of CRT illustrates the analyzing of structures and systems that disproportionately and negatively impact racial groups. Again, it’s not focusing on individuals or individual behaviors.”
He went on to touch on examples of CRT within the educational system. “CRT examines the disproportionality of students either being overrepresented or underrepresented in various systems and structures within public education.
“First, CRT is used to analyze why schools or school districts may have an overrepresentation of students of color in special education. For example, if a district’s overall student population has a 5% makeup of Black and African American students but a 20% representation of Black and African American students within its special education population, CRT analyzes what internal structures within the identification process may be inadvertently leading to their being an overrepresentation of this population.
“Second, CRT analyzes practices that lead to an overrepresentation of disproportionately high numbers of students of color receiving discipline referrals, suspensions, or expulsions from school.
“Finally, CRT also analyzes why there is an under representation of students of color within advanced academic programs or courses.
“Again, the focus is not on individuals but on systems or structures that create either over or under representation of groups and historical opportunity gaps. It is important to note that none of these examples are highlighting CRT as a curriculum or as a course. In short, all of these examples ultimately ask the question ‘Who are our actions working for and who are they not?'”
He concluded the CRT portion of the presentation by saying, “Putting it all together, this slide illustrates what Critical Race Theory is not on the left as well as what it is by definition on the right. For example, Critical Race Theory is not the same thing as Anti Bias, Anti Racism Education, Culturally Relevant Teaching and so forth as you see listed. It is, however, a theoretical framework used mostly in higher education. It is a practice. It is not an Appleton Area School District K-12 curriculum or course.
“And as a sidenote, in my own academic studies, even after two separate Masters degrees and finishing up a PhD, I did not even hear the words ‘Critical Race Theory’ in coursework until my final year of that doctoral program.
“Critical Race Theory is not a focus on racism as an individual act. It’s a focus on racism created by, again, those two words you’ve heard me say over and over again ‘systems and structures’ not by individuals. CRT is not blaming white people for all racial inequities in society and the atrocities within the past. It is, however, a recognition that race and racism are woven into the very fabric of our institutions and systems.
“And finally, it is not teaching students either a socialist, communist, or anti-American agenda. It is, however, a way to provide tools to think critically–again, to analyze–about issues of race, racism, inequity. And, again, just to highlight, this is an academic concept, one that applies to systems and structures predominantly in law and policy and not a curriculum.”
He then moved onto Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Learning. Again he noted, “by design you’re going to notice that all these slides on this topic are intentionally a different color. They’re in green to remind us that this is a different topic with a different definition and different implications than Critical Race Theory. Again, as we will see, Critical Race Theory is not equivalent to being Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction.”
He stated that “One of the words mistakenly associated with Critical Race Theory, but correctly identified with CLR, is the word ‘equity’. As a district, the Appleton Area School District has engaged in a community-wide campaign since 2018 known as the Dignity and Respect Campaign. This campaign focused on all of us in this community making the world a better place to live in with all of our differences in mind.”
He continued, “Now, as part of our focus on treating one another with dignity and respect through culturally and linguistically responsive practices, it is important for all of us as educators to have an understanding of the various rings of culture we each uniquely have as individuals.
“To be clear, we do not explicitly teach the concept of rings of culture as part of our curriculum in the Appleton Area School District. Rather, this is a tool to help us as educators understand the unique worldviews and experiences we bring with us. Age, gender, religious, socioeconomics, nationality, orientation, and ethnicity cultures are a unique combination for all of us.
“You will notice that race is intentionally not a part of this visual, as we said before, because race is a social construct whereas culture is something one learns as part of their lived experiences.
“As an educator, it’s important for me to understand that my own experiences may be different from those who I teach. In order to make learning meaningful for all of my students, it is important to provide them with teaching and learning opportunities and resources that help them not only see themselves but others as well within their learning. Understanding one’s own unique rings of culture as an educator, as well as those within his or her classroom is important for being able to validate, affirm, build, and bridge to all students.”
He then went on to define what CLR within AASD was. “As defined by the work we have done with Dr. Sharroky Hollie, CLR is a ‘validation and affirmation of students’ home culture and home language, but for the purpose—and this connects us to Pillar 2—for building and bridging the student to success within the culture of academics and mainstream society.’
“In other words, it’s anthropologically based; it’s not race based.
“Again, as you think of those different rings of cultures that I just referenced, it intentionally does include language knowing that is a key component of our rings of culture. In other words, it’s a pedagogy, it’s the how and why of teaching. Again, as we think of not only differentiation but what we know to be best practices for instruction. And it teaches to and through the strengths of students. So, when we think of validating and affirming, we’re not entering with a deficit mindset but instead acknowledging differences in our home cultures but playing to the strengths of our students so that we can build and bridge to that Pillar 2 of student success.”
He stated that CLR is not exclusive to the Appleton Area School District. “In fact, the DPI, or Department of Public Instruction, has also messaged the importance of recognizing that students come to school bringing a variety of cultures, learning strengths, background knowledge, and experiences. As a result, every student’s unique personal history enriches classrooms, enriches schools and their overall community. It recognizes that diversity is our greatest educational asset, and we are here to foster this diversity through culturally responsive standards, instruction, and assessment practices.”
He returned to the concept of equity by saying, “So, earlier within this presentation, I did caution us not to confuse the word ‘equity’ as evidence of critical race theory being implemented as curriculum.
“Equity within the context of education does remind us that we are to focus on all students by realizing that there are some universal practices that are certainly designed for all students to be successful. But we also need to remind ourselves that some students need more or even less than what other students need or receive.
“A few students need supports that most other students do not in order to be successful. Again, it’s not about providing all students with the same, but providing all students with what they need.
“The article I linked within this particular slide comes from Learning Forward which is a professional organization that provides high quality resources to districts for supporting continuous school improvement. In particular, this professional article discusses the important of culturally, competent, and equity-focused districts as a means for schools and districts to become high achieving schools and districts.
“By focusing on what each student needs, equity provides the tools and the resources for closing opportunity gaps and to improve student outcomes for all students. As stated by Sonia Caus Gleason and Nancy Gerzon, ‘With greater cultural competence, educators develop a greater understanding and a greater appreciation of the range of backgrounds represented by students and adults at their school and it improves their capacity to engage, to challenge, and to support students.’
“To be absolutely clear, this is not about lowering the bar for students. Rather, it is about providing what each student needs while having the same end goal and expectations for all students within our schools and our classrooms.”
[As admirable as these aspirations are, it does seem like it should be noted here that during the second semester of the 2020-21 school year, 38% of students at North and 49% of students at East received a D or an F in at least one class. West didn’t even report their numbers.]
He reminded the Board that “CLR is not in itself a curriculum. It is a mindset and a set of instructional tools to validate, affirm, build, and bridge with all students in the classroom. In addition, it is the understanding that students must be able to see themselves within their learning environment through what we call mirrors and windows of their cultures.
“As indicated within this slide, when children cannot see themselves reflected in what they read, or when images they see are distorted, negative, or laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which they’re supposed to be a part of. This is why it is an expectation in District Board Governance Policy OE 11 and Education Materials Selection Policy 361.1 that we provide our students with a culturally responsive learning environment.”
He went on to discuss the concept of mirrors and windows, saying, “So what do we mean when we say mirrors and windows as part of a culturally and linguistically responsive learning environment.
“As indicated within the slide, mirrors are when we see ourselves and our lives reflected within what we read….Windows are when we are able to see into the lives of people who are different than our own cultures. This is what is meant within our educational materials selection policy when it states that the district has the responsibility to provide adequate materials and texts which reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of the American society.”
[The books that were used on the PowerPoint Slide to illustrate mirrors and windows were:
- “Enchanted Air: Two Cultures, Two Wings” by Margarita Engle, a memoir told through poetry about a Cuban American girl and the impact of the Bay of Pigs Invasion on her family.
- “George” by Alex Gino, a story about a fourth grader coming out as transgender.
- “P.S. I Still Love You” by Jenny Han, a teen romance novel revolving around a biracial Korean American girl.
- “Little You” by Richard Van Camp, a rhyming board book for babies and toddlers about how wonderful they are.]
He finished up his explanation of CLR by showing a slide laying out what CLR is and is not, telling the Board, “So, similar to what I showed you with respect to Critical Race Theory, it’s also important to understand, on the left side, what Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching is not and, on the right side, factually, what we know it to be.
“Again, it is not synonymous with Critical Race Theory. It is an instructional pedagogy, again, the how and why of teaching. It is important to remember that CLR is not about creating one single story, but instead, it’s about building and understanding of the diversity that does exist within either a racial or cultural group by knowing the overall backgrounds of our students in our classrooms.
“Another misconception about CLR is that it’s about having a bag of tricks to use with a particular racial group. Again, you’ve heard me use four words ‘validate, affirm, build, and bridge’. It’s about building that bridge between what students know and understand—their home culture—and the new—the unfamiliar content that they are learning.
“And finally, CLR is not about focusing on racial differences in the classroom. Instead, it’s about developing what we call a ‘cultural eye’. It’s a way to look at the differences in a classroom and respond to them positively and constructively.”
He then gave a brief history of the implementation of CLR within the Appleton Area School District telling the Board, “it’s also important to understand that the implementation of CLR was not done in isolation from the Board of Education. This slide highlights just some of the work in partnership with the Appleton Area School District that has occurred alongside with the Board of Education since 2017 in support and approval of the District’s equity plan.
“For example, CLR practices were approved by the Board following the April [2017] Programs and Services meeting as a strategy within the Appleton Area School District equity plan, and follow-up approval at the April 10th [2017] Board meeting. There was also a CLR Board workshop in December of 2018, and you can also see here an overview of our work that began with Dr. Sharroky Hollie during the 2016-17 school year. Now, over the last several years, educators have also had the opportunity to attend a variety of other workshops and participate in CLR coaching at their sites.
“Again, you’re hearing me over and over talk about the supports that we’re providing our staff, not curriculum that we are teaching our students. We’ve also had the implementation of CLR champions within and throughout our districts since spring of 2019, two different CLR summer institutes, and almost a year ago—October of 2020—we also had CLR classroom management training with Dr. Hollie—again, focusing that although instruction is a key component of being culturally competent it’s broader and wider than that, similar to how you’ve heard us as an administrative team talk collectively about our district score card. It’s all four of those pillars brought together.”
He started to wind things down by saying, “And so finally when we look at those four key words of what does CLR or Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction mean within the Appleton Area School District, again, it is important to have that common understanding of what do these words mean definitively within the AASD.
“When we validate students, it means we make legitimate that which institutions such as schools and mainstream have made illegitimate or negative through stereotype and labels. To validate means providing that counter narrative to students, to let them know that they are not labels. It’s to affirm, to have that intentional, purposeful effort, again, to reverse those negative stereotypes, negative imaging or representations.
“Again, you heard me speak to those mirrors to make sure that we are intentionally providing those images, texts, and narratives that affirm students’ perspectives and backgrounds. It’s about connecting our students again as we focus on Pillar 2 in particular.
“Building—so as we validate and affirm, then how do we build and then bridge to future success? Building by connecting between their home culture and, again, language—that’s why we call it CLR—and the school’s culture and language. It’s about understanding and recognizing that, yes, there are cultural and language or linguistic behavior differences but that we can foster rapport and relationships with our student by making that investment with them.
“And finally, as we bridge by giving opportunities for what we call situational appropriateness or utilizing appropriate cultural and linguistic behavior. Again, understanding that as we validate and affirm home culture we are also working with our students as outlined in Pillar 2 to develop success in the future within our communities and within each of those different area’s students pursue in the future. It is about providing academic and social skills that students need, again, to be successful beyond life in our classroom.”
He then noted that the Board members would see in the Board Work Session on 09/30/2021 how AASD progress monitors overall as a district. “As defined within our scorecard, we are progress monitoring our efforts alongside other continuous school improvement action steps through Pillars 1 and 2 in particular.
“As you’ll hear more about this upcoming Thursday, we are progress monitoring the number of Black and African American students who receive an out of school suspension within Pillar 1. In addition, we are focusing on reducing the opportunity gaps that have led to discrepancies in student outcomes between our Black and white students, our English Learning and our non-English Learning Students, and between our students in Special Education and those who are not.
“By examining who our actions are working for and specifically who they are not, in addition to analyzing these areas through a root cause analysis, we will be better equipped to improve outcomes for all students while also focusing on what each of our students need.”
He then reiterated that “the purpose of today’s presentation was again to provide the Board and our public with the clear understanding of Critical Race Theory and how it is not the same as Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction. In addition, our goal was to help everyone better understand the work taking place within our district that is grounded in CLR.”
He then closed out the presentation by opening up the Notice/Wonder protocol. He asked each of the Board members to share one key thing that they noticed during the presentation and then one key question that they might have. Unlike a regular question and answer session, none of the questions that they asked were answered during the meeting.
Board Member’s “Notices”:
Kay Eggert: A key notice she had was that “the district has—continues to identify individual needs for individual students and look to barriers to move students—to address those needs, and it really, it’s not about the semantics, it’s just the practice. That’s what we do. It doesn’t matter what you call it. It is just what we do.”
Kris Sauter: “I appreciated the history both for CRT and CLR in our district, and what it is and what it is not. For me those were key elements.”
Deb Truyman: “I noticed that CLR is being presented as a positive means to prepare all students to be college and career ready, which follows along with the Pillars and I think that’s important to know.”
Jim Bowman: “First of all, on Critical Race Theory, we’re looking at a lot of criticism from a group of people in the public, and I think a cause of that criticism is how they see American history portrayed by Critical Race Theory. So I think in terms of us recognizing how our public might talk to us about CRT, that we need to recognize its perceived impact on American history because that is central to what’s bothering a lot of people. My second thought is on CLR. I would benefit from seeing some examples. So, what you presented, that’s helpful. It’s quite high level and it would be helpful to me to see examples of what teachers are doing or would do to carry out CLR.” [I thought both of those comments were very good. I too came away from the presentation wishing that they had given some real-world examples of how this works with individual students in the District.]
Ed Ruffolo: “My number one takeaway is that CLR is really how we teach rather than what we teach, and as we drive towards a goal of—as we defined in a Portrait of a Graduate and our results and Coherent Governance. I imagine many students come with barriers that are presented to the teachers to achieving that—those goals. One of them certainly can be cultural, so it seems to me this is really a toolkit to help teachers help our students be successful and reach those goals and eliminate one of the barriers or some of the barriers that may be in their way.”
James Bacon: “I think one of the key notices for me was that CLR is a mindset and/or approach, not necessarily a curriculum with the goal of ensuring all students feel valued and seen as they engage in the curriculum that they are–I guess–being presented or engaging with in their regular courses and classes.”
Amanda Stuck: “I would echo a lot of the things that were said I noticed as well. I did find the Rings of Culture interesting too, just thinking of all the different backgrounds that students bring in. You know, well, this is getting a lot of attention now but there’s certainly more background to our students than just this.”
During his time to speak, Jim Bowman had also asked if they were going to be talking about this [which I took to be CLR/CRT] again for the first two hours during their upcoming work session on 09/30/2021. Assistant Superintendent Harrison clarified that the first two hours of that work session were going to focus on sharing what the 2020-21 district scorecard looks like then introducing the Board to the scorecard for the 2021-22 school year.
Board Member’s “Wonders”:
Amanda: “One of the things I would echo is something that was brought up before—just examples of what this actually looks like in the classroom, or things that may have been changed and how we’re teaching students based on CLR. And then also it was mentioned that this was a strategy that was picked and I’m just curious, when you talk, sort of, about the state’s wording on this and then how we picked this as a strategy, why was this picked over other options perhaps? I don’t know what the process was at the time. What other things were considered vs CLR? So, I’m just curious about how this strategy was picked vs others. Is this something that a lot of other districts in the state use, or where does this stand compared to what other districts are doing?”
James Bacon: “I think one of the things I most wondered was just how was the district ensuring that a good mix of windows and mirrors using that analogy and/or just other practices I suppose around CLR are happening in all classes and contents across the district regardless of whatever the content or age a teacher is teaching. What kind of supports and/or resources do they get of any kind to do that well?”
Ed: “I’m wondering what goals and metrics are we using to evaluate our progress and how do we know if we’re being successful and…what’s helping us identify where we need to focus more attention?”
Assistant Superintendent Harrison said that hopefully the upcoming work session, as they focus on Pillars 1 and 2, will also help with some of these questions.
Jim Bowman: “CLR looks like a way to individualize instruction to students based largely on culture. I love the idea of personalizing instruction. I think it has wonderful potential, but I am concerned that it could explode the assignment of a teacher. It makes things much more complicated for her, so how do we manage that for our educators?”
Deb: “How do we provide equity in some of the…instruction when a lot of the instruction that students are getting is from online resources, online media, which tends to slant liberal? How are we getting—is there a mix of digital resources that students are receiving? Because if you’re going to be truly windows and mirrors, I think it’s important to have balanced coverage and do we have balanced coverage?”
In the Notice and Wonder Board Assistant Superintendent Harrison condensed that to read “How do we provide equity within instruction when much of the instruction is from online resources? How do we ensure a balanced perspective of windows and mirrors?” which eliminated the reference to political viewpoints.
Kris: “I am wondering about the process for acquiring materials and ensuring that these materials are dispersed and reflected in each classroom.”
Kay: “Mine might just be to fill in the blanks—the big picture, fill in the blanks. You spoke to CLR as part of the equity plan. I think everyone is required to have a—all districts are required to have an equity plan and then periodically, I think, self-evaluate on how we’re doing. So just big picture—and maybe this will fit in with the report cards. So, if—I don’t know when this plan needs to be looked at again, and if there are other strategies—what else might be out there that would help us be effective in really addressing the individual barriers for students? I mean, it’s probably a redundant question. I’m sure everyone is focused on this work, but big picture I would just be curious in what the leadership is doing to assess it and move forward with the work.”
As I already mentioned, none of their questions were answered at the time, although Mr. Harrison mentioned using those key wonderings to guide future presentations. He appreciated being given the time to present on this topic knowing that it has been a common subject of conversation in the public sphere and he looked forward to more conversations with the Board.
View full meeting details here: http://go.boarddocs.com/wi/aasd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=C6WNTX613D8F
View video of meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_idRSX5iaM
Be the first to reply