Context and Connection:

The cycle below, shared in SIEP Module 2,  indicates the steps to follow while creating a plan to improve student achievement. To achieve better equitable outcomes for students who have been historically underserved, this cycle cannot sit in neutrality. For the School Improvement Plan to be equitable and to be aligned with We Rise Together 2.0 and the Board vision for dismantling anti-Black racism and oppression, as outlined in the EML document, SIEP has to be rooted in a race-conscious cycle that supports the adoption of anti-racist and anti-oppressive practices and shift them to the ones anchored in CARES principles to better serve our marginalized students. 

Centering race in the Inquiry Cycle:

In his book Stuck Improving, on Page 172, Decoteau Irby offers the following framework for schools to develop a school improvement and equity plan that is anchored in a race-conscious cycle: 

1. Racialize school problems to identify racial roots of challenge of practice 

2. Identify disruptive strategies and a plan to address problems 

3. Learn through practice to adopt disruptive practices that erase race-evasive practices (unlearn/learn cycle)

4. Proliferate and deepen policies, strategies, and practices through continuous and institutionalized critical self-reflection 

5. Monitor and assess experiences in relation to outcomes by collecting and analyzing triangulated data

Using disaggregated data to uncover patterns of racism:

While School Improvement Plan relied mainly on quantitative and perception data to embrace new policies and reforms that continuously failed to improve student performance, School Improvement and Equity Plan (as the word equity being embedded) digs deeper into understanding the root cause of the disparities that continuously impede the success of our marginalized students and harm their wellbeing. The shift from one cycle to the other requires " mining the school for stories of white racial privilege and racism that is ubiquitous, routinely erased, and therefore invisible" (Stuck Improving, p. 173).

To mine for those school stories, Street Data by Shane Safir and Jamila Dugan, offers a plethora of strategies schools can use to gather and analyze authentic data that reflects the urgent needs of the students and the community. By using three different levels of data, schools are able to get to the root causes of the disparities encountered by our marginalized students in the school system. The data collected will reveal the racism and oppression trends existing within schools and allow for professional dialogue around our complacency in the perpetuation and the reproduction of that oppression. 

Guiding Questions:

These questions, from Street Data, p. 67 and 85, are an invitation to engage in the SIEP process:

1. Identify an equity challenge in your community. What do available satellite and map data tell you (or not tell you) about this challenge?

2. What street data strategies could you try out in the next two weeks? Make a short plan of who, when, and how you' do this.

3. What stands out from the listening data? What are the patterns and themes?

4. What new questions emerge from this data?

5. How does what we heard help us understand the satellite and map data?

Community-based SIEP Cycle:

To collect data that supports a clear understanding of the racial inequities deeply ingrained in the school system, both student and community epistemologies  have to be centered throughout the equity journey. Community-based leadership is foundational to achieving the transformative change we aspire to as culturally responsive school educators. As Dr. Khalifa states, "by learning about and embracing community interests, and by humanizing students in school, educators can contribute to student achievement. How? 

• Educators learn how to connect curricula and instruction with the lived experiences of students; 

• they establish trusting relationships that are needed if students decide to stay and learn from them;

• they gain the support community elders and learn what is important to them and their collective aspirations;

• they build with the communities a rapport that is grounded in trust;

• they support the self-determination and empowerment of communities by centering their perspectives." (Culturally Responsive School Leadership, p. 175)

Guiding Questions:

These questions, suggested by Dr. Khalifa, can be sent out to the community to seek their input on how we are doing with their children. They can be used as a reflective tool for self-check-ins to improve our practice:

1. What are we doing with your child? What are we doing poorly or need to improve on with your child?

2. Do you have any suggestions to help us better educate your child?

3. What should we include in the curriculum? 

4. How could we treat your child more fairly?

Change as a Collective Inquiry: 

Disrupting marginalizing and deficit discourse always begins with the Self first (Know Thyself). Through critical self-reflection educators position themselves within the race discourse to be able to identify their power and privilege and determine their next moves (silence or disruption). It is only by acknowledging one's complacency to the production or the reproduction of oppressive school policies and practices that one can contribute to the disruption of the status quo. However, because equity doesn't occur in silos, a sense of collectivism is a prerequisite to achieve a liberatory school system for all. That sense of collectivism breeds collective leadership that holds all stakeholders accountable for the advancement of  equity and social justice. Collective leadership is identified by three main principles:

• Collective leadership is relational: the group as a whole is a leader in the community just as members within the group can be leaders within the group. 

• Collective leadership is fluid: it emerges out of specific situations, the process of defining vision and setting direction, as well as exercising influence over other people and organizations; it becomes a shared function of the group. 

• Collective leadership is transformational: it begins with a belief in and a commitment to social advocacy and social justice. 

As a collective, a school community dives into a race-conscious inquiry cycle that focuses on the marginalized groups to co-design a school learning environment that fosters a deep sense of belongingness for those students to thrive.

The Intersection of SEAT and SIEP:

While School Equity Audit Tool (SEAT) is about "how" to measure school improvement to be able monitor the desired equitable outcomes for our most vulnerable learners, School Improvement and Equity Plan (SIEP) is about "what" (racialized goal) is being measured and "how" (the process) it is being measured.  Because "we measure what we treasure" so, as it is clearly embedded in the SIEP, equity is what really drives school improvement plan today so that we can transform our school system and create equal opportunities for marginalized students. Both SEAT and SIEP serve the same end goal: humanizing the school experiences for our most vulnerable learners. They converge more specifically in the Goal Setting phase while problem solving for equity throughout a race-conscious inquiry cycle.

Guiding Questions:

Rebecca Attkins and Alicia Oglesby offer these guiding questions (Interrupting Racism, p. 146) to engage in an institutionalized critical self-reflection while navigating the equity problem solving process. The questions have been adapted to align with our SIEP model.

1. Does the SIEP Goal reflect a gap in data by race? What is the disaggregated data telling us?

2. Has the SIEP plan identified the root cause of the problem? What practices are being reproductive of racism and oppression in the name of student achievement improvement?

3. What system features that support the identified gaps?

4. Has the SIEP plan identified anti-oppressive practices that will disrupt the status quo?

5. What progress monitoring points to be used to ensure that follow through occurs?