Wake schools advances policy to address gaps in achievement based on student race, income

Education leaders have for decades discussed the problem of disparate outcomes among student demographic groups, though they remain visible today in standardized testing data and disciplinary records and in other ways.

Emphasis on equity has ramped up in recent years, following increase conversation nationally about equity issues, particularly when it comes to race. That’s also come with backlash, including in Wake County. While many people have spoken at school board meetings in favor of the board’s effort to draft an equity policy, noting long-standing issues such as lower test scores for Black and Hispanic students, some have spoken against it. Opponents have expressed concern for how the district may approach equity and have argued its nine-year-old Office of Equity Affairs has not closed racial gaps in student test scores.

The policy is necessary to improve disparate outcomes, Board Member Monika Johnson-Hostler said, and it hasn’t been easy to draft.

“If it wasn’t hard, we wouldn’t still be talking about it in 2022,” she said.

Right before the vote to move the policy to the Nov. 1 regular board agenda, she said, “Nobody at this table wants these outcomes for our students.”

Aaron Ng, a senior on the Sanderson High School equity team, said removing barriers to success as outlined in the plan is “only half the battle.”

“We need students to believe in themselves,” he said.

Ng told the board he’s heard classmates say their own peers have discouraged them from pursuing certain extracurricular activities or coursework because they think those activities or courses were too much work or would not suit them.

“We’ve inadvertently created this culture where students believe they have limitations placed on them by their circumstances and these students have internalized those expectations,” said Ng, who was invited by the district to speak before the board. When a school prioritizes removing barriers to students’ academic pursuits, “it feels as though my school is personally invested in my success.”

The board will vote on a “first reading” of the policy Nov. 1. The board must vote a second time — a “second reading” — at a later board meeting.

A new school board will be sworn in at the beginning of December, leaving the current board with only two full regular meetings.

The new school board will be a majority new faces, as most current board members are not running for re-election.

The board has already adopted a framework for its next five-year strategic plan that includes a section on equity.

The policy is largely a set of goals and priorities. It does not attach penalties to failing to produce certain outcomes or conduct certain activities. The policy, as written, could not be used in an appeal or grievance process. For example, a student or parent appealing a school’s decision could not cite the equity policy as grounds for their appeal.

“This is not a policy like other policies,” Johnson-Hostler told the board during discussion about whether the board should change some wording. “This is a policy saying here is where we want to be. The entire policy is aspirational.”

The policy outlines 11 things the district will try to do — largely analyzing shortcomings, providing extra support where it’s needed, ensure students have diverse educators and instructional materials, ensure comparable facilities across schools and change practices that may be contributing to disparate outcomes across student demographic groups.

The policy defines equity as both “an outcome and an action.” The outcome is the “elimination of the predictability and disproportionality of outcomes based on student characteristics” that could include, among other things, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first language, disability, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

As an action, practicing equity is ensuring students have access to “opportunity, support, resources, and an inclusive environment.”

The policy asks district employees to reflect on how their actions affect equity.

Board Member Heather Scott said she wished employees would be asked to reflect on more than just their actions, but also their beliefs, though some board members rejected adding “beliefs.”

Wake school board reviewing math curriculum, digital textbooks

Examining the impact of your beliefs is necessary to see whether you have a belief that is unintentionally causing you to act in a way to maintains disparate outcomes, Scott said, as Johnson-Hostler and Board Member Tara Waters echoed in agreement.

“That’s something I need to constantly question and examine,” Scott said.

But Board Member Chris Heagarty said the district cannot “dictate belief.”

“We can honestly and openly evaluate practice. We can see practice. We can look at practice objectively,” Heagarty said. “But when we try to say we know the hearts of someone, we know the beliefs of someone, well then, who is making that judgment? What is in their heart? What is their implicit bias? I think we can use our metrics to measure practice. We can see the outcomes of practice.”

Ultimately, the board decided to ask employees to reflect on their “practices and biases,” rather than “practices and beliefs.”

Board Member Roxie Cash lamented the policy’s focus on groups of student demographic groups that have been studied for longer. Cash wants to add students who are “disengaged,” including students who are bullied or who are paid less attention because they are quiet.

The policy, as written, would not exclude consideration of students who are bullied.

But some board members objected to adding bullied students because they believed the policy should focus on historically marginalized groups and argued the district already has an anti-bullying policy.

Not focusing on historically marginalized groups could potentially dilute the policy’s emphasis on helping those students, which is the point of the policy, Waters said.

It would become “harder to see that we are being intentional about addressing areas where there are disparities, where there is historical data to support the need to triage their needs or support their needs,” Waters said. She added disengaged students are important and she doesn’t want them to be ignored entirely by board policy.

Cash said she would still support the equity policy but said she was disappointed in the board.

“I don’t know where we’re going to address these kids because we really didn’t do it in the bullying policy,” Cash said.

The board will review the bullying policy during its work session Nov. 1 to help resolve Cash’s issues, right before it holds its first reading vote on the equity policy.