Equity Audit 2022 | Sun Prairie Area School District

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY

March 31

2022

Feedback from District April 18th and May 13th Final Report Submitted May 18th, 2022

Sun Prairie Area School District Equity Evaluation Integrated Comprehensive Systems for Equity

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

1

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Table of Contents I.

Introduction

3

II.

District Equity Data Relative to Wisconsin Pupil Nondiscrimination Law

3

A. B. C. D. E. F.

5 12 24 31 39 44

III.

IV.

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch Students by Race and Ethnicity Students Eligible for English Language Services Students Receiving Special Education Services Biological Sex Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Focus Group Areas of Strength and Growth

46

A. Sun Prairie Area School District Equity Focus Group by Strengths B. Sun Prairie Area School District Equity Focus Group by Growths

47 52

Equitable Best Practices Analysis and Essential Next Steps

87

A. B. C. D.

89 98 123 127

Focus on Equity Align Staff and Students Transform Teaching and Learning Leveraging Policy and Funding

V.

Summary of Essential Next Steps

131

VI.

Appendices

134

We want to thank the Sun Prairie Area School District Office administrators for organizing the focus groups and data collection during this unprecedented time of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also want to thank the staff, administrators, and community members, for being willing to meet with us via video call on Zoom, and for their time and patience to gather, decipher, correct, and clarify the data in this evaluation. A sincere thank you to everyone.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

2

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY I.

Introduction

This evaluation is by request of the Sun Prairie Area School District. Our goal in this evaluation includes an overview of the equity audit data, followed by a summation of the focus group data identifying what is working well and what are the challenges for all learners. We analyzed qualitative (focus group data collected September through October of 2021) and quantitative data (equity audit data provided by the District September through February) and compared that to best practices and research, to identify essential next steps for the Sun Prairie Area School District with a completed report on March of 2022. It is important to consider the context of the data collection and analysis timeline as the District has continued following the Pacific Educational Group’s framework and process during the time of this evaluation.

II.

District Equity Data Relative to Wisconsin Pupil Nondiscrimination Law

We provided the District with the ICS Equity Audit Form, and the District then collected the data for the form.

As a Wisconsin public school district, the Sun Prairie Area School District remains legally bound to be in compliance with Wisconsin Chapter 118:13 Pupil Nondiscrimination Law and PI-9 Wisconsin Administrative Code. Under s. 118.13, no pupil may be excluded from a public school, or from any school activities or programs, or be denied any benefits or treated in a different manner because of: sex, race, religion, national origin (including a student whose primary language is not English), ancestry, creed, pregnancy, parental status, marital status, sexual orientation, physical disability, mental disability, emotional disability, and learning disability. The law requires each school district to submit an annual compliance report to the Department of Public Instruction and periodically conduct a self-evaluation of the status of pupil nondiscrimination and equality of educational opportunity. The policy must apply to all areas of school operations, including school sponsored programs and activities. Section PI 9.03, Wis. Administrative Code illustrates the scope and breadth of the required district policies by identifying many of the areas subject to the nondiscrimination policy. They include admission to classes or programs, rules of conduct and discipline, selection of instructional and library media materials, and facilities, among others. As such, the pupil nondiscrimination statute applies to all aspects of district operations and programs.

Demographically, of the 8521 District students, 37.7% are students of color (10.1% Black, 9.1% Hispanic, 9.9% Asian, .2% Native American, .05% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 8.3% multiracial) and 62.3% White; 27.4% receive free/reduced priced lunch; 8.2% receive English learning services; and 11.3% receive special education services.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

3

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY

Figure 1: Sun Prairie Area School District Demographics

40.0%

37.7%

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHICS

27.4%

35.0% 30.0% 25.0%

8.2%

15.0% 10.0%

11.3%

20.0%

5.0% 0.0% STUDENTS OF COLOR

STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE FREE/REDUCED PRICE LUNCH

STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE ELL SERVICES

STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

Among the District students, 954 (11.3%) are identified with a disability, 647 (8.2%) receive English Language services (ELL), 97 (1.1%) attend an alternative setting, 769 (9.7%) are identified for Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions, and 1079 (13.7%) are identified as an advanced learner. Thus, in total, of the District’s students, 35.8% are labeled under one or more educational identifier.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

4

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 2: Students Identified in the District

Students Identified in the District 14.0%

13.7%

11.3%

12.0%

10.0%

9.7% 8.2%

8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0%

1.1%

0.0% Students Labeled as Students Receiving "Gifted" Tier 2 or Tier 3 Interventions

A.

Students Labeled Students Labeled as with a Disability ELL

Students who Attend an Alternative Setting

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch

Of the District’s students, 2163 (27.4%) receive free/reduced price lunch. Students who receive free/reduce priced lunch are over-identified for special education given that 46.8% of students labeled for special education receive free/reduced price lunch.

Similarly, students who receive free/reduced lunch are over-identified for Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions by nearly 30%, given that 432 of 769 students receiving interventions (56.2%) are students who receive free/reduced priced lunch.

Students who receive free/reduced price lunch (27.4% of the District) are under-identified as an advanced learner with only 10.4% of students identified as an advanced learner who also receive free/reduced price lunch. Students who receive free/reduced priced lunch are also underrepresented in Advanced Placement courses at the high school or advanced courses at the middle school, with only 16.1% of students in these courses receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Likewise, only 10% of Advanced Placement exams were completed by students receiving free/reduced price lunch, and of those, only 8.8% scored a 3 or above, compared to 91.2% of middle/upper class students who completed Advanced Placement exams.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

5

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Students receiving free/reduced priced lunch are over-identified for placement in the alternative school setting with 59 of the 95 students (62.1%) receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Figure 3: Representation of Students Receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch

Students receiving free/reduced priced are over-identified in disciplinary actions with 67.1% of in-school suspensions and 73.5% of out of school suspensions comprised of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch. Of students who were expelled 85.7% (6/7) were students receiving free/reduced price lunch.

Students who receive free/reduced price lunch are also over-represented in low attendance or truancy at 40.5%.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

6

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 4: Students Receiving Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Disciplinary Actions, and Attendance

Next, we address achievement data for students receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Achievement and Social Class Reading Achievement The District provided reading data based on the Wisconsin Forward Exam Grades 3-8 from the Spring of 2019. For students who receive free/reduced priced lunch, 78.2% scored Basic or Below Basic, compared to 47.5% of students not receiving free/reduced price lunch scoring Basic or Below Basic in reading. Likewise, 21.8% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Proficient or Advanced, compared to 52.6% of students not receiving free/reduced lunch who scored Proficient or Advanced in reading.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

7

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 5: District Reading Achievement and Social Class, FORWARD Grades 3-8

District Reading Achievement and Social Class, FORWARD Grades 3-8 78.2%

80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

52.6%

47.5%

50.0% 40.0% 30.0%

21.8%

20.0% 10.0%

0.0% Basic or Below Basic Students who are Middle to Upper Class

Advanced or Proficient Students Receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch

On the Spring, 2019 ACT ASPIRE assessment in reading for grades 9-10, 69.6% of students receiving free/reduced price lunch scored Basic/Below basic compared to 32.9% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch. Likewise, 30.4% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Advanced/Proficient compared to 67.1% of students who do not receive free/reduced priced lunch.

Figure 6: Reading Achievement and Social Class, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Reading Achievement and Social Class, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

69.6%

67.1%

32.9%

Below Basic and Basic

30.4%

Proficient and Advanced

Students who Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch Students who do not Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

8

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY The District also provided reading assessment outcomes from the STAR assessment from Spring of 2019 for grades 1-10. According to the publisher of the assessment, “STAR assessments are locally determined assessments that students take at least in three benchmarks, otherwise known as screening periods: Fall, Winter, and Spring. The purpose of these benchmarks is to assess student's performance in the Common Core standards and set learning goals for the following benchmark.” The assessment is completed on the computer with questions becoming progressively more difficult throughout the assessment. According to the publisher “STAR tests are designed to be as efficient as possible. On average, students will complete the STAR Math test in about 20 minutes, the STAR Reading test in about 15 minutes, the STAR Early Literacy test in 15–20 minutes, and the STAR Reading Spanish test in about 10 minutes.” The STAR assessment provides scores at the Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic levels.

On the STAR reading assessment for grades 1-10, students receiving free/reduced priced lunch, 40.6% scored Proficient compared to 72.2% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch who scored Proficient. In addition, 44.2% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Below Basic, compared to 15.2% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Combined, students who receive free/reduced priced lunch, 59.4% scored Basic/Below Basic and 27.8% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Basic/Below Basic.

Figure 7: Reading Achievement and Social Class, STAR Grades 1-10

Reading Achievement and Social Class, STAR Grades 1-10 80.0%

72.2%

70.0% 60.0%

59.4%

50.0%

40.6%

40.0% 30.0%

27.8%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient

Students who Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch Students who do not Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

9

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Math Achievement The District reported math achievement data based on the Wisconsin Forward Exam in 2019 for students in grades 3-8. For students receiving free/reduced priced lunch, 77.9% scored Basic or Below Basic in math, compared to 40.7% of students not receiving free/reduced price lunch who scored Basic or Below Basic. Importantly, more than three times the number of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Below Basic (45.8%) compared to their middle class/affluent peers (13.1%).

Figure 8: District Math Achievement and Social Class, FORWARD Grades 3-8

District Math Achievement and Social Class, FORWARD Grades 3-8 77.9%

80.0% 70.0%

59.3%

60.0% 50.0%

40.7%

40.0% 30.0%

22.1%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Basic or Below Basic Students who are Middle to Upper Class

Advanced or Proficient Students Receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch

On the ACT, ASPIRE Math assessment for grades 9-10, 75.3% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Basic/Below Basic compared to 37.7% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch scoring Basic/Below Basic. Importantly, 42% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Below Basic compared to 13.6% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch. Likewise, only 24.7% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Proficient/Advanced, compared to 62.3% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch who scored Proficient/Advanced.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

10

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 9: Math Achievement and Social Class, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Math Achievement and Social Class, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 75.3%

80.0%

62.3%

60.0% 37.7%

40.0%

24.7%

20.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch Students who do not Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch

On the STAR Math Assessment for Grades 1-10, 51.2% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Proficient compared to 82.8% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Importantly, 33.6% of students receiving free/reduced priced lunch scored Below Basic compared to 10.3% of students not receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Figure 10: Math Achievement and Social Class, STAR Grades 1-10

Math Achievement and Social Class, STAR Grades 1-10 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

82.8%

51.2%

48.8%

17.2%

Below Basic and Basic

Proficient

Students who Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch Students who do not Receive Free/Reduced Price Lunch

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

11

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY B.

Race/Ethnicity Data

Students of color are over-identified for special education (37.7% in the District, 48.5% students of color labeled for special education) with Black students over-identified for special education more than any other racial group. Though Black students comprise 10.1% of the student body, they are nearly twice as likely to be labeled for special education (19.5%). Hispanic students who represent 9.1% of the District are also over-identified for special education at 12.3%. Students who identify as multi-racial in the District (8.3%) are also over-identified for special education at 10.5%.

Figure 11: Students of Color Over-Identified for Special Education

Response to Intervention Black students are over-identified more than any other racial group for Response to Intervention, as Black students represent 10.1% of students in the District but 24.6% of students identified for Response to Intervention. Hispanic students are also over-identified for Response to Intervention at 13.3%, despite representing 9.1% of students in the District. Multi-racial students are also over-identified for Response to Intervention as multi-racial students represent 8.3% of students in the District but comprise 10% of students receiving Response to Intervention.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

12

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 12: Representation in Response to Intervention

Attendance Though students of color comprise 37.7% of the students in the District, students of color represent 57.2% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Black students comprise 10.1% of the District, but 24.4% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Hispanic students comprise 9.1% of the District, but 14.7% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Moreover, multi-racial students comprise 8.3% of District students, but represent 11.3% of students who have low attendance or who are truant.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

13

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 13: Students of Color Over-Represented within Low Attendance or Truant

Race/Ethnicity and Advanced Education Black students are under-identified as advanced learners more than any other racial identity, with Black students comprising 10.1% of the District, but only 3.1% of students labeled as advanced learners. In the Sun Prairie Area School District, if you are a student who identifies as Black, you are nearly twice as likely to be labeled for special education (19.5%) and two-thirds less likely to be labeled an advanced learner (3.1%).

Students who identify as Hispanic are also under-identified as advanced learner, as Hispanic students comprise 9.1% of the District but only 7% of students labeled as advanced learners.

District students who identify as multi-racial (8.3%) are proportionally represented as advanced learners (8.3%). At the same time, White students in the District (62.3%) are over-identified as advanced learners (67%).

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

14

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 14: Students of Color Under-Identified as Advanced Learners

At the middle and high school levels, 1125 students participate in advanced courses. However, Black students are again under-identified for advanced courses more than any other racial group with Black students comprising 10.1% of the District, but only 4.6% of students enrolled in these courses.

Hispanic students represent 9.1% of the District population, but are under-represented in the middle and high school advanced courses (8%). Students who identify as multi-racial in the District (8.3%) are under-identified in the middle/high school advanced courses (6.2%). Whereas White students are over-identified in these same courses as they represent 62.3% of the District, but 73.4% of students in the middle/high school advanced courses.

We can expect that since Black, Hispanic, multi-racial, Native American, and Native Hawaiian students are under-represented in advanced courses at the middle and high school, that they would also be under-represented in the completion of Advanced Placement exams at the high school.

Of the 619 students who completed Advanced Placement exams, only 12 Black students (1.9%) completed an exam, 5.8% of students who completed an exam were Hispanic students, and 8.6% of students who completed an exam were Asian students. Whereas 78.4% of Advanced Placement exams were completed by White students. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

15

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 15: Representation in Advanced Courses and Advanced Placement Exams

The District maintains several alternative education settings, in which a total of 97 students are enrolled. Students of color are over-represented in these alternative settings with nearly two thirds (61.9%) of the students in the alternative settings identify as students of color (students of color represent 37.7% of the District). Black students are over-identified for alternative settings more than any other racial group with 24.7% of students in alternative settings who identify as Black compared to 10.1% in the District. Multi-racial students are also over-identified for the alternative settings 22.7%, compared to 8.3% in the District as are Hispanic students at 13.4%, compared to 9.1% in the District.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

16

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 16: Representation in Alternative Educational Settings

Race/Ethnicity and Discipline The District has over-identified students of color for in-school suspensions (ISS), as of the 526 students who received in-school suspensions, 343 (65.2%) are students of color (compared to 37.7% of the District). Black students are over-identified for in-school suspensions more than any other racial group (37.3% of in-school suspensions, compared to 10.1% of the District). Multiracial students are also over-identified for in-school suspensions (14.5% of in-school suspensions, compared to 8.3% of the District) as are Hispanic students (11.2% of in-school suspensions, compared to 9.1% of the District). White students are far under-identified for in-school suspensions at 34.8% (compared to 62.3% of District students who identify as White).

Of the 411 students identified for out-of-school suspensions (OSS), 70.1% are students of color (compared to 37.7% of the District) with White students representing 29.9% of out-of-school suspensions (compared to 62.3% of the District). That is, if you are a student of color, you are nearly twice as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension compared to a White student who is about half as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension.

Among the out-of-school suspensions, Black students are over-identified more than any other racial group (45% of out-of-school suspensions, compared to 10.1% of the District). Students who are multi-racial are also over-identified for out-of-school suspensions (14.8% of out-ofschool suspensions, compared to 8.3% of the District), while students who identify as Hispanic © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

17

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY are slightly over-identified for out-of-school suspensions (9.3% of out-of-school suspensions, 9.1% of the District). White students are again the only racial group that is under-identified for out-of-school suspensions (29.9% of out-of-school suspensions, 62.3% of the District).

Figure 17: Students of Color Over-Identified for Suspensions

Race/Ethnicity and Achievement We can determine, in part, the effectiveness of programs like special education and Response to Intervention through student achievement outcomes. The District reported reading achievement outcomes based on the Spring of 2019 data from the Wisconsin Forward Exam for grades 3-8 and ACT Aspire for grades 9-10.

Reading Achievement For reading achievement in grades 3-8 on the Wisconsin Forward Exam, more Black students scored Basic/Below Basic than any other racial group (86.9%) compared to 49.1% of White students who scored Basic/Below Basic. Over 70% (70.7%) of students who identify as Hispanic scored Basic/Below Basic. Over 63% (63.4%) of multi-racial students scored Basic/Below Basic.

On the other end of the scale, 50.9% of White students scored Proficient/Advanced compared to 36.6% of multi-racial students, 29.3% of Hispanic students, and 13.1% of Black students.

Importantly, only 5 Black students, out of a total of 337 Black students, scored Advanced (1.5%), and 39 (11.6%) Black students scored Proficient, compared to 10.2% of White students who scored Advanced and 40.8% who scored Proficient.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

18

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 18: Reading Achievement and Race/Ethnicity, Forward Grades 3-8

Reading Achievement and Race/Ethnicity, FORWARD Grades 3-8 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

86.9% 70.7%

63.4%

49.1% 50.9% 36.6%

29.3% 13.1%

Black Students

White Students

Below Basic and Basic

Hispanic Students

Multi-Racial Students

Proficient and Advanced

The effectiveness of the District’s efforts to raise reading achievement can be measured in an additional way by evaluating the reading scores at the higher grades. Even when comparing different cohort groups, if the District’s efforts are effective, we would expect reading scores at the higher grade levels to reflect that. However, we find instead that most students of color who are underperforming in reading at grades 3-8, continue to test below grade level.

For example, when comparing test results between grades 3-8 and grades 9-10 for Black students, we observe a slight decrease in the percent of students scoring Below Basic (55.5% in grades 3-8, down to 46.8% in grades 9-10) with a comparable increase at the Basic level (31.5% at grades 3-8 to 42.9% at grades 9-10). However, not only do we not see comparable gains at the Proficient/Advanced levels, but instead the percent of Black students scoring Proficient/Advanced decreases from grades 3-8 (13.1%) to grades 9-10 (10.4%). Moreover, the fact remains that nearly 90% of Black students (89.6%) grades 9-10 score at the Basic/Below Basic level in reading.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

19

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 19: Reading Achievement and Race, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

89.6%

90.0%

Reading Achievement and Race/Ethnicity, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

80.0% 66.3%

70.0%

62.4%

60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 40.0%

33.7%

37.6%

30.0% 20.0%

10.4%

10.0% 0.0% Black Students

White Students Below Basic and Basic

Hispanic Students

Multi-Racial Students

Proficient and Advanced

Figure 20: Reading Achievement and Black Students, FORWARD Grades 3-8 and ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Reading Achievement and Black Students, FORWARD Grades 3-8 and ASPIRE Grades 9-10 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

86.9%

89.6%

13.1%

Below Basic and Basic Black Students FORWARD Grades 3-8

10.4%

Proficient and Advanced Black Students ASPIRE Grades 9-10

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

20

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY In contrast, White students continue to make reading gains in the assessments over the years from grades 3-8 to 9-10. For the grade 3-8 reading assessments, 49.1% of White students scored Basic/Below Basic and that percent decreased on the 9-10 assessment to 33.7% Basic/Below Basic. Similarly, 50.9% of White students scored proficient/advanced in grades 3-8 and that percent increased to 66.3% scoring proficient/advanced on the grade 9-10 assessment.

Figure 21: Reading Achievement and White Students, FORWARD Grades 3-8 and ASPIRE 9-10

Reading Achievement and White Students, FORWARD Grades 3-8 and ASPIRE Grades 9-10 66.3%

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

50.9%

49.1%

33.7%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic White Students FORWARD Grades 3-8

Proficient and Advanced White Students ASPIRE Grades 9-10

On the ACT ASPIRE reading exam for Grades 9-10, for Hispanic students, 62.3% of students scored Basic/Below Basic, and 37.7% scored Proficient/Advanced. For multi-racial students, 50.0% scored Basic/Below Basic, and 50.0% scored Proficient/Advanced.

Reading outcomes from the STAR assessment confirm literacy indicators from the previously discussed assessments and indicate that more Black students are scoring Below Basic than any other racial identity (see Figure 22 below).

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

21

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 22: District Reading Achievement by Race/Ethnicity, STAR Grades 1-10

District Reading Achievement by Race/Ethnicity, STAR Grades 1-10 80.0%

69.3%

70.0% 46.6%

50.0% 40.0%

35.0% 27.1%

30.0% 20.0%

60.4%

57.2%

60.0%

70.7%

18.4%

27.8%

15.7%

11.7%

18.2% 12.5%

16.8% 12.6%

Asian Students

White Students

10.0%

0.0% Hispanic Students

Black Students

Multi-Racial Students

Below Basic

Basic

Proficient

Math Achievement Math achievement in the District reflect similar trends as in reading. Black students scored the lowest among all students with 87.9% of Black students scoring Basic/Below Basic in math on the 2019 Grade 3-8 Wisconsin Forward Exam, and 91.8% of Black students scoring Basic/Below Basic on the Grade 9-10, 2019 Aspire math assessment.

On the Grade 3-8 assessment, 2.4% of Black students scored Advanced and 23.1% scored Proficient (25.5% of Black students with combined Proficient/Advanced score). In Grades 9-10 ACT Aspire, 1.2% of Black students scored Advanced and 7.1% of Black students scored Proficient (8.3% of Black students with a combined Proficient/Advanced score). Similar to the District’s reading outcomes, the data regarding math outcomes demonstrates that achievement gains are not occurring for most Black students over their years of math instruction in the District.

Among Hispanic students, 71% of students scored as Basic/Below Basic on the Grade 3-8, 2019 Wisconsin Forward Math assessment and 29.0% scored as Proficient/Advanced. On the Grade 910, ACT Aspire Math assessment, 66.4% of Hispanic students scored as Basic/Below Basic, and 33.7% scored Proficient/Advanced.

Among multi-racial students, 59.3% scored as Basic/Below Basic on the Grade 3-8, 2019 Wisconsin Forward exam and 40.7% scored as Proficient/Advanced. On the Grade 9-10, ACT Aspire Math assessment, 66.3% of multi-racial students scored as Basic/Below Basic and 33.7% scored as Proficient/Advanced. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

22

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY For White students, on the Grade 3-8, 2019 Wisconsin Forward Exam, 57.1% scored Proficient/Advanced and 42.9% scored Basic/Below Basic. Again, though different data cohorts, the trend for White students includes an increase in the percent of White students scoring Proficient/Advanced on the 2019 ACT Aspire exam for Grades 9-10, with 61.5% scoring Advanced and 38.5% scored Basic/Below Basic.

Figure 23: District Math Achievement by Race/Ethnicity, FORWARD Grades 3-8 and ASPIRE Grades 9-10

The District also provided math assessment data from the STAR assessment for students in grades 1-10 from the Spring of 2019 that reflect similar trends as the results of the previously discussed two math assessment results provided by the District. The STAR assessment provides scores at the Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic levels. See Figure 24.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

23

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 24: District Math Achievement by Race/Ethnicity, STAR Grades 1-10

District Math Achievement by Race/Ethnicity, STAR Grades 1-10 90.0%

82.5%

81.4%

80.0% 67.5%

70.0% 59.9% 60.0%

50.9%

50.0% 40.0%

34.6% 26.9%

30.0% 20.0%

19.7% 14.5%

13.2%

12.7%

Hispanic Students

Multi-Racial Students

10.0%

9.7% 7.9%

11.0% 7.5%

Asian Students

White Students

0.0% Black Students

Below Basic

C.

Basic

Proficient

Students Receiving English Language Learning Services

Students receiving English Language Learning (ELL) services comprise 8.2% of students in the District. Of the students identified for special education, 9% are students labeled as ELL (English Language Learners) or linguistically diverse, thus students receiving ELL services are slightly overidentified for special education by .8%.

Of the 769 students receiving Response to Intervention services at the time of District reporting, 103 are receiving ELL services (13.4%) and thus students receiving ELL services are overidentified for Response to Intervention by 5.1%.

Of the 1079 students in the District labeled as advanced learners, only 16 students (1.5%) are receiving ELL services, yet students receiving ELL services comprise 8.2% of the District. Thus, students receiving ELL services are under-represented in the District advanced learner program by 6.4%.

Similarly, of the 1125 students enrolled in advanced courses at the middle or high school, only 9 students or less than 1% (.8%) are students receiving ELL services. Only 4 of the 619 high school © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

24

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY students who completed Advanced Placement exams were students receiving ELL services and of those 4 students, no students scored a 3 or higher.

Students receiving ELL services scored a 14.2 for the ACT compositive score compared to a score of 21 for students not receiving ELL services.

Figure 25: Students Receiving ELL Services and Representation in Special Education, RtI, Advanced Learners, and Advanced Courses

Discipline, Alternative Settings, Attendance Students who receive ELL services are not over-identified for in-school suspensions (6.3% compared to students receiving ELL services in the District at 8.2%) and are also not overidentified for out-of-school suspensions (5.4% compared to students receiving ELL services in the District at 8.2%) and no students receiving ELL services have been expelled over the time of data collection.

Of the 97 students in alternative education, 3 students (3.1%) are students who are also receiving ELL services. Students receiving ELL services are not over-represented as having low attendance or being truant as they comprise 8.2% of students who are identified as having low attendance or being truant.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

25

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 26: Students Receiving ELL Services and Representation in Discipline, Alternative Placements, and Low Attendance/Truancy

Students Receiving ELL Services and Achievement Reading Achievement On the reading WI Forward Exam (grades 3-8) from the Spring of 2019, 95.2% of students receiving ELL services scored as Basic/Below Basic and of those students 60% scored as Below Basic. Only 4.8% of students receiving ELL services scored as Proficient in reading achievement, and no students scored as Advanced.

For comparison, students who are not receiving ELL services scored the following on the same exam: 54.4% scored as Basic/Below Basic, of those students 19.9% scored as Below Basic, and 9.3% scored as Advanced and 36.3% scored as Proficient.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

26

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 27: Students Receiving ELL Services and Reading Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8

Students Receiving ELL Services and Reading Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8 100.0%

95.2%

80.0% 60.0%

54.4% 45.6%

40.0% 20.0%

4.8%

0.0%

Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving ELL Services Students who are not Receiving ELL Services

On the grades 9-10, ASPIRE assessment from the Spring of 2019, of the 22 students receiving ELL services who completed the assessment, no students receiving ELL services scored as Proficient or Advanced, and 14 students (63.6%) scored as Below Basic and 36.4% scored as Basic.

For comparison, students who are not receiving ELL services scored the following on the same exam: 40.6% scored as Basic/Below Basic, 43.4% scored as Proficient, and 16% scored Advanced.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

27

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 28: Students Receiving ELL Services and Reading Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Students Receiving ELL Services and Reading Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 100%

100% 80%

59.4%

60%

40.6%

40% 20%

0%

0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving ELL Services Students who are not Receiving ELL Services

On the STAR assessment, from the Spring of 2019 for grades 1-10 (which provides reading scores at the Proficient, Below Basic, and Basic levels), among students receiving ELL services, 65.1% of students scored as Basic/Below Basic and 34.9% scored as Proficient. For students not receiving ELL services, 21.9% scored as Below Basic, 13.4% scored as Basic, and 64.8% scored as Proficient.

Figure 29: Students Receiving ELL Services Reading Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10

Students Receiving ELL Services Reading Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10 70.0%

65.1%

64.8%

60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

35.2%

34.9%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic Students who are Receiving ELL Services

Proficient Students who are not Receiving ELL Services

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

28

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Math Achievement Math achievement for students receiving ELL services reflects a similar trend as in reading achievement. On the Wisconsin Forward Exam from the Spring of 2019, for grades 3-8, one student receiving ELL services scored as Advanced and 12.5% of students scored as Proficient, while 86.8% of students scored as Basic/Below Basic and of those students, 59% scored as Below Basic. For students not receiving ELL services, 13.5% of students scored as Advanced, 36.9% scored as Proficient, 30% scored as Basic, and 20.7% scored as Below Basic.

Figure 30: Students Receiving ELL Services and Math Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8

Students Receiving ELL Services and Math Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

86.8%

50.4%

49.7%

13.2%

Below Basic and Basic

Students who are Receiving ELL Services

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are not Receiving ELL Services

On the ACT ASPIRE assessment, for grades 9-10, from the Spring of 2019, of the 27 students receiving ELL services who completed the assessment, 17 students scored as Below Basic (63%), 9 students scored as Basic (33.3%), and 1 student scored as Proficient (3.7%). For students not receiving ELL services (1066 students) on the same exam, 19.9% scored as Below Basic, 26.2% scored as Basic, 38.7% scored as Proficient, and 15.2% scored as Advanced.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

29

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 31: Students Receiving ELL Services and Math Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Students Receiving ELL Services and Math Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 100.0%

96.3%

80.0% 60.0%

53.9%

46.1%

40.0% 20.0%

3.7%

0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving ELL Services Students who are not Receiving ELL Services

On the STAR assessment, grades 1-10, from the Spring of 2019, that provides math scores in the Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic ranges, of the students receiving ELL services, 33.4% of students scored as Below Basic, 19.4% scored as Basic, and 46.8% scored as Proficient. Among students not receiving ELL services, 16% of students scored as Below Basic, 8.7% scored as Basic, and 75.3% scored as Proficient on the STAR assessment.

Figure 32: Students Receiving ELL Services and Math Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10

Students Receiving ELL Services Math Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10 75.3%

80.0% 60.0%

53.2%

46.8%

40.0% 24.7% 20.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient

Students who are Receiving ELL Services Students who are not Receiving ELL Services © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

30

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY

D.

Students Receiving Special Education Services

Of the 8472 students in the District, 954 (11.3%) are receiving special education services. Of the 271 special education referrals in 2018-2019, 184 students were identified for special education (67.9%).

Students Receiving Special Education Services, Discipline, Attendance, and Alternative Placements Students with disabilities are over-identified for in-school and out-of-school suspensions with 32.5% of in-school suspensions and 35.6% of out-of-school suspensions being received by students with disabilities. Students receiving special education services are also over-identified at the alternative education placements, as of the 97 students placed in alternative settings, 21 students are students receiving special education services (21.7%).

Students receiving special education services are also over-represented as having low attendance or being truant, with 21.9% of students identified as having low attendance or being truant also receiving special education services.

Figure 33: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Representation in Alternative Setting, Attendance, and Discipline

Students Receiving Special Education Services and Achievement

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

31

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Importantly, of the 954 students receiving special education services in the District, just 10.1% or 97 students are labeled with an intellectual disability, significant developmental delay, or traumatic brain injury. This means that all other students receiving special education services do not have an intellectual disability, thus, we can expect the other 857 students receiving special education services to be able to achieve at or above grade level.

Reading Achievement On the Wisconsin Forward Exam for grades 3-8, from the Spring of 2019, students receiving special education services, 65% scored as Below Basic, 22.3% scored as Basic, and only 11.2% scored as Proficient. No students receiving special education services scored as Advanced.

In contrast, among students not receiving special education services, 16.7% scored as Below Basic, 35.8% scored as Basic, 37.7% scored as Proficient, and 9.8% scored as Advanced.

Figure 34: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Reading Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8

Students Receiving Special Education Services and Reading Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8 90.0%

87.9%

80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

52.5%

47.5%

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

12.1%

10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving Special Education Services

Students who are not Receiving Special Education Services

On the ACT ASPIRE reading assessment for grades 9-10 from the Spring of 2019, 61.4% of students receiving special education services scored as Below Basic, 25% scored as Basic, 12.5% scored as Proficient, and one student scored as Advanced.

Among students not receiving special education services, 9.9% of students scored as Below Basic, 28% scored as Basic, 45.2% scored as Proficient, and 16.9% scored as Advanced. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

32

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 35: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Reading Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Students Receiving Special Education Services and Reading Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 90.0%

86.4%

80.0% 70.0%

62.2%

60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

37.9%

30.0% 13.6%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving Special Education Services Students who are not Receiving Special Education Services

On the STAR reading assessment for grades 1-10, among students receiving special education services, 62.4% of students scored as Below Basic, 11.5% scored as Basic, and 26.2% scored as Proficient. Likewise on the same reading assessment, among students not receiving special education services, 18.9% scored as Below Basic, 13.5% scored as Basic, and 67.8% scored as Proficient.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

33

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 36: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Reading Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10

Students Receiving Special Education Services Reading Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10 80.0%

73.9%

67.8%

60.0% 40.0%

32.2%

26.2%

20.0% 0.0%

Below Basic and Basic

Proficient

Students who are Receiving Special Education Services Students who are not Receiving Special Education Services

Math Achievement On the Wisconsin Forward math assessment for grades 3-8, among students receiving special education services 62.6% scored as Below Basic, 23.8% scored as Basic, 11.3% scored as Proficient and 2.3% scored as Advanced. On the same math assessment, among students not receiving special education services 17.8% scored as Below Basic, 29.5% as Basic, 38.6% as Proficient, and 14.1% as Advanced.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

34

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 37: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Math Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8

Students Receiving Special Education Services and Math Achievement, FORWARD Grades 3-8 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

86.4%

52.7%

47.3%

13.6%

Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving Special Education Services Students who are not Receiving Special Education Services

On the ACT ASPIRE math assessment for students in grades 9-10, from the Spring of 2019, of the 102 students who completed the exam and are receiving special education services, 76.5% of the students scored as Below Basic, 11.8% scored as Basic, 5.9% scored as Proficient, and 5.9% scored as Advanced.

Among students not receiving special education services on the same exam, 15.2% of students scored as Below Basic, 27.9% scored as Basic, 41.2% scored as Proficient, and 15.7% scored as Advanced.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

35

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 38: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Math Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Students Receiving Special Education Services and Math Achievement, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 90.0%

88.2%

80.0% 70.0% 56.9%

60.0% 50.0%

43.1%

40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

11.8%

10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient and Advanced

Students who are Receiving Special Education Services Students who are not Receiving Special Education Services

For the STAR math assessment, for grades 1-10, from the Spring of 2019, among the students receiving special education services, 51.3% of students scored as Below Basic, 14.1% scored as Basic, and 34.1% scored as Proficient.

In comparison, among students not receiving special education services, 12.6% scored as Below Basic, 8.6% scored as Basic, and 78.9% scored as Proficient.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

36

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 39: Students Receiving Special Education Services and Math Achievement, STAR Grades 110

Students Receiving Special Education Services Math Achievement, STAR Grades 1-10 78.9%

80.0% 70.0%

65.9%

60.0% 50.0% 34.1%

40.0% 30.0%

21.2%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic

Proficient

Students who are Receiving Special Education Services Students who are not Receiving Special Education Services

Of the 1125 students identified for Advanced Placement courses at the high school or advanced courses at the middle school, only 1.4% or 16 students are students who are also receiving special education services. Of those 16 students, only 6 students completed Advanced Placement exams (1%) and of those students, 3 students scored a 3 or higher.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

37

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 40: Students Receiving Special Education Services in Advanced Courses

E.

Biological Sex

Female teachers teaching Math, Science, English, History, and related courses at the middle and high school are well represented across subjects, including in the highest level of math courses at the high school. Of the 4 teachers teaching Advanced Placement courses at the high school, one teacher is female.

Females are also well-represented on the administrative team, comprising 28 of the 42 administrative team members, and are well-represented across elementary, middle, and high school administrative teams. The 14-member District administrative team also includes 6 females.

Male students are over-identified with emotional disabilities at 73.3% of the students labeled with emotional disabilities, compared to 26.7% of the students identifying as females. Among student suspensions, males comprised 66.2% of in-school and 67.4% of out-of-school suspensions. In the alternative setting, 60.8% of the students are females. Among the students identified as having low attendance or truant, the ratio is evenly divided between genders (50.7% female students, 49.3% male students).

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

38

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 41: Gender Representation in Emotional Disabilities, Suspensions, and Low Attendance/ Truancy

Gender Representation in Emotional Disabilities, Suspensions, and Low Attendance/Truancy 80.0%

73.3% 67.4%

66.2%

70.0% 60.0%

49.3%50.7%

50.0%

40.0%

33.8%

32.6%

26.7%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Labeled with Students who Receive Students who Receive Students with Low Emotional Disabilities In-School Suspensions Out-of-School Attendance or Truancy Suspensions Males

Females

Reading Achievement On the Wisconsin Forward reading exam for grades 3-8, 49.5% of female students scored as Proficient/Advanced compared to 38.8% of male students, with 15.9% of female students scoring as Below Basic compared to 26.7% of male students.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

39

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 42: Reading Achievement and Males/Females, FORWARD Grades 3-8

Reading Achievement and Males/Females, FORWARD Grades 3-8 70.0% 60.0%

61.2% 50.5%

50.0%

49.5% 38.9%

40.0%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Below Basic and Basic Male Students

Proficient and Advanced Female Students

On the ACT ASPIRE reading assessment for grades 9-10, 65% of female students scored as Proficient/Advanced compared to 51.4% of male students, while 9.7% of females scored as Below Basic compared to 18.4% of male students.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

40

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 43: Reading Achievement and Males/Females, ASPIRE Grades 9-10

Reading Achievement and Males/Females, ASPIRE Grades 9-10 65.0%

70.0% 60.0% 50.0%

51.4%

48.6% 35.0%

40.0%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Below Basic and Basic Male Students

Proficient and Advanced Female Students

On the STAR reading assessment for grades 1-10, 67.2% of female students scored as Proficient, 13.5% scored as Basic, and 19.2% scored as Below Basic. Among male students, 60% scored as Proficient, 13.1% scored as Basic, and 26.9% scored as Below Basic.

Figure 44: Reading Achievement and Males/Females, STAR Grades 1-10

Reading Achievement and Males/Females, STAR Grades 1-10 67.2%

70.0%

60.0%

60.0% 50.0%

40.0%

40.0% 32.8%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Basic and Basic Male Students

Proficient Female Students

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

41

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Math Achievement Across math assessments, male and female students scored remarkably similar. Based on the Wisconsin Forward math exam for grades 3-8, 47.8% of female students scored as Proficient/Advanced compared to 49.7% of male students. On the ACT ASPIRE math assessment for grades 9-10, 51.3% of female students scored as Proficient/Advanced compared to 54% of male students.

With the STAR math assessment for grades 1-10, 73.8% of female students and 74.2% of male students scored as Proficient, 10% of female students and 8.4% of male students scored as Basic, and 16.2% of female students and 17.4% of male students scored as Below Basic.

Figure 45: Math Achievement and Females/Males, FORWARD, ASPIRE, and STAR Assessments

Math Achievement and Females/Males, FORWARD, ASPIRE, and STAR Assessments 73.8% 74.2%

80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

50.0%

47.8% 49.7%

51.3% 54.0%

40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

10% 8.4%

10.0%

16.2% 17.4%

0.0% FORWARD ASPIRE (Proficient/Advanced) (Proficient/Advanced)

STAR (Proficient)

Female Students

STAR (Basic)

STAR (Below Basic)

Male Students

Of the 1125 students participating in advanced courses at the middle and high school, 55.4% are female students and 44.5% of the students are male students. Of the 619 students completing Advanced Placement exams, 53.8% were female students and 46.2% of the students were male students.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

42

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 46: Gender and Advanced Placement Courses and Exams

Gender and Advanced Placement Courses and Exams 60.0% 50.0%

55.4%

53.8% 46.2%

44.5%

40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Students Participating in Advanced Placement Courses Males

F.

Students who Completed Advanced Placement Exams Females

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The Sun Prairie Area School District includes a robust set of policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity, with many accompanying professional learning opportunities available for staff to put those policies into practice.

Policies that address sexual orientation and gender identities include District Policy JB (Student Discrimination and Harassment), JBA (Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Hazing), and District Policy GBA (Employee Discrimination and Harassment), all of which prohibit negative behaviors related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Furthermore, all staff in the District receive training annually related to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination and harassment. The program Welcoming Schools and Developmental Designs Universal Social and Emotional Learning curriculum training is also required to be completed by all staff. The District also provides staff with the Transgender and Gender Identity Process Guidance which supports teams through the development of student support plans and all of their elements.

Reflective of researched, evidenced-based practices, the District’s anti-harassment policy includes sexual orientation and gender identity as follows: “ … student’s sex (gender identity, gender expression and non-conformity to gender stereotypes)… sexual orientation...” © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

43

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Student enrollment forms on Infinite Campus allow for multiple caregivers to have gendered and non-gendered designations. Caregivers, however, are required to select a binary gender (male or female) for their student as Infinite Campus does not allow additional options. The SPASD Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Procedures include the District’s bathroom policy in which students may use the bathroom for the gender with which they identify.

The District expects all staff to be supportive of LGBTQIA+ staff, students, and families and this expectation is included in the District’s equity statement and within a school board proclamation. Regarding invitations to school functions, staff gatherings and related events, the District does not use the language of Mother/Father, Mr./Mrs. and instead refers to guardian/caregiver/family of (student). However, some schools within the District have continued to use gendered language and to provide invitations for related events, such as: “watch dog dads”, “muffins with mom”, and “donuts with dads”. The District and principals are working to eliminate gendered events.

The District relies on the nationally recognized, valid, and reliable Dane County Youth Assessment for grades 7-12 that includes collecting data from students about the extent to which they are teased/bullied or harassed. However, despite the District’s efforts, this assessment revealed that 35% of students within the District, within this grade range, report having experienced harassment or bullying related to being or perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. The District has revised their dress code policies to eliminate culturally insensitive and gendered language, however the District’s music program continues to require stereotypical gendered concert dress requirements.

As to the extent to which the District’s curriculum integrates LGBTQIA+ history, events, or people, the District reports that through the previously mentioned professional learning, staff are expected to integrate gender inclusivity and anti-bullying practices into curriculum and instruction and that the District can provide specific examples across the District. However, the District reports that more can be done to ensure that this is consistent throughout the District.

In terms of including a range of identities and their intersections, participants reported, the District does not have a routine practice of including sexual orientation and gender identity when presenting identities to be addressed in the District.

Within the District, there is a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) at the high school and at each of the middle schools. The high school’s GSA includes 12-17 regular student members annually. The group meets for one hour per week and attends a quarterly Wisconsin GSA meeting, and a monthly 30-minute student leadership meeting.

The District conducted a comprehensive Title Wise Diversity Analysis of each school’s library/media holdings in August of 2021. Many of the diverse family books at the elementary © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

44

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY level were inclusive of LGBTQIA+ and gender identities. The certified media specialists of the District strive to accurately represent each of the students and their families within the library collections. Through the use of literature review tools, as well as student and staff recommendations, the District is slowly but steadily growing their selection of high-quality titles that represent the different experiences and intersectionalities of the LGBTQIA+ community within the District and community.

III.

Sun Prairie Area School District Equity Focus Group and Related Equity Audit Data by Strengths and Growth Themes

We conducted over 93 focus groups. Each focus group had an average of 4 participants. Over all the focus groups there were a total of 372 participants, comprised of student service providers, general educators, principals, students, District Office administrators, board members, and community members. Some focus group participants requested individual interviews and therefore we also conducted over 10 individual interviews either by phone or Zoom, following the focus groups.

We asked the following questions during the focus groups and individual interviews: 1. What is working well in the District for every student?

2. What could be improved in the District for every student?

3. When you think about the current structure for educating students with disabilities, what are the challenges to that structure?

4. When you think about the current structure for educating students labeled as ELL, what are the challenges to that structure?

5. When you think about the current structure for educating students labeled as advanced learners, what are the challenges to that structure?

6. What does staff collaboration look like at the school?

7. What District policies support the achievement of all students in the District?

8. What District policies can get in the way of all students achieving in the District?

9. What do you wish the District would get right?

Focus groups are particularly effective in obtaining a breadth of information relative to a specific issue,1 enabling participants to express themselves in an open and flexible process. 2 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and state and CDC guidelines, we conducted the focus groups via a video call Zoom meetings. When requested, we also conducted individual interviews. We did not record the focus groups or individual interviews and instead took detailed notes. We followed 1

Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. Y. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835–850).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McLeskey J., & Waldron, N. L. (2000). Inclusive schools in action: Making differences ordinary. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum Development.

2 Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

45

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY each focus group session with time to analyze the information collected at that particular session searching for themes “…regularities… patterns, as well as for topics.”3 According to Lincoln and Guba, “[S]teps should be taken to validate each [piece of information] against at least one other source.”4 Steps might include a follow-up email from the participant for clarification and/or a second method (i.e., review of policy and procedures, or demographic data).” As such, we compared the focus group data to the equity audit data and to the District documents that we requested. Participants in the focus group sessions often discussed their views with one another as they responded to focus group questions. Doing so helped participants recall details or if they disagreed with another participant’s perspective, allowed for differing perspectives to surface.

III.

Focus Groups Areas of Strength and Growth

A. Sun Prairie Area School District Equity Focus Group by Strengths Across the focus group and individual interviews, participants identified six strengths of the Sun Prairie Area School District (SPASD): (1) Hope and Optimism for the District, (2) Compassionate Educators, (3) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (4) District Equity Policy, (5) Student Choice and Community Schools.

Hope and Optimism for the District Across the focus groups, participants stated that they were proud of the District for the courage the District has had in embracing the work of equity. More specifically a focus group participant stated, “While we have a lot of work to do, I am proud of the courage we’ve shown.” Others stated, “I’m proud that mitigation efforts were based on science and equal treatment of all students and getting them what they need.” Another participant stated, “We are starting to get this right. Our focus has been on relationships, now we need to continue the work.” A teacher shared their thoughts that, “We have the buy-in and heavy District support for equity, across race and gender, I believe everyone really cares. Our staff is invested. On a very high level.”

Many discussed how the District and community have pulled together during the COVID-19 pandemic. As one focus group member stated, “We have managed to pull together as a community to get through COVID and the pandemic.” Another teacher stated that “The pandemic has helped us to systematize and organize our learning management processes.

We’ve had a really good shift in mindset about what students need, because of the pandemic.”

3 4

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods (p. 161). Needam, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (p. 283). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

46

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Compassionate Educators Throughout the focus groups and interviews, parents, educators, and administrators discussed the compassion they have seen or felt from the educators in Sun Prairie. “Our staff is very unique, and we try to all support each other as much as possible. I think our kids feel safe, and that we have their back.” Another educator shared, “We have a lot of teachers who always want to do what’s best for students, now we don’t always agree on how we do that, but the intention and spirit is there to get it right.”

Participants were most proud of Sun Prairie as a teaching and learning organization. As one participant shared, “We have a very dedicated staff who go above and beyond the call of duty to do what’s best for kids.” While another stated, “I think we have an awesome place to learn, and too often it is taken for granted by both staff and students. Our Sun Prairie greater community is really supportive too and that helps us.”

Others addressed the opportunities that students have, “Students have a ton of opportunities, and families really appreciate that. If this kid wants to explore an interest, that is supported in Sun Prairie. Educators discussed, “that all children have access to universal core instruction all the time. We continue to grow in this area.” Another shared that, “We are working hard on interventions to do inside classroom rather than pulling students out of the core curriculum.”

Others discussed their grading practices and how the practices have changed, “to help students not become trapped in the hole.” For example, “In math, we are now standards-referenced as opposed to grade and point-based. This has been transformative for student math efficacy.”

In addition, “We are very blessed as we have some people who are very passionate about Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Specific teachers go to professional development and bring it back and present on it to enlighten everyone… This year we took committees to streamline things.” The 9th grade teachers discussed their involvement with the Universal Design for Learning Focus Grant through the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). They were happy to report that they are becoming much more universal in their teaching through Unit design with a UDL focus. Others discussed the diversity of course offerings, interdisciplinary academics, and advanced placement classes. Elementary teachers stated that principles of Universal Design for Learning have “helped us differentiate opportunities to meet the learning needs of all students.”

For example, “giving a rubric at the beginning of the class to assist all students.” Others confirmed that for some schools, “the push is on lesson planning. Basically, we are taking what we were doing and moving to point of putting it in action.”

Teachers across the focus groups discussed the work in the areas of Second Step and social emotional curriculum. Teachers expressed that, “the push to do universal for social emotional in every classroom through morning meeting[s] and social circle[s] are helping to develop © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

47

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY communities in every classroom.” They also expressed that their understanding of their own racial identities was increasing through supporting learners and Second Step. As one teacher shared, “Everyone is equipped with the consistent curriculum and the District has provided a lot of funding for classrooms and libraries more of an emphasis on diversifying the books.” Another teacher summed up, “Teachers rally around kids and families when they experience trauma.”

Others reinforced this in sharing that, “I think once teachers understand what’s really happening with kids, I do see an empathy shift and a shift in their approach.”

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Many participants discussed the importance of overt equity conversations. As one teacher stated, “Conversations about addressing equity are out in the open now.” Board Members and educators both discussed the importance of the District-wide expectation to do the work of equity. Many discussed that it is a “Conscious decision that everyone is at the table having this conversation… Equity is not something we are adding to the plate – it is the plate.” Others shared how the work of equity, as intended, gives everyone “a shared experience for common learning experiences.” Others discussed how this helps everyone to “move beyond fear and blame or shame.”

Focus group participants discussed the District’s Equity Framework with pride. “The equity framework is very impressive, for such a large District, it has been impressive to see these action steps in place.” As another member stated, “The equity framework drives all of our work.” 5 Participants continued to reinforce that “In the last two years, equity, diversity, and social justice has been emphasized in our District. Kids and teachers are encouraged to have brave conversations about such, and that has been a huge change for us.” Others shared how well their building principal was able to lead the work of equity with conviction and application. For example, “Strength of building. Our building leadership overall does a good job at taking District policy – which may or may not be beneficial – and helps translate [it] into something that works or advocates to District Office for change.”

5

https://www.sunprairieschools.org/district/equity

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

48

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 47: SPASD Equity Framework

However, others within the focus groups acknowledged that the District has taken a “strong stand that all our kids feel supported, but it comes with a high price as some community members do not believe that the schools should take a strong stand.” As one participant stated, “As a Hispanic person, I have been paying a really high price, but I have always had the support of the administration.”

Other teachers shared the importance of the additional professional development that the District has supported over the past decade. For example, “One of the things that the SPASD has done to get me on my anti-racist and social justice journeys was the work we did with Beyond Diversity. It was the first time I had ever heard ‘white privilege’, and this was around 2012/2013.

There was a big push at that time.” As well as another educator who stated, “The Beyond Diversity Training has been quite good, especially for people who are more socially conservative or stuck in their whiteness.” More recently, others within focus groups reinforced the District’s support of the Sharroky Hollie and Zaretta Hammond work. As one participant stated, “Hammond’s work gave us a shared vocabulary to start talking about some of the inequities that exist.” Others shared the importance of Hammond’s message, “don’t lower expectations, as it tells a student they cannot perform.”

Focus group participants discussed the importance of “affirming students who are questioning their gender and sexual identity.” “We’ve done a great job of facilitating care teams and care © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

49

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY plans for students who are transitioning.” Others discussed the importance of inclusivity across sexual and gender identities, “We have more non-binary bathrooms.” In addition, others discussed the need to increase support for students who are experiencing trauma based on their identities. As one participant stated, “attaching students to groups to build a sense of community… our affinity groups are pretty strong, and we want to do more for students who have experienced and are experiencing trauma.”

Early childhood teachers discussed that they are fully integrated in all settings, schools, preschools, etc. The teachers discussed how they have grown since 2019 and how they integrated services from the community, to Head Start, to private pre-school and daycares, as well as two school sites. The Department of Public Instruction showcases the SPASD’s early childhood program on their website as a model program.

District Equity Policy Overall, educators reported feeling proud of their initial steps toward inclusion and equity in the areas of race and sexual identities, but shared desires , to include other identities (social class, linguistically diverse, etc.) and educational identifiers (e.g., special education and advanced learners).

Many focus group participants discussed the importance of the District’s equity policies, the language supporting the work of “Black Lives Matter”, and the policies regarding gender and sexuality. As one focus group member stated, “A lot of language in communication and policy has changed to be more gender neutral.” Others discussed how the dress code has been changed so that it is not discriminatory against females. Across the focus groups, educators discussed the importance of natural proportions and of “putting their learnings into practice.”

For example, the “Student council is being revamped to represent all students across identities.”

Student Choice and Community Schools Teachers, families, and board members reported how “The wide variety of courses is a strength of ours. Kids have a great chance to get some really good instruction, and a lot of that instruction can be tied to their interests.” Others described that the “Clubs and activities are so diverse, and they can always find something to go to. And if we don’t have it, we encourage our kids to start clubs.” Another educator stated that “Relative to other districts, we have resources to fund classrooms, programs, and really cool learning experiences for all kids.”

Focus group participants discussed their pride in the Community Schools’ work to increase achievement, decrease absenteeism, and connect with families. Participants discussed that five schools were currently involved in the Community Schools initiative.6 Participants stated that 6

https://www.communityschools.org/

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

50

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY “The Community Schools model appears to be a very good thing that the District is trying to do.” and that “This past summer we started a collaboration across non-profits to better address inequities across the community and expanding what we are doing well in our schools to our communities. We held 9 different conversations that were very profound.” Yet another educator shared in the belief regarding the positive direction while also urging caution by sharing that, “I think the Community Schools model is a good direction the District is going in… but I want to caution people from thinking that Community Schools will solve everything. We need the District to advocate for more social services in Sun Prairie, such as public transportation and more proactive safety measure for kids.”

B. Sun Prairie Area School District Equity Focus Group by Areas of Growth Focus group members frequently shared dichotomous perspectives and opinions. In order to acknowledge the different understandings, beliefs, and opinions held within the District, we include the contrasting perspectives, as shared during the focus groups, below. It will be essential to acknowledge that at this time, on many topics, there is not a universal consensus regarding moving forward.

Participants identified four interrelated areas for District improvement: 1) Equity Work, 2) District Improvement, 3) Educational Structures, 4) Teaching and Learning. Though we discuss each of them separately, all four are interrelated and influence each other. For example, the way the schools address equity and how teachers are aligned to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams impacts individual proactive learning opportunities, and in turn impacts achievement.

Within each of these four areas, participants also identified subthemes for the District to improve (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: Focus Group Growth Themes Equity Work District Improvement

Educational Structures Special Education

Systematic Approach

District Leadership

Equity Capacity

Lack of Impact at the Classroom Level Policies

Linguistically Diverse

Hiring

Representation in Response to Intervention Tracking

Identities and Histories Racism

Eliminate the Fear

Professional Development Student Centered

Advanced Learners

Teaching and Learning Academic Expectations Identity Relevant Curriculum Identity Relevant Instruction Alternative Education Discipline

Collaboration

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

51

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY The first theme is specific to the work of Equity. Within this theme there are five subthemes, (1) Systematic Approach, (2) Equity Capacity, (3) Identities and Histories, (4) Racism, 5) Eliminate the Fear.

1.

Equity Work

The equity work in the District has span over the past seven years. Staff have attended the Integrated Comprehensive Equity Institute in 2015. In addition the District has contracted with the Equity Project and most recently the Pacific Educational Group and has been following their framework and process.

Systematic Approach to Equity The focus group participants interviewed were very proud of “how” the District has begun their equity work. Others discussed their impressions of how they thought such an undertaking of equity should occur. For example, “I am so proud to work here, as the dedication and care to get better is clear. I just wish we had a clearer District strategy and not focus on all the shiny new things that pop up in education.”

Throughout the focus groups, participants asked for a systematic approach to connect all the work the District was engaged in related to equity. For example, one participant shared, “A way to move all of us forward as a District, not in pockets, not in silos, but together. All of the arrows need to be pointed in the same direction.” Other educators were concerned that this equity evaluation would yield little results. Basically, “we did this equity audit and now we are great or that the recommendations will not be rooted in something rich.” Another stated, “I want to be part of a school that transforms a community and models a path forward for the community.” As another educator shared, “I want more courageous leaders. In District Office, our leaders are still watching for someone else to do the work. Everyone holds a leadership position – this is not the work of one person, it is the work of all employees. Encourage staff to place that leadership hat on.”

Some participants explained that they thought the District was right in hiring a specific person to lead the equity work within the District. Others were very clear that, “hiring an Equity Coordinator is not the goal.” As another teacher stated, “The hiring of an Equity Director is great, but one person cannot do the work.” Similarly, others shared that they needed “Community and communication from everyone. Hiring one person is not going to make a whole lot of difference… it needs to be everyone’s responsibility.”

Regarding the “how” of the work, focus group participants also discussed the importance of timing and trust. For example, “when societal issues occur, especially along the lines of race, it would be helpful to train us on how to help facilitate these conversations build confidence for staff to have these courageous conversations.” Other teachers stated that they need fewer © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

52

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY “restrictions and more freedom to do what’s best for kids.” Yet, others believed that the Equity Team needs more autonomy, “Stop controlling the Equity Team — why even have one if you’re going to ignore recommendations and do what you want anyway.”

Equity Capacity Focus group participants questioned the capacity of the District to comprehensively lead the work of equity. Participants discussed that the external pressures originating outside of the schools then become initiatives that then become about capacity. As one teacher said, “I think we have a capacity gap. Some posit it is an intelligence gap – because of the capacity gaps.”

Many teachers felt that it was often “two steps forward three steps back” when it came to the work of equity. As one educator stated, “While we are making some strides, we get a little frustrated with our District because it seems like nothing changes in our District.” Another shared that, “I feel like we are in this constant mode of chasing our tail; we’ve been good at responding, but not sustaining the support that needs to be there afterwards.” Yet another participant stated that there is, “so much stagnant inertia that we become paralyzed.” However, some focus group participants were more concerned that this evaluation would not create the necessary change or that will be used to reinforce performative actions, but not deep authentic systematic change. “I’m happy that we are doing this outside evaluation with the District, but I am fearful that nothing will change.” As parents of students who identified as Black and African American stated, “it is pretty typical behavior for the District to act as if they are doing something equitable… and [that] the District presents an appearance of equity, inclusion, and supporting diversity.”

Others described their concerns regarding the different directions the equity work has taken.

More specifically, “the District has its hands in too many buckets, and we’re not good at any of them.” “We need to decide on a few focus areas, and just get really good at those things but instead, they [the District Office] want[s] to say that teachers are not doing enough. Yet, we are never included in anything that would require collaborative decision-making.” As another teacher reported that the “Initiatives are disconnected. It gets presented as if it is this big transformative thing… but it is about public relations.” On the other hand, other focus group members felt that the direction was unclear, “Sometimes I get the feeling that ‘we are not all singing the same song’ and that causes a lot of confusion and leaving kids behind. We really need to get…on the ‘same music page’.”

Students discussed the complexity of the needs. “It is a decent school, but there is so much that needs to be done to make it a great school for all of us. This school doesn’t realize the gravity of all the stuff that happens.” Teachers acknowledged a similar point and shared that, “We don’t listen to our kids enough, and there is a great need for us to coach teachers about how to make their classrooms better places of belonging for all of our students.” © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

53

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY In addition, many focus group participants believe that the data that the District has been collecting does not tell the entire story, as one teacher stated, “Our racial disaggregation of data is only disaggregated on a binary scale most times.” While others believed that the data is not the story, as one educator shared, “The District is too focused on numbers and data, and not enough on people… we have to go back to the humanity of the work, and holding space for both the adults and kids in the buildings… in this environment, a lot of folks are wrecked and broken, and those feelings trickle down to the kids.” Others believed that the collection of data itself interferes with the work, in that “The folks who are taking care of the adults need to be taking care of the adults, and not the numbers.”

When it comes to capacity, participants were concerned with the difference between talking and action, and reaction. As one member stated, “We wait until something bad happens before we do anything. We are too reactive as a District when it comes to equity and creating positive community spaces for all kids.” Others wanted the District to “walk the talk.” As another educator put it, “Enough talk, we need action. We are here for families. We need to stop curriculum violence and school trauma. We need to call our educators out.” Others felt that the work has moved to “white fragility”, as they put it, “We need to call out acts of racism and sexism verses feeling bad about it. Move beyond self.”

Teachers also shared their perspectives regarding the application of equity work. As one teacher stated, “It is not going well. Teachers understand it [the work of equity] theoretically, but they cannot transfer it into their teaching practices….” Others asked, “what does action look like?”

Another teacher shared the work specific to social justice circles, “Later this week we are having our first conversation of what a social justice circle looks like. Some staff do not feel comfortable that it is not scripted. So it is really difficult and makes the conversation harder for students… they need to know they are not going to get in trouble for saying the things that are not scripted on the slide.”

In addition, participants discussed the topic of trust. “We have not done a [good] enough job of building trust and relationships with Black and Brown parents. Full stop.” As one principal stated, “We have concerns about capacity of doing this work. We are responding to the walkie talkie going off. We are shifting from a deficit based to asset based. We need to get in the classrooms and do the coaching. There are still some mindsets and hiccups. We have staff who do not fully believe in the walk – yet.” As another member described the current environment of the District, “There is zero trust right now, and there is a lot of harm that needs to be healed.”

Parents stated that “there is no trust… the District has never done anything to make us trust them, nor have they gone out of their way to repair harm. My daughter is constantly harassed in the hallway all because she is a brown skin girl, yet she says she rarely sees a white girl stopped and checked about where they’re supposed to be.” Others stated, “We feel used when they

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

54

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY want to promote the District and get votes for something, but when we have concerns they barely acknowledge that we exist.”

Identities and Histories Focus group participants discussed the many aspects of identities, from race to gender, social class, and disability. Regarding the identity of race, focus group participants spoke of the importance of discussing the marginalization of other races within the District. One participant provided context for their perception of the work in the District, “[The District] is focused on one subset of equity and that is our Black and Brown students. Native Americans and Asian Americans are not seen, heard, or valued… [for example], one administrator said they were going to have a pow-wow and asked people what their spirit animals would be.” As another participant shared, “We don’t focus on the broader diversity of our District, there is a hyperfocus on students who don’t achieve like their white counterparts. For example, our Asian students have been ignored for a long time and were not discussed until the rampant rise in antiAsian hate.”

Teachers and students discussed that the focus on race related specifically to Black and Brown students was too narrow. They believe that their professional development and focus has not been as inclusive of gender and intersections of race and disability as well as sexuality. For example, “when we look at data it is always around Black and Brown students and I fear that we are not doing the same for all students.” Others weighed in with the hope that the District’s intent is to include all identities and their intersections over time. As one teacher concluded, “We talk a lot about many agendas that we want to push forward but we do not always push them through. Like, we do not focus on the intersectionality between race and disability – but disability does not even seem to be a focus.”

As one educator expressed, “Our focus is too narrow. Maybe it is where we need to be, but we have focused on Black and Brown and just started about gender. We do not focus on different ethnicities – disabilities – religion --- transgender… my fear we leave a lot of kids out and they know that is a problem.” Others reinforced that the limited focus on race was a problem, as another educator put it, “What about students with disabilities? When do they enter into the conversation?” A student stated, “There seems to be a flavor of the day. Last year was race…

This year it is gender equity and LGBTQIA.” Again, the dichotomy of perspectives was present across many themes addressed during the focus groups, as some staff described their belief that the focus on Brown and Black students was essential. For example, one focus group member shared that “There has been opportunity in Black Lives Matter to isolate race to understand race differently than we have before. We have been able to discuss things related to race in ways than we never have before.” Yet parents described a performative aspect to the District’s Black Lives Matter statement, specifically “the District should not make a statement about Black Lives Matter and then suspend black kids left and right.” © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

55

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Students shared that they had recently started a Black Student Union and that an Asian club had trained 130 staff members last year (2021) due to “Asian hate”. However, at the same time, other students stated that it is “very subtle, but people who are more socially conservative flaunt their narrow thinking through t-shirts and things that they say, and a lot of those messages actually attack our identities that are not the white heteronormative.” In addition, students who are Black and Brown reported that, “The White kids say the n-word, they know they shouldn’t say it. I know it’s addressed by the students; the White kids will get jumped. The staff really don’t do much about it. Teachers will say we are not about racism, I don’t see teachers jumping in that much. Every day it happens.”

Students stated that the Black Student Union, Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) [now nationally referred to as the Genders & Sexualities Alliance], Hispanic Affinity Group, and Asian Affinity Group are important groups. However, a student shared that, “many other students don’t see why it’s important and it’s not worth their time. If others spoke up and told why it was important to them then more people would value the groups and see their importance.” Students reported that they did not believe that they had their teachers’ support. As one student stated, “Staff really don’t promote or support our groups. A few teachers help and support us.”

Despite these groups, another student stated that, “Teachers sometimes will take me aside to help establish proper pronouns and especially world language.” Another student added, “at the beginning of the year during introductions, when we express our names and preferred pronouns, White guys in my group made fun of the activity, and it really silenced me and I didn’t feel safe enough to let the teacher know, and it seems like their jokes and making light of different identities is accepted.” Students discussed feeling that the GSA “has helped with policy and helping students come out.”

Teachers also discussed “White space” by sharing that “There are spaces in this building that are not welcoming to students; very traditional and harmful learning spaces that just don’t speak to the needs of kids of color.” Moreover, another participant stated that “Our Black girls do not feel welcomed in our spaces here.” Another teacher “had a conversation with a student who is Latino, and he told me that he feels very unseen because of the strong focus, negatively, on Black students.” Additionally, teachers shared that they have learned, following conversations with students of color, that students “do not feel center, they feel othered. We need community building. I think we need to really focus specifically on a 4th grade civil rights unit. We could go deeper and connected to current events to help them be more critical learners.” Ultimately, focus group participants discussed that “There needs to be more balanced strategies in how harm is addressed across identities.” Parents described “that the Hispanic/Latino community has very little support or a platform to have our ideas and concerns heard, and to make us also feel like we belong.”

Students shared a similar desire for authentic conversations within the District. As one student stated, “In U.S. history, my teacher sugarcoats and covers up history too much. This is not new © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

56

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY stuff, we’re living it. And some of us are living it now… it is not like a bomb, it won’t go off if you touch it!” Another student shared that “As Hmong kid, I feel completely left out in history. I think we could, like, have some classes that would be our own history class. Like Latino history or Hmong history.” Another student described feeling that “It would be nice that within U.S. history that we could have more talked about with other cultures and get their side of history.

Predominantly, we only get the White side of history, and it is so watered down and whitewashed. They [the teachers] don’t have to go over the worst parts of history quickly. We can handle it!” Other students reported wanting a more open dialogue with staff, in order to be more proactive. Students discussed the importance of being collaborative in that “Students and teachers can work together to solve some of these problems.”

Parents of students who are Hmong, reported a need to be clear about allowing for diversity and voice among the Asian population. Specifically, “with grouping all Asians into one monolith it has robbed many families from my community [Hmong] of the assistance that is needed and has felt unending because of the timeline in the different waves coming to the U.S. This is why it is important to allow these students the opportunity to identify themselves the way they desire and to break away from the national standard that all Asians are a monolith.” In addition, parents shared the need for funding for all student groups to allow travel and experiences, “A lot of parents don’t understand the reasons and I think because there is no information sharing amongst the groups and from the administration. I myself am not aware of how funding is accumulated, so that students from these clubs are able to travel or do things.” Others discussed the importance of seeking individuals who identify as Hmong for teaching and administrative experiences.

Staff discussed the importance of inclusion of all students but also shared their belief that they unintentionally segregate students with disabilities by attempting to meet perceived regulations for special education. In addition, students reported limited interactions with their peers with disabilities. “I do not see a lot of people hanging around with people that have disabilities.”

Another student stated, that “They [students with disabilities] are separated from us a lot, we don’t really get to know them. If we could interact more we could get to know them more and they could get to know us more.” In summary, a student stated that “Kids without disabilities should stop excluding kids.”

Teachers discussed the inconsistencies of the application of the professional development regarding specific identities in that, “we have had professional development on gender identities and different ways that we could be more inclusive.” Others discussed how they are “not using gendered pronouns in casual conversations, such as boys or girls and make or females, or saying hey guys, using they over she/he.” Nevertheless, other participants within focus groups stated that the identity of gender has not been supported by the District. Parents defined, “the District also has a problem with not addressing toxic masculinity… I’m sick of the “boys will be boys’ mentality.” Staff also reported that students who are gender questioning have reportedly been traumatized by statements from teachers such as being told their name of choice is “a boy’s © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

57

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY name.” Another participant stated that there are “lots of incongruous between student identities and expressions of those identities and how staff are accepting of those identities.”

Teachers shared that they often feel uncomfortable with how the community responds to lessons specific to a range of identities and their intersection. For example, in regard to sexuality and race, one teacher stated that teachers are “Picking and choosing how to respond… the District mobilized a script of how to respond [regarding George Floyd], but did not respond the same way to Daunte Wright.” Others believed that “the District needs to be consistent across crises that can impact families and children.”

Staff also discussed how much they were learning across identities. “I am learning all of the time and there are things I don’t know I know or don’t. I lean on other staff. Am I making the right move? Not easy… I am proud of the journey I am on – I want the city of Sun Prairie – to come along with us – we need to make sure we never hurt them and when they leave us and not get hurt that would be great – with the tools and skills they use in a positive way.” Others reported, that, “silenced, stifled, and harmed–this is the experience of black and brown teachers. The culture and environment is hostile towards.” Concomitantly others described that there is a “Tremendous amount of pressure on our Black staff and staff of color and for those who do not identify as cisgender, who are [believed to be] the only people who can make relationships with kids of the same identities. We need to get better of all of us to build relationships across relationships.”

Racism Students reported observing racist acts daily in the District. As one student stated, “Personally, I haven’t experienced bullying or harassment, but I do hear jokes about my Asian identity and sometimes the teacher ignores it.” As another student stated that, “There is a lot of racial or racist aggression, and it is hurtful, and it feels like we can’t get the support we need or even someone to intervene.” Other students reported that it was “Going to be very hard to get kids to open up as it is not going to be easy to get kids to talk – big issue to open up – whether bully or person being bullied.” Similarly, additional students shared that students do not report and have a difficult time telling an adult what happened. As one student stated, “Many students do not know their counselors – if we don’t have a relationship – we won’t go. A lot of kids don’t want the adults to know they need help.” As one counselor described, “seniors go to the counselors for college but otherwise never meet with their counselor.”

Some educators believed that there is, “Not so much bullying or harassment, but a lot of racial disparities and bias.” Another teacher described, “I can feel the racial tension in the building.

This is the most uncomfortable I have been. I felt racism from kids towards me for the first time here.” A teacher also questioned, “Why would we let kids fly confederate flags? That sends a direct message that Black kids don’t belong here, and for some reason it is allowed.” Others discussed how they have experienced backlash for “standing up for what’s right. My daughter © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

58

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY received a phone call someone who said, ‘your dad is a [expletive] for supporting Black Lives Matter.’” Another teacher acknowledged that there is bullying, but expressed concern regarding the District’s response, “Bullying is reacted to quickly – but the way we address it – does not work. We often just suspend the person vs. teaching. Sometimes the bully themselves has real issues – we don’t help and fix the situation.”

Eliminate the Fear The District office has worked to support teachers while keeping their commitment to their District equity policy and procedures that has sometimes, unintentionally resulted in confusion and fear. Teachers expressed fear of making a mistake and that any mistake would inhibit the District’s work toward equity. “There is feeling of whether or not you are going to be supportive based on what you choose to do.” Another educator stated that “The minute I start implementing lessons that are outside of the District’s curriculum ‘kids before content’, I no longer have the support of the District.” A teacher also shared that “The perception is if I screw up, I am in trouble, and I am concerned that I will be made a scapegoat. I want to know I am supported.” Many teachers within the focus groups expressed worries about sensitive subjects, “Everyone is trying hard to do what is right and protect themselves. District office doesn’t completely know what is in my curriculum.” Others discussed the situation at the Middle School regarding the Mesopotamia assignment about slavery, “The news has shown a lot of what’s in our closet, and it has made us even more uncomfortable to do more, and if we make a mistake, the District may not have our backs. I feel like our building administration will support us, but the District doesn’t always show that support.” Parents of students who identify as Brown and Black, defined the curriculum, “as outdated and [that the curriculum] does not reflect the culture and lives of our kids.”

More specifically teachers stated that they were afraid to say the wrong thing, “We have books from social studies that hit on topics. If you are teaching the District curriculum – you are protected – but if you are not, I am unsure what the curriculum is.” For example, “from a book about an adopted sister with two moms, if the conversation moves beyond the book, can I talk about it? Often, when a student has questions we build on and are expected to… it feels really uncomfortable.” Focus group participants questioned, what if “One teacher feels convicted to answer questions, but another teacher may not.” Another teacher shared, “There is fear that we will get push back from parents – fear of repercussions of saying the wrong thing.”

Other focus group members expressed feeling that there is a trust issue within the District.

“There is a huge trust issue between the staff and the District administration.” With another teacher describing a similar feeling that “The amount of fear that is felt and lack of trust leads to hesitation about getting curious. We make mistakes. Let’s get curious about it but teachers no longer feel comfortable doing that.”

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

59

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 2.

District Improvement

District Leadership Many reported that they could see that District leaders lead only as far as they have done the equity work themselves. There was a perception that there is an open-door policy, but that there remains a disconnect within the District. For example, “There is not a clear understanding of the equity work. Administration asked what spirit animal – as an ice breaker. Their journey has not happened.” As one focus group member described that, “District leadership, although wellintentioned, have much personal learning to do and their own growth and continued education…

Sometimes there is a disconnect on their own learning. It is why we say when we [our school] can drive it – we go faster.” With another sharing that “Some District staff have gone through the ELPA PhD program but that does not mean they are doing the work.” Other focus group participants shared their concern that, “They [District leadership] have spent years of being ok… to showing a blind eye, to wanting kudos to now fix it.”

Focus group participants discussed that the “District office has been very good at messaging and putting up the facade of equity, but their actions and policies don’t reflect those sentiments.”

For example, “The District talks a lot about opportunity gaps and not framing things around the achievement gaps, but their leadership practices are reflective of focusing on achievement gaps, and no support (financially or human resource wise) to address and close opportunity gaps.”

Many expressed a desire for the District administrators to “own their learning” regarding equity versus responding by checking off the boxes of what they are doing. Participants also discussed positioning a message about equitable practices, “I would have liked to see the response more of an owning from a District level versus a list of what we did to respond to something. It seemed defensive and created a divide. The ownership fell on the one school – and it feels like the District will protect the District versus owning the mistakes and apologizing.” Another participant stated that “Staff have been taught to own and apologize rather than listing what has been done, the District should as well.”

Others asked for more autonomy for the schools. As one teacher stated, “Let our school administrators be principals… we live and die with them, so please stop placing all this pressure on them so they can be more present and effective with us.” Others shared frustrations that the District is not further ahead than their schools are, “We should be far more ahead in our equity work, but we are not, and that is just a failure in leadership. Our union actually wants to do the work around equity and do what’s best for kids.”

Many families and educators discussed the importance of moving beyond what was perceived as the appearance of equity. As one participant described feeling that the District presents “PR (Public Relations) stunts or the image of equity.” Teachers expressed a need to be more involved in the decisions within the District, as one stated, “the District does a great job talking to parents, © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

60

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY but we as teachers need to engage in more conversations with the District as well.” Another educator described that “we just wished that they would partner with us more because we have really good ideas too.”

Many discussed the depth of the current and past equity work within the District. “Well… acknowledging that there is an issue around equity at the District level – as they are opening themselves a smidgin, mostly, specific to race, gender, agism.” Or, from an educator of color, “my experience with District leadership around equity is that we are proud of our statements, but our actions don’t reflect these statements and the performative language.”

As one educator summarized the reactive practices of leadership, “We need to focus, or we wait until something bad happens before we do anything… we are too reactive as a District when it comes to equity and creating positive community spaces for all kids.” With another sharing that “We need to decide on a few focus areas, and just get really good at those… but instead, they want to say that teachers are not doing enough… we are never included in anything that would require collaborative decision-making.” Moreover, that “the District has its hands in too many buckets, and we’re not good at any of them.”

Failure of District Level Equity Policies and Practices to Impact the Classroom Level Across focus groups, many participants recognized that many District level staff have participated in equity development at the District level over many years, and at a great expense, but that this work has failed to impact the classroom level. Likewise, the District expends many resources and time to develop District-wide frameworks (some participants identified the current work on an instructional framework as one example), proclamation statements, and policies without impact at the classroom level.

Further, participants identified that though many staff work in middle-leadership positions at the District level and these staff are regularly in touch with the school and classroom levels, this middle management work is not coordinated, and that the top District level fails to tap into the expertise of these staff members in order to inform top level decision-making. Thus, top level District decision-making seems out of tune with what is needed at the classroom level.

The District has implemented a plethora of programs and services across the District with much of it siloed at the District and school levels, and requiring separate, multiple team meetings across the District, preventing collaboration and coordination, stretching staff thin, and thus preventing positive impact at the classroom level. One participant shared: “We are working in silos. We need better communication all the way around. We have PBIS teams, MTSS team, AVID teams, E-teams (equity teams), all here to do the same work and not working together. That needs to be brought together. We elevate the same people on these teams, stretching to the

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

61

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY max some people.” Another shared, “we have lots of different supports. People don’t know who to ask. We have so many resources but no coordination.”

One District educator shared how she saw that “… things are happening but brushed under the rug” and “how a teacher did not talk to any of her Black students.” Though they told the teacher, they believed that in their middle leadership position, they have “lots of responsibility and no power.”

Others described the extensive work on a District instructional framework, but shared that this work was on a “high level, how does it look differently in the classroom when done? All this work but when it comes to the classroom, how will it matter?” Another shared, “we train and train and train but it doesn’t change the classroom level.” “It looks good on paper.” Another teacher summed up the sentiment: “Equity work is not at all meaningful to me. It doesn’t feel like I have improved my capacity as a teacher to teach all students.” And another educator reflected, “If it was simple as training we would already be there.” Another educator agreed, “We have done enough book studies… We need application. It needs application and it is messy.”

Other participants agreed that the District needs to “empower leaders to speak to and address situations related to equity as they see them in real time to interrupt it. Even though we have book studies, and PLC’s, by name by face, every student. Still things are happening and comments are being made, situations occurring, and people don’t have the skills to respond in the moment. That’s what it’s going to take for kids to feel like the District is an ally. Zero tolerance commitment to disrupt comments in class and curriculum, in a way that honors them and their identities.”

Even during the course of the focus groups, an educator described their day that day and how they were clearly struggling with Black students not being engaged in their class and that the situation was bothering them, yet they shared that they had no idea what to do.

Another educator summed up the gap between the District level leadership and classroom impact: “[The District Leadership Team] is all over the place with student expectations and engagement. The District has made it aware and spent money and brought in people, guest speakers, some of it falls on lip service. We checked the box. The District ‘we have done this, now it is on you to make changes.’ That’s the issue. The words. It’s like if I was a teacher, all I did was lecture and then tell kids to go do it. The District is checking boxes.”

Policies Focus group participants responded positively about the policies and also shared their perspectives about the areas of needs, when asked the following two questions: a.

What district policies support the achievement of all students in the District?

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

62

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY b.

What district policies can get in the way of all students achieving in the District?

Administrators discussed how “[District policies] are meant to enable alignment across the board room to strategic plan to the classroom. The policies are the glue to focus our conversations.”

Teachers discussed that policies that “come from the top that are not realistic. That we check a box and that they do not have conviction behind them.” Specifically, “There is not any accountability.”

Staff also asked questions regarding the implementation of the equity policies. Such as, “how to have those conversations or how do I analyze my curriculum for gender fluid language? Are we addressing needs from a biological standpoint vs. gender?” Educators discussed that “Some of the policies are very clear (e.g., ‘don’t repeat a racial epithet’), then we feel like we can’t say things specifically around LGBTQ language. It makes teachers apprehensive about saying something because they are not sure what they can and can’t say. Hard because we have a social issue, book clubs, have books that address inequities, but we are concerned about what can and can’t be discussed.”

Many participants supported the District’s equity policies, as one participant stated, “The top one that comes to mind is our Equity Statement. It says a lot about who we are and what we care about. I know we have a lot of work to, but I feel like we are on our way to do some really great things despite the challenges we have.” Another participant shared that the “Equity statement and policy affirms and supports all of our kids. ‘We Stand By…’ is essential for the Resolution on Black Lives Matter.” Others stated that the Equity policy was “Very clear – that people’s identity is not controversial. Policies around non-discrimination - Equity Framework – is useful and strong statements.” Focus group members agreed that the District’s “Proclamations are supportive.” Other focus group members addressed the policies regarding sensitive or controversial topics, specifically LGBTQIA+ and Critical Race Theory (CRT), were also helpful and supportive for staff.

Others shared that the District’s dress code policy was recently reviewed in 2021 and shared that gender plan procedures were also developed. “Our new dress code policies are better for girls and kids of color. So that has happened at the secondary level, but [maybe] not at the elementary level.” Others agreed that “We have grown a lot, as dress code was changed, thanks to high school students, for a dress code that is culturally represented.” Similarly, another focus group member shared that the “Dress code used to be a problem – had underlying systemic racism and policed female bodies over male bodies. Clearly stated things that stated no durags.

The District revamped the dress code and has allowed for more inclusivity and less racial biases.”

Participants shared the importance of the policies that reinforce the District’s work for equity. As one teacher discussed, “Changing mindset around policy that centers around whiteness. Punitive mindset to a restorative mindset.” And acknowledged that this is challenging due to “how much © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

63

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY schooling is centered on whiteness.” Administrators discussed other policy changes in support of children and families. “Many of the local level things we have examined and changed. Such as, we used to shuttle kids – when they moved – we used to have a voluntary placement – if you could transport your own child – you could go where you want. We also used to have an arbitrary test to get into specific classes. We have dismantled policies that were meant for adults or [that] filtered kids.” Administrators also shared that “We are systematically transforming and reviewed a lot of language which was criminalizing language that did not align to who we are and our position on social emotional learning.” While administrators also acknowledged that “there are policies that need to be reworked.”

Others viewed the District’s policies differently. Many discussed that there were, “So many policies about policing kids’ bodies.” Students described that the dress code policies still state that, “No crop tops still or shoulder bare tops” and that the focus remains on how females dress.

Students added that “We can have hoods and hats, but we cannot wear slides. Last year we could bring blankets and wear what we wanted.”

Hiring Across all focus groups, educators, families, and students discussed the need to recruit and retain staff of color. As a student of color discussed, “The majority of our teachers are White, and it would be nice to have more teachers of color. I’ve always had a White teacher since kindergarten, makes me feel like I’m foreign, in a place where I’m supposed to feel welcomed.”

Others shared that “Within the last year, the SPASD has worked to hire three principals of color and now have an equity and inclusion director.”

The District reported that the District enrolls 37.7% students of color, including 9.1% students who identify as Hispanic, 8.3% multi-racial students, 10.1% Black students, 9.9% Asian students, .2% Native American students, and less than 1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, with 62.3% of the District comprised of White students.

Of certified staff (e.g., teachers and administrators), only 13.6% are people of color (1.8% Black, 3.0% Asian, 1.4% Hispanic, .6% Native American, 6.8% multi-racial). Among uncertified staff (positions not requiring an educator license), 76.9% are White and 23.1% are people of color including 8.9% Black, 8.7% Hispanic, 4.4% multiracial, .8% Native American and one (.3%) Native Hawaiian.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

64

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 48: District Student and Staff Racial Demographics

District Student and Staff Racial Demographics 40.0%

37.7%

35.0% 30.0% 23.1%

25.0% 20.0% 13.1%

15.0% 10.0%

6.8%

5.0% 0.0% Students of Color in the District

Staff of Color in the District

Certified Staff of Color in the District

Uncertified Staff of Color in the District

As far as recruitment is concerned, administrators discussed active recruitment from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s). Administrators from a range of diverse identities discussed their feelings about the District environment, that “if the premise is right, we will come, but you have to make it an environment that we want to stay. Some things I have stopped fighting… I quit the equity team as I felt like I was banging my head against the wall. I would sit with adults and help people do the work and unload their baggage. I am not going to waste my time, if that time can go to my students. My emotional energy is better spent with kids. I am not willing to work with adults who just want a curriculum and don’t want to do the work.” Others stated that the perception was that “We are not paying staff of color enough to come or stay, and it is a shame because neighboring districts are doing it very well.”

Professional Development Focused on Equity Participants across the focus groups discussed feeling that, “We have done a good job of professional development. The District is tending to stick with things and grow with it. Like responsive classroom and work models.” Many discussed the importance of the District-wide shared book study authored by Hammond. 7 Still others were concerned that this was a more performative response from the District, rather than substantive in nature. “We are doing equity work rather than doing things well. It is about what comes down from the District to show how much we are doing. But how effective are we?” Many also discussed how “District wide professional development is optional and those who want to do the work will do the work, but others will not.” Another educator shared, that there has “been a steady trickle of professional 7

https://www.ct3education.com/2021/04/07/performative-or-substantive/

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

65

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY development opportunities specific to race. But the District cannot compel anyone to do it. It is all voluntary.” Others believed that the District’s professional development was a “direct response to the incident at Patrick Marsh, but little or no follow through.” Such statements from staff reinforced the perception that the District has a reactionary approach to equity.

Many reported that they are seeking professional development regarding the application of the information they are learning. Specifically, as one educator shared, “Give people language so we can talk to each other; for example, learner partnerships. We did the book study, let’s do it well.

How are we touching it again this year so that we do not just let it live in last year? Is it a District wide anchor? If so, then what are the next steps?” Others shared that it would be important to “slow walk around courageous conversations about race protocol and provide a framework for analyzing ourselves.” Another example was shared, “We have done a lot of professional development around race/gender/sex over the last couple of years, we need assistance of how do we take that capacity building to visuals in our classrooms?” As one focus group participant stated, “Staff – have options of what they can do – but when you reach your cap – why would you keep going?” Another discussed that “Gender based bullying professional development is half a day. Still on a surface level – intersectionality does not exist in these discussions.”

Educators stated that it is important that “The District needs to continue to follow up on professional learning, as opposed to the one-stop-shop of professional learning and expecting people to just all of a sudden, get it.” Focus group participants also shared a belief that when they (schools) are “in the driver’s seat – we get further. When we take on their own understanding and learning – and it is not forced.” Others discussed the need for more connected and continued professional development, development that builds over time. As one teacher put it, “We need more training. We are told you need to do or be XYZ and then we get a one-day professional development and expected to be the experts and implement. We need more consistent support to do this.” And another described that “We have had great convocation speakers – Cornelius Minor and Sharroky Hollie– it would be great if it were continuous professional development.”

Participants had also discussed the confusion that sets in, when provided with policy information and professional development in the areas of race and LGBTQIA+, and then they receive an unexpected response from the District, for example “we have been asked to take down our love is love posters.”

Families shared that the teachers in the District, particularly White teachers, have gone through “all this… professional development and yet they are still enacting harm on Black children.” One parent brought up that “the February event with the Hammurabi code was just horrendous. I want the District to understand that they have to talk to families and build relationships first.”

Another administrator shared that during the “Training with Pacific Education Group they talked © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

66

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY about a believing challenge. I am not confident that every staff believes that every child can learn to an excellent degree.”

Student Centered Approach Throughout the focus groups, many discussed the need to move from an adult-focus to a student-centered approach. As one Board member stated, “We need a laser-like focus on relationships with students. There is no magic pill to eradicate all of that [inequities], but we have to make sure that all kids feel like they belong. We need to set up an environment that is conducive to life-long learning. We need a ctrl + alt + delete on education.” Others reinforced the idea that “we need to be more student-centered as opposed to teacher-centered.” Another participant stated, “I wish every kid saw the school where they belong and could be themselves. I wish the way we did school would empower kids to bring their whole self into the learning… I wish for one thing. I wish that students of color have a feeling of belonging. If we could build that sense of belonging with our students it would make a lot of other things possible.” Finally, “that means we [as staff] are changing and letting go of old mindsets and practices that do not serve our kids. Schools were built around white kids.”

3.

Educational Structures

Focus group participants shared different practices and educational structures being utilized to provide special education services, services for students who are linguistically diverse, and services for advanced learners. As one board member stated, “We need a paradigm shift from focusing on adult problems to child problems. We have to focus on what’s best for kids: bus schedules, school schedules, and personalized education for all kids, and an education that is relevant and affirming of each child. They all have the potential to be great, and too often we leave kids behind with our antiquated practices.” Others stated that there were structural issues across all student supports that often marginalized students of color, students receiving free/reduced price lunch, and students who are linguistically diverse. Another educator summed up the educational structures by, “We do a lot of segregating kids and not just kids with IEP’s, but also kids of color, kids who are English Learners, and even gifted kids, but for them they have Advanced Placement and Honors to uplift them.” As another stated the need for “Collective efficacy and ownership of all kids. Classroom teachers need to expand their commitment and efficacy for all kids, especially for kids who have IEP’s and kiddos who are ELL.” Special Education In this section, we pull together the data from the preceding sections to examine special education across student identities.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

67

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Of the District’s students, 2163 (27.4%) receive free/reduced price lunch. Students who receive free/reduce priced lunch are over-identified for special education by nearly 20%, given that 46.8% of students labeled for special education also receive free/reduced price lunch compared to 27.4% students receiving free/reduced priced lunch District wide.

Students of color are over-identified for special education with 37.7% students of color in the District, but 48.5% of students identified for special education are students of color. Black students are over-identified for special education more than any other racial group with 10.1% of District students identifying as Black but are nearly twice as likely to be labeled for special education (19.5% of students labeled for special education are Black). Hispanic students who represent 9.1% of the District are also over-identified for special education (12.3%) as are students who identify as multi-racial in the District (8.3%), 10.5% of students labeled for special education identify as multi-racial.

Students receiving English Language Learning (ELL) services (8.2%) are slightly over-identified for special education services of which 9.0% receive ELL services.

Figure 49: Representation in Special Education

At the elementary level, staff discussed that their structures were cross-categorically aligned to grade level and that students are “included as much as possible.” Another teacher stated, “I’ve seen a pattern of loading certain teachers with students with IEP’s and to a degree it’s like we abuse them because that level of work and differentiation is taxing when you’re the only one doing it and not sharing the burden with a team.” Others discussed the use of resource rooms for math and literacy instruction. As one teacher stated, “It is a mixed bag, people are doing the best they can, but we are lacking a qualified staff and services for every child. Some kids get what they need, others don’t.” In addition, “for some of our students who are more transient, those services and their quality are even more diminished.” © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

68

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Other elementary teachers discussed that “students with Individualized Educational Plans (IEP’s) who are Black and Brown are not being served well.” Or shared that “We are conditioning students to find ways to get out of difficult learning and to escape discomfort when kids don’t want to be challenged.” As another shared concerns that “A lot of our special education practices don’t make sense either, like education minutes are almost never fulfilled.” The perception was that teachers need more educational assistance. Finally, “There are a lot of structures that don’t allow us to make connections with kids. We could reimagine what the school day looks like.” Moreover, “the whole system of our school is just not set up to do what I think Integrated Comprehensive Systems promotes, which is adults wrapping around kids and the universal tier as opposed to pulling kids out.” Administrators shared that they believed they had the “Most reasonable caseloads for our special education teachers but still [find it] really difficult for them to coach in the rooms and to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Teach. There is some pull out by default, but we are all still in core.”

Educators shared their staffing patterns at the middle school level. For example, “We feel lucky to have a special education teacher and an educational assistant with each house; these two individuals stay with our house, and they are prominent members on our house team.”

Nevertheless, others felt the opposite, “We are so understaffed and so crowded, it’s a hot mess.

Forty percent of our students have IEP’s and have 5 are gifted and talented. Students are not getting enough of me. Small percentage of kids who need to be self-contained, it is just overwhelming. Most students with IEP’s are in two of the classes and it is a co-teaching model.

Clustering pushes the needs of all to one group of teachers.”

Others discussed how the “Conditions are right for teachers to be spread less thin – the new moniker for Co-Plan to Co-Serve – it is new. We currently have a retrofitted model.” Yet another stated that “Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) is where we plan on going versus [the] special ed teacher is responsible for pushing in and pulling out.” Still another special education teacher stated, “We use to do more pullout, now we are to do a Co-Plan to Co-Serve model - especially with students of higher incident disability, but we are not on the same page of what that means.” We have “Study skills and resource class exists, but for the most part they are included in the general education setting.” Yet students with increased disabilities or defined as “low incident” “have access to core. The only core class they do not engage in is math. We also cluster ‘newcomers’ in specific houses.” One educator summed it up simply by saying, “Special education is very clustered by house as well as ESL.” At the high school level, “For a lot of students across those categories or labels, our teachers and departments do a tremendous amount of work to achieve success for them; however, we don’t do a great job of giving them the best education possible. The District has their own agenda about how we should be meeting certain goals or benchmarks for these students, and then teachers have a different perspective, and then families have a different perspective.” © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

69

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Teachers expressed the reactive nature of the services, as one educator stated, “Our school is built for them [students without disabilities], which is why they achieve so well… for others, they don’t “fit”, so they get specialized teachers and services which makes the model very reactive and not proactive for them.” “The only place you are in special education is a school, and you feel it the minute you walk in the door.” Others stated that, “some students aren’t always in the classroom during work time; typically, they are pulled out and work in another room.” Another stated, “Some of our students identified for special education wander the halls, and sometimes their teachers, who might be with other kids, are expected to go get them.”

Linguistically Diverse Focus group participants discussed that students who are linguistically diverse are no longer in separate or segregated classrooms, yet “they are always clumped together, it creates a division.

It makes it easier for adults, harder for kids.” Many discussed that there is “no designated time to collaborate with staff working with those students, as well as no common preps and not compensated hard to do it in a meaningful way.” Others shared that students who are linguistically diverse and eligible for special education are “meeting criteria for intervention… Not our affluent white kids.” As another teacher stated, “the clustering model for student labeled as ELL is difficult for staff to meet their needs absent any planning.”

Another teacher echoed what many others stated about families, that “Our Bilingual families are at such a huge disadvantage when it comes to the information they’re receiving, which then in turn harms their ability to help or advocate for their child.” As one administrator shared, “Our biggest challenge is building universal capacity for general educators. To serve all students. We don’t have ELL classrooms or a cognitive disability program, but we need to get better at Universal Design for Learning (UDL).”

Advanced Learners Here, we pull together the data related to advanced learners previously discussed, across identities.

Students who receive free/reduced price lunch are under-identified as advanced learners given that 112 of the 1079 students identified as advanced learners (10.4%) receive free/reduced price lunch compared to 27.4% of District students receiving free/reduced price lunch.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

70

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 50: Social Class and Representation as Advanced Learners

Moreover, of the students participating in Advanced Placement courses at the high school or advanced courses at the middle school, 16.1% are students receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

In addition, only 10% of Advanced Placement (AP) exams were completed by students receiving free/reduced price lunch, and of those, only 8.8% of students receiving free/reduced price lunch scored a 3 or above, compared to 91.2% of middle/upper class students who completed AP exams.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

71

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 51: Social Class and Representation in Advanced Courses and Advanced Placement Exams

Race/Ethnicity and Advanced Education Students of color (37.7% of the District) are under-represented in advanced education (33%).

Black students are under-identified as advanced learners more than any other racial identity, with Black students comprising 10.1% of the District, but only 3.1% of students identified as advanced learners. Students who identify as Hispanic are also under-represented as advanced learners as Hispanic students comprise 9.1% of the District but only 7.0% of students identified as advanced learners. White students are over-identified as advanced learners, representing 62.3% of District students but 67.0% of students identified as advanced learners.

In middle/high school advanced courses, Black students are under-identified more than any other racial group with Black students who comprise 10.1% of the District, but only 4.6% of students enrolled in these courses. Hispanic students represent 9.1% of the District population but are under-represented in the middle and high school advanced courses (8.0%). Students who identify as multi-racial in the District (8.3%) are under-identified in middle/high school advanced courses (6.2%). Whereas White students are over-identified in these same courses as they represent 62.3% of the District, but 73.4% of students in middle/high school advanced courses.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

72

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY We can expect that since Black, Hispanic, multi-racial, Native American, or Native Hawaiian students are under-represented in advanced courses at the middle and high school, they would also be under-represented in the completion of Advanced Placement exams at the high school.

Of the 619 students who completed Advanced Placement exams, only 12 Black students (1.9%) completed an exam, 8.0% of students who completed the exams were Hispanic students and 7.7% Asian students, whereas 73.4% of Advanced Placement exams were completed by White students.

Students receiving ELL services in the District (8.2%) are under-identified as advanced learners (1.5% of students identified as advanced learners are receiving ELL services).

Only 9 students or less than 1% (.8%) of students enrolled in advanced courses at the middle/high school are students receiving ELL services. Only 4 students of the 619 high school students completing Advanced Placement exams were students also receiving ELL services and of those 4 students, no students scored a 3 or higher.

Figure 52: Race/Ethnicity and Representation as Advanced Learners

Focus groups discussed more integrated educational service options for students who are identified as advanced learners. Students identified for the Advanced Learner Program (ALP) “are spread among all classrooms. We try to make sure that students with ALPS are not the only one in a specific classroom.” As one elementary teacher shared, “Students… identified in 4 th and 5th grade in math and reading, as well as writing, kids’ needs should be met in core even for highfliers.”

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

73

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Others were more critical, “Students are identified in elementary school in STAR scores above 95%. Then they’re labeled for life. There isn’t a benefit to having a gifted label, but that doesn’t mean they have access to advanced classes. Gifted kids and families have meetings but there isn’t anything earth shattering about the label besides being flagged in Infinite Campus.” As another focus group participant shared that, “Out of all our groups, these students are served the least in terms of specialized instruction; yes, the system is designed for them, but instruction needs to be better to stretch them.” While another shared that, “Everyone is confused about how to better serve our kids who are labeled gifted.” And that “In my ideal world, I would do away with the label, and just focus our energies and efforts on teaching and mastering the skills needed to serve the continuum of learning with all students.”

Other participants shared their concern about how students are labeled as advanced learners and the lack of demographic representation in that labeling, for example, “I think about inequities of how students qualify and do not qualify and many of our practices are terribly outdated.” Another added, “We identify mostly white and Asian students. We need to learn how to widen that net. We could do things differently.”

Others discussed their perception of a lack of appropriate staffing for students identified as advanced learners. For example, “The ALPS person is split – split staff make it difficult. There is not an emphasis from administration, as that would be perceived as equitable.” Another teacher shared that they “question the equity lens around who has access to these programs and classes. There are no barriers (teacher signatures, no parent signatures, etc.) systemic barriers.”

Other members of the focus groups discussed the importance of developing all teachers’ capacity. “We have an Advanced Learning teacher to give feedback on how to provide more challenging work or more of a focus in math [so students] can move to high school advanced math. We have a select group of students, teachers have to create passion projects, or more choices, or are given more challenges. Yet, it’s hard to find the time.”

Representation in Response to Intervention Here, we pull together the data in the preceding sections to summarize representation in response to intervention programs.

Students who receive free/reduced lunch in the District (27.4%) are over-identified for Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions (56.2% of students receiving interventions receive free/reduced price lunch).

Black students are over-identified for Response to Intervention more than any other racial group as Black students represent 10.1% of the District but 24.6% of students identified for Response to Intervention. Hispanic students are also over-identified for Response to Intervention at 13.3% but represent 9.1% of the District. Multi-racial students are also over-identified for Response to © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

74

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Intervention who represent 8.3% of the District, but comprise 10.0% of students receiving Response to Intervention.

Students receiving ELL services (8.2% of the District) are over-identified for Response to Intervention with 13.4% of students receiving Response to Intervention who are also receiving ELL services.

Figure 53: Representation in Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions

Participants within the focus groups discussed a range of concerns regarding providing educational services through Response to Intervention (RtI). Some staff were concerned that the WINS block and other leveled or pulled out options are no longer being implemented. “We don’t know what we don’t know. Other buildings are using RtI time and WINS and it was very successful. We are not sure why we are not doing it.” Others shared their desire to implement an RtI block. Nevertheless, others stated that they would “hate for that time to become a student service block, ‘maybe a what I need block?’” Others wondered if, “[intervention] could happen within the classroom?” Participants also shared concerns that, “Reading intervention is so full they can’t take any more kids. We have kids that could benefit, but not enough staff.”

Focus group participants discussed the importance of Tier 1 instruction and the shift to meeting the needs of all students within the core of teaching and learning. “As a District, classroom teachers are getting trained in ADR and a math curriculum.” Others stated that “Teaching and learning needs to be more diagnostic in what kids need.” As well as “building teacher skills in teaching to the wider spectrum of student needs and a continuum of learning.”

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

75

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Others were concerned with the pull-out instruction as “students who are struggling from an equity standpoint, they get half of their day repeated.” As one teacher stated, “just because you did not do well on the test that some White person wrote, the students who are often brown and black, have a lack of access to curriculum that they like… Therefore, their curriculum is being reduced… This is huge – for the kid who loves basketball – they can’t take it because of reading and math boosters… feels like a punishment.”

Regarding math at the middle school level, teachers discussed the supports of a full-time math interventionist at the 8th grade and 9th grade level to support the core. Others stated that, “We used to have an intervention class. Since it has been eliminated the interventionist is expected to push into all the classes.” Others believed that “The District is pushing for a more canned curriculum for interventions. Online tests instead of tailoring to what is happening in the classroom.” Other teachers discussed student assessment and the use of the Learning Leadership Teams (LLT) and how they look at data from universal screeners and review quarterly. Other teachers discussed the use of “STAR scores to identify students for RtI, a reading and math class for more intensive work for students.”

Tracking Tracking is a form of segregation through an academic leveling process. Focus group participants discussed that Advanced Placement classes create “huge equity issues as only certain students can take” these classes. One focus group member shared that “I asked my son how many black and brown kids are in his Advanced Placement Anatomy class, and he told me ‘None, mom. And it’s a shame because so many of my friends who are Black deserve to be in there, but their counselors tell them no.’” Another teacher stated, “I live my day in advanced classes, want the demographics to match the student population, it would be richer discussion for all kids.” In addition, the teacher stated that they “Wish we could use classroom data and classroom anecdotes and help support disenfranchised students, to more positively impact all students.

Realizing that there is historical oppression, and we need to involve students and families. We need to work together with students and not do unto them, but get them involved with what they want to see done.” Another teacher shared that “there is a performative nature of the push to get everyone in Advanced Placement, then there aren’t any supports.”

Educators provided clarity regarding data used to level students, specifically the use of “STAR data to place students in certain classes, tracking even though the District won’t call it that.”

Others stated, “they [the District] were eliminating standardized testing, but still use it to make decisions for where students end up and where they don’t.” Many discussed the District’s decision to level up in Math through 8th grade Algebra for all with an “equity lens.” Others stated that, “most teachers do not believe this is a great idea for kids. Third year with this, 8th grade has math daily, the first year they skipped from 7th grade math to Algebra. It wasn’t rolled out in a way that supported kids. Seventy percent of Black boys were failing Algebra. If they © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

76

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY aren’t successful in Algebra can’t be successful in any other of the math classes. Students now have to retake the class if they received a D or an F.” Educators continued with, “The change to 8th grade Algebra has been a nightmare. In fact, we have more students failing and hating math that come to us and we have to spend so much time rebuilding their math confidence.” This has resulted in students falling behind, predominately students identified for ELL, students of color, and students who transfer into the SPASD. When the students do fall behind, the perception is that “they [the students who fall behind] lack motivation and hate math because they had to retake it.”

Collaboration and Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams (C3 Teams) Throughout the focus groups, participants shared their current collaboration efforts and hopes for what collaboration could look like. As one special education teacher stated, “We have the veneer of a co-teaching model, but it rarely ever happens. I am constantly pulled out for behavior or case management issues for students on my caseload, and it is just very murky about how we set things up for students. Co-Planning is essentially nonexistent. Last year on Wednesdays, it was amazing! We are Co-Planned and were able to serve more students well.

This year, it is not even talked about because already we are all just surviving. Last year with the Wednesday collaboration day, was the most successful I ever felt as a teacher because we had common prep and time to plan for all.” As another teacher stated, “Our current structure is a bit limited, but the greatest area of need is co-planning and co-teaching. There hasn’t been much professional learning around how to leverage current PLCs to do more of that co-planning.”

Others shared their concerns regarding the “time and structure dedicated to collaboration” and reported that “professional learning is very poor.” “We need a better structure and time for collaboration. We still operate on a one size fit all approach for kids…” Others discussed collaboration time as “a work in progress, Thursdays are set aside from 2-4 for grade levels to meet. ELL and special education meet with grade level teams at that time. Great in theory but we only have one interventionist between all grade levels, so ELL and special education visit different teams but not fully embedded.” Yet another shared that, “On paper we are supposed to be collaborative, but it still feels like silos.” Many described teachers coming and going from meetings after they shared their information, not allowing time to brainstorm and then cocreate instruction. Others discussed that it is “really hard when staff are split between schools.”

Another teacher described that, “The subbing shortage is destroying any ability we might have to engage in professional learning or collaborative time.”

Others discussed that they had, “Little collaboration across a range of expertise. We had two days on-site last year and a day of virtual learning. During that time, I could co-plan with special education as we were outside of our curricular and grade level teams.” Another teacher stated, “We have made huge gains in how we collaborate – and nothing is changing – Nothing else is happening in the classrooms.” Students were clear that in their understanding that “Not every © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

77

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY child learns the same way, yet we are all taught the same, some kids understand the teacher the rest of us are scrambling to understand. Teachers need to teach differently so all kids understand it.”

4.

Teaching and Learning

Across the focus groups, participants discussed academic expectations, identity relevant curriculum and instruction, alternative education, as well as discipline and behavior.

Academic Expectations Many focus group participants discussed the need to hold high expectations for all learners. As one parent summed up, “We see you; we hear you; we love you!” A teacher stated, “love is not enough.” With another member sharing the importance of “Holding kids to high expectations as we know that they are capable.” As well as “I want every student to know they are worth the work.” Another educator added, “Balance care with push (to meet expectations). Much care – little push. It has to be everyone. We need that balance for students and adults.”

Others discussed the need for “more opportunities for students to do what they are capable of doing, as opposed to doing what we always do, so they [students] can be successful.” Another teacher added that “Meeting the needs of most of our kids is not working for our kids. We need to get vulnerable.”

Many were clear about the importance of moving beyond categories and labeling of students.

“We put labels on kids and have preconceived ideas of what they can and cannot do.” As another stated, “Sometimes we silo and put students in categories, we need to break down the silos.

Others discussed the need for inclusion in the core curriculum, as one teacher stated, “Access to core curriculum – participation – all in for all.” By also sharing the feeling that teachers need to be “Recognizing that students have different learning needs. We need to do ‘just in time’ within Tier 1 no matter who they are without stigma and blame.”

Educators discussed that the “General anxieties and tensions in the world are exacerbated here in the school.” In addition, that “There is a lot of low-level thinking and compliance-based education that happens here in the school, especially for black and brown students.” Others described that, “The expectations are not equal - we sell many students short. If we ask students, they would say the rules do not apply to all. I hear Dr. Hollie say don’t lower the expectations.” Others discussed the importance of what students needed, “I want to make sure the message we send to kids we believe is that we believe in them. We actually send the message that we do not believe you are capable.” Or “We push curriculum and so we don’t take time. The message we send to kids is you cannot handle it, so to keep you happy I am going to © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

78

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY lower my expectations. Kids feel this.” In the end, “A few kids set the tone for the learning of many kids. We need to move beyond keep you happy, and to you to deserve to be challenged in school.”

Students shared that “I don’t think that all teachers hold all kids to the same standards based on race and social economics. Some kids are not pushed or held to high expectations – this is not right.” Secondary students believed that there were low expectations and that teachers “did not apply any pressure to make me want to stay in school.” A parent of children who identify as Black stated that “there is a gross lack of representation of gifted students, advanced placement, and STEM. Teachers seem to hold very low expectations of my children and other kids of color.”

And “My kids are very sensitive to how teachers treat them and respond to their learning needs… and too often, teachers don’t meet their needs.”

Identity Relevant Curriculum Many educators commented on the curricular violence 8, content regarding identities and their intersections, as well as curricular minutes. Focus group participants discussed the “need to do more for kids who struggle and learn differently and that starts by making sure kids have learning materials and books that represent who they are.” Educators and parents discussed that “Curricular violence professional development is truly necessary as many are analyzing [the curriculum] through different lenses. We have the work to continue as we have not continued to do it on our own.” As one parent stated, “There is quite a bit of curriculum violence that goes on in the District, and the event on February 1st was not an isolated incident. The systems continuously fail our kids.” A student stated, “We need in our history classes to talk about modern day issues that represent all people who make up America now.” Others were concerned with needing or requiring more direction from the District Office, “I am concerned about the social studies curriculum. We have little direction or none from District Office, basically nothing District wide. If I was not working on my curriculum license – nothing would be happening.”

Educators discussed the need for curriculum to represent all students through “mirrors and windows,” but then reported feeling concerned with the next steps. As an elementary teacher shared, “I taught literacy for 4 years and was handed a classroom library that was not represented across race, religion, gender, and sexuality. Literacy teachers are spending their own money to diversify classroom libraries.” As one teacher shared, “From what I hear from high school students, especially from Black families and students, the teaching of history and literature that is diverse is not going well. It is from a White perspective, and a racist perspective.” Others stated, “It is not enough to just do this for our black and brown students, 8

The coined term, “curriculum violence,” refers to the deliberate manipulation of academic programming in a manner that ignores or compromises the intellectual and psychological well-being of learners” (Ighodaro & Wiggan, 2011, p. 2). In Ighodaro, E. & Wiggan, G. (2011).

Curricular Violence: America’s New Civil Rights Issue.). Hauppauge NY: Nova Science Publishers. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

79

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY but our white students need to see others in ways that disrupt media and societal stereotypes.”

High school teachers discussed that they are making an effort to shift their curriculum, “Change makers that I have not highlighted in the past I am highlighting now – like Harvey Milk.”

Others stated, “That is the easy part – to represent diversity is just a start. We do not have direction of where to take that next.” Moreover, that “Applying the learning into our classrooms independently is not happening. Much learning across the adults but transferring the learning is not happening as teachers are hesitant.” Others discussed that curricular practices are inconsistent regarding content, for example, “if a student is uncomfortable [they] can leave the room. We don’t do that with civil rights. Why would we do it around same sex marriage?” In addition, educators are concerned about blurring lines between public and private beliefs. As stated earlier, staff are hesitant to have conversation about identities throughout the curriculum. For example, “people are worried about blurring the line between personal and public.”

As one teacher noted, “Our curricular minutes calendar gets in the way of allowing teachers to integrate content across the day, and that gets in the way of teachers doing what’s best to meet kids where they are and move kids forward.” Others believed that assessments and test scores interfered with meeting the needs of each learner as “The emphasis on test scores lends itself to us being really micromanaged, and that doesn’t serve kids well because it takes us away from the art of teaching and responding to kids in the moment. And, if we don’t do more to create a greater sense of belonging for all kids, these achievement gaps will continue to exist.”

Identity Relevant Instruction Educators were clear about the importance of improving instruction for all learners in Tier 1.

“Tier 1 needs a lot of work; our kids need to feel as if ‘this learning represents me too.’” A school board member shared that, “It is not just this District, but education needs to be completely changed – this over-reliance on standardized testing is racist and marginalizes a whole host of kids. We need to rethink.” Others shared that “Culturally relevant teaching is almost nonexistent in our schools.”

Many participants focused on how the power standards and data informed teaching and learning, “We have been looking at power standards, and aligning our work and lesson planning around those, as opposed to following the script to a ‘T’ from Lucy Calkins, etc.” As one administrator shared, “Some… staff are used to being successful using traditional teaching practices… Where there still remains a perception of that someone needs to fix the students who are not successful. In language all means all – but not in practice.” Others at the elementary level stated, “We subscribe to reading levels by Lucy Calkin’s – leveled text is problematic. The students become competitive with each other to go from level I to J to K – the child’s level is not kept within the child.” Moreover, that “There is a difference between lessons designed based on © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

80

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY learners than when I go from the curriculum. You don’t want to leave a class when you are engaged.” Others discussed the time necessary to be proactive, by sharing that the “Hard part is taking the time to create really proactive strategies. Especially for students who may have a hard time expressing themselves. Sometimes it just takes longer and could fall by the wayside. Or sometimes time –to do the work... Time is the biggest challenge – need to dig into it with my team. Not enough time.”

Others discussed opportunity-hoarding. As one educator stated, “The white parents here are allowed to hoard resources. For example, AVID has an over-representation of white kids, so how is this helping first-generation black and brown kids?” Yet, as has also been reflected throughout the themes other educators shared, “AVID has been really strong; our teachers believe in the work and the need to have AVID and common language AVID – forces everyone to work together, to work as a team across identities and their intersections.” Such statements that may seem polarizing, do also provide the District with solutions. For example, AVID can be applied District-wide in the core of teaching and learning for all students.

Alternative Education Students receiving free/reduced priced lunch are over-identified for placement in the alternative school settings with 59 of the 95 students (62.1%) also receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

Of the 97 students in alternative education, 3 students (3.1%) are students who are also receiving ELL services. Students receiving special education services in the District (11.3%) are also over-identified within the alternative education placements, as of the 97 students placed in alternative settings, 21 students are students also receiving special education services (21.7%).

Figure 54: Representation in Alternative Setting

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

81

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Educators expressed concerns that students in the alternative school, “feel like they are in their own universe.” In spite of that, others were very clear about the necessity of an alternative school stating that “I think our alternative school has done a great job of offering some different options for kids who may not like the comprehensive high school experience.” “Kids define the Prairie Phoenix Academy (PPA) as where the losers come and that is the perception from the District and families and causes hesitancy from families to come here.” Many stated that “the District does not do anything to dispel those myths – the District does not pump out the building.” Yet an educator from PPA stated, “In a lot of ways, we actually exist because our District doesn't value true equitable practices - our students are underserved in their previous schools, so they end up here for us to ‘save’ them.”

However, others discussed the success of the PPA, for example, “It is standards based.” “We do not accept work at the D level, students have to show B level. Yet we also do not have deadlines.

We work with them until [the work] is up to par.” “We purposely teach equity and acceptance.”

In addition, teachers at the alternative school reported feeling a sense of empowerment and mission to create a safe and equitable environment. PPA teachers discussed that “the principal has been clear that if anything comes up I will have your back.”

Discipline/Behavior Though students receiving free/reduced price lunch represent 27.4% of the District, students receiving free/reduced priced are over-identified in disciplinary actions with 67.1% of in school suspensions and 73.5% of out of school suspensions and 85.7% of expulsions, 6/7 representing students receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

The District has over-identified students of color for in-school suspensions, as of the 526 students who received in-school suspensions, 343 students (65.2%) are students of color (compared to 37.7% in the District). Black students are over-identified for in-school suspensions more than any other racial group (receiving 37.3% of in-school suspensions, compared to making up 10.1% of the District). Multi-racial students are also over-identified for in-school suspensions (14.5% of in-school suspensions, compared to 8.3% of the District) as are Hispanic students (11.2% of in-school suspensions, 9.1% of the District). While White students are far more underidentified for in-school suspensions at 34.8% (compared to 62.3% of the District).

Students with disabilities are over-identified for in-school and out-of-school suspensions with 32.5% of in-school suspensions and 35.6% of out-of-school suspensions represented by students with disabilities who represent 11.3% of the District.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

82

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 55: Representation in Discipline

Students who receive free/reduced price lunch (27.4% of the District) are also over-represented in low attendance or truancy at 40.5%. Though students of color comprise 37.7% of the District, students of color represent 57.2% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Black students comprise 10.1% of the District, but 24.4% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Hispanic students comprise 9.1% of the District, but 14.7% of students who have low attendance or who are truant, while multi-racial students comprise 8.3% of the District’s students, but represent 11.3% of students who have low attendance or who are truant.

Students receiving ELL services (8.2%) are not over-represented as having low attendance/being truant, as they comprise 8.2% of students who are identified as having low attendance/being truant. However, students receiving special education services are over-represented as having low attendance or being truant with 21.9% of students identified as having low attendance or being truant also receiving special education services (compared to 11.3% of the District’s students receiving special education services).

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

83

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Figure 56: Representation in Low Attendance/Truancy

Regarding discipline data, one participant shared that “There is also an issue of trust between Black students and White teachers. When there is an issue with the Black student we tend to find the Black staff to make that connection.” Across the focus groups, many educators believed that the behavior data is improving. “The behavior data has improved, but most calls to the office are still [regarding] Black boys; our response to those calls and referrals are better and more centered on restoration of community as opposed to punitive measures like suspensions, [however] there is more work to do in the classroom to engage students.” In addition, many discussed their perceptions that students who are Black or Brown were held to different discipline standards than students who are White.

Others discussed the inconsistencies of behavioral consequences and “How do we make consequences for a teachable moment?” Others echoed that, “We [teachers] tend to over and under react. Natural consequences do not stick because we have not made a connection.” As one teacher stated, “We are lacking consistencies for all kids in general, we don’t really have consequences for kids; there is not set structure or framework for how extreme behavior challenges happen. Basically, kids know that they won’t receive consequences, so they play on that; we would like to see more structure in place and communication about actions.” Others believed that “if kids knew more about expectations and consequences, it would help them to be more academically focused and less prone to do those things.”

Many staff members discussed the theme of love and its effectiveness or the lack of effectiveness specific to student behavior. For example, “If behavior is interfering with academics – if you just love them enough – these problems will go away. We need to answer this!” As another educator summed up the conversation of low expectations by stating, “We talk © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

84

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY about love, but I have seen the same students struggle with the same issues over three years.

We are reactionary, we tend to place a Band-Aid on it. We never get to the root cause.

Everything is very reactionary. If we are always reacting – we are not addressing anything.” “We wanted to move from transactionary, but we moved too far from 3 strikes you are out, as kids were keeping track of each other. We either have no consequences or consequences that come out of nowhere.” Others believed that staff have to “Stop everything we are doing because something has happened. We meet about how we are going to work with kids. It is all a reactionary process and continues to be very reactionary.”

Students discussed different experiences where they felt the discipline was inequitable, for example, “My Black friends who are in the hallways. I know who they are, and they are not being held accountable. They [teachers] have low expectations of groups of Black students in hallway.

Teachers are not setting the same standards.” Another student shared that “if there was a White student in the mix they would get them to class. Feels like teachers have given up and see this hanging out [for black kids] as the social norm.” Another example shared from a student, “Kids were talking at a table – the teacher asked the White friend to be quiet - he expected more out of [this White student].” Yet other students shared that the punishments for students of color for fighting were much harsher, as one student shared about the “Discipline of friends who are black and fight - they got expelled.”

Other staff shared their work and excitement about restorative circles as an antidote to discipline issues. “We are working hard around our behavioral mistakes and using a restorative circles and professional development to get all staff trained.” Others shared, “Restorative circles, parents, kids, staff, wherever the harm happened, I want a guarantee to cover my classes so I can be involved with restoring a relationship that was harmed. Staffing, staffing, and more staffing. Don’t have the resources to follow through and support our kids.” As one teacher leader stated, “The 3 of us, behavior coach, and principal serve as the crisis team, and we are responsible for the development of restorative practices, but I think we could do more and we need more support from the adults… for marginalized students, we are still very punitive and inconsistent in our practices with them, so as a staff, we need more education.”

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

85

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY IV.

Best Practices Analysis and Essential Next Steps

All of the information in the previous sections of this report, provide us with the necessary data to determine the “Essential Next Steps.”

The District’s Equity Framework makes clear the District’s commitment to equity to disrupt bias and racism: The Sun Prairie Area School District is driven by a core value in the potential of every child. We embrace the professional responsibility to interrupt systemic racism toward our black and brown children and families and to collaboratively dismantle, rebuild, and align our system for racial equity. We hold a core value that our transformational Equity Framework must be implemented in collaboration with and with the support of our community.

Despite the work the District has documented under the Equity Framework, as the previous pages detail, inequities persist. Staff discussed, the framework felt more like pieces of a puzzle than a pragmatic framework and process to dismantle inequities. Staff and community members discussed the need for a systematic approach, while also sharing concerns about the capacity of the District to complete the equity work. Others discussed the need to learn about other identities (e.g., disability, language, other races and ethnicities, poverty, and their intersections) while combating racism and eliminating the fear that staff feel over doing something wrong.

Based on the proposal provided to the District to complete the evaluation, the In addition, staff discussed the need for District leadership to authentically dig deep to do their own individual work, to better walk the talk while promoting and supporting policies, hiring, and professional development that are more student-centered where the impact is reflected in the classroom. In addition, many were concerned with structures and practices that reflected a system of oppression, despite completing equity work specific to students who are Brown and Black and identify as LGBTQIA+. Many focus group participants also discussed the inconsistent proactive educational structures for students eligible for special education, English Language Learners, advanced learners, and students who are identified for Tier 2 and 3 behavioral and academic supports through Response to Intervention (RtI). Focus groups also discussed tracking practices and lack of collaboration. Finally, this evaluation found that these concerns were also reflected in lower academic and behavioral expectations and the need for increase in identity relevant curriculum and instruction in the core of teaching and learning. Such practices perpetuate a reactionary response that leads to an attempt to “fix” students who have been traditionally marginalized, through segregation and removal from the core of teaching and learning, rather than fixing the system itself.

Therefore, the “Essential Next Steps” are intentionally constructed under a framework and process to address the District’s equity data as well as the focus group themes. These next steps © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

86

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY are set in place to respond to the four themes of effective systemic educational equity development9, which is defined as high quality teaching and learning for all students, all under the umbrella of safe and inclusive learning environments. Addressing all four themes in an ongoing and systematic manner positively impact learning for each and every student in the District and in so doing, address the concerns discussed by educators, students, School Board members, and members of the community.

Table 2: Framework for High Quality Teaching and Learning Focus on Equity

Align Staff and Transform Teaching Leverage Policy and Students and Learning Funding Institute and Sustain a Comprehensive Anti-Bullying/Anti-Harassment Policy and Practices Know the History of Construct Co-Plan to Design Identity Align Human Public Education Co-Serve to Co-Learn Relevant Teaching for Resource Systems (C3) Teams All Learners Shift from Deficit to Re-Align Staff and Design Identity Leverage Funding Assets-Based Students Relevant Learning Thinking, Language and Curriculum for All Learners Engage in Identity Discipline and Cross-Check Policy Development Behavior and Procedures Apply Research Students with Significant Disabilities Develop Principles of Excellence Conduct Equity Audit Institute and Sustain a Comprehensive Anti-Bullying/Anti-Harassment Policy and Practice Focus group participants discussed the amount of learning that they have completed across the identities of race and gender, but shared that they believe that they do not have the information to apply those learnings in the school and classroom setting. In addition, teachers, students, and parents reported experiencing racism within the District.

9

ICS Equity.org

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

87

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY A.

Focus on Equity

Know the History of Educational Marginalization Focus group participants discussed the continued need for applying their equity learning.

Professional development specific to different identities is essential, such as race and gender. Yet such professional development must go hand-in-hand with the understanding of how the structures of educational oppression, instruction to a normative, curricular violence, and policy and procedures are historically and currently perpetuated. This understanding is essential to be able to dismantle these structures and to not repeat such harmful practices. Therefore, to apply understandings of oppression, all staff and community members should learn about the history of public education and the historical practices of oppression that are maintained in educational systems today – often under the lens or perception of helping. It is essential that the SPASD educators, families, and community members have a better understanding of the institutional history of education that has perpetuated, if not created inequities. Through this common understanding, the District can then begin to build create pragmatic and systemic changes to move from pity to systemic change, where all students and families are seen, heard, understood, and educated in Tier 1.

Essential Next Steps 1.

All educators and board members complete professional development on the educational history of marginalization to better understand current structures and practices to lay the groundwork to build on previous work and create a systematic and pragmatic journey to impact systems and policy at the core.

2.

All educators and board members complete professional development through an analysis of current educational structures and practices in relation to historical marginalization and how it relates to the District’s current over and under-representation within the equity audit.

Shift from Deficit to Assets-Based Thinking, Language Throughout the focus groups, participants discussed their experiences of acts of bullying and teasing as well as language referring to students who challenge the system behaviorally (e.g., “the runner”, “slow”, “low ability”, etc.). Continued work toward asset based, bias-free language will be essential as the District moves forward in support of all learners and their families. Such

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

88

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY information must be taught and then applied at the Community, Board, District, School, and Classroom level.

What we mean by deficit language is based on the work of Valencia who first described a deficit ideology (1997).10 Gorski (2011) defines deficit ideology as “… a worldview that explains and justifies outcome inequalities - standardized test scores or levels of educational attainment, for example - by pointing to supposed deficiencies within disenfranchised individuals and communities”. Deficit thinking focuses on what is “wrong” with the student/family/community, what is not working, what is lacking, what they cannot do, or what they do not have. A deficit ideology blames students and families for low student achievement rather than examining the systemic and structural inequalities that perpetuate low performance (Gorski, 2011 & 2013).11 In contrast, assets-based thinking focuses on what the student/family/community can do, what skills, gifts, and knowledge they do have. Instead of blaming students and families, we consider the structural and systemic inequities in schools that educators have control over, that can impact students and families in negative ways. Luis Moll and colleagues (1992, 2005) 12 developed the phrase “funds of knowledge” to describe the household and cultural knowledge and skills within families — all strengths that they bring to school, that may be in contrast to White, middle-class norms.

Essential Next Steps 1.

All educators, board members, and community members participate in activities to reflect and better understand stereotypes, myths, and assumptions to interrupt deficitbased language, thinking and practices for adults and students within the District and the Sun Prairie community.

2.

All educators and board members must model a shift from deficit-based language and practices to asset-based language and practices and set consistent expectations of all students within the school and educational community venues, including on social media platforms.

Engage in Identity Development

10

Valencia, R. R. (1997) (Ed). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. London: Falmer.

Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 402, 152-173 and Gorski, P. C. (2016) Poverty and the ideological imperative: A call to unhook from deficit and grit ideology and to strive for structural ideology in teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 42:4, 378-386 12 Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

11

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

89

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Across the focus groups, educators discussed the District’s focus on race, gender, and sexuality, but shared that they believed that educators require continued professional development on other identities and their intersections. In addition, educators discussed the importance of moving from individual learning to an application of their understandings in a systemic manner to move beyond performative gestures. Teachers also expressed concerns of not knowing what to say, how to respond to student questions, and if they would have the District support across a range of different books, conversations with students and lessons, specifically related to what books are allowable and what books are not. Educators also discussed the difference in expectations for students who are brown and black and that often pity is a result of initial identity development practices that can result in low expectations related to achievement and behavior. The equity audit data across identities (e.g., race, gender, ability, language, experiencing poverty, sexuality, and their intersections), as well as educational identifiers (IEP, RtI, Advanced Learner, etc.), consistently reflects these concerns.

Essential Next Steps 1.

All educators and board members complete consistent and authentic professional development related to identity development across all identities and their intersections and its implications for application in school and classroom environments.

2.

All educators and board members should participate in opportunities to increase their understanding of identities and their intersections.

Apply Equity Research Within the focus groups, teachers shared that they have worked hard to understand identities related to race (e.g., students who identify as Brown or Black) and by gender and sexuality, but have struggled regarding how to apply their learning, thus as a result practices continue which perpetuate educational oppression.

Others reported not believing in effective practices of equity or those that interrupt segregated practices, yet shared that they have not had the opportunity to be part of ongoing professional development including the research behind such practices. For example, some educators were unsure about the benefits of heterogeneous grouping. The research is clear that a heterogeneous classroom promotes learning outcomes, better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares students as professionals (American Educational Research Association, 2016, p. 25).13 In addition, diverse classrooms provide “improved cognitive skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving, because students’ 13

AERA Amicus Brief (2016)

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

90

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY experience with individuals different from themselves, as well as to the novel ideas and situations that such experience brings, challenges their thinking and leads to cognitive growth” (American Educational Research Association, 2016, p. 25). Students having difficulty at school, especially those experiencing poverty learn more when they are working in heterogeneous rather than in homogenous ability groups (Oakes, 2005).14 Relatively high expectations for learning, a faster pace of instruction, peer models of effective learning and curricula that are more challenging are among the reasons offered for this advantage (Leithwood, Lois, Anderson, & Wahlston, 2004).15 Many discussed that students with disabilities were not included in the core of teaching and learning or are often still removed for instructional minutes. The research regarding students identified with disabilities concludes that students reach more IEP goals in proportionally represented environments than in segregated settings (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Hunt, Goetz, & Anderson, 1986; Westling & Fox, 2009).16 The research on the inclusion of students identified with disabilities originated in the early 1980’s, shortly after the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 that mandated a free, appropriate, public education for all students regardless of disability.

That research unequivocally suggests that when students labeled with disabilities are proportionally assigned to general education environments, they make greater academic and social gains than when segregated. Furthermore, students without disabilities also benefit more academically and socially when they are educated alongside students identified with disabilities than when not. And, for students with moderate to significant intellectual disabilities, achievement is enhanced or at least equivalent in integrated versus segregated settings (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995; Saint-Laurent & Lessard, 1991).17 The dismantling of educational oppressive practices, through grouping patterns and proportional representation in the core of teaching and learning, will be essential and a significant step 14

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/ 15 Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

16 Brinker, R. P., & Thorpe, M. E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Children 51(2), 168-175.

Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Anderson, J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement in integrated versus segregated school sites.

Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(2) 125- 130.

17 Cole, D., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners: What research and practice say about improving achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development.

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., & Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). “I’ve counted Jon”: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 54, 415-425.

National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National Study of Inclusion. New York: Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Saint-Laurent L. & Lessard, J. C. (1991). Comparison of three educational programs for students with moderate or severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26(4), 370-380.

Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R., & Morrison, A. P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 10(2), 147-157. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

91

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY towards the application of the work the District has completed in the area of marginalization.

The research suggests that students of all abilities learn more in heterogeneous versus homogenous ability groups. The students who are isolated the most in ability groupings often are the furthest behind (Hnushek, Klin, Markman, & Rivkin, 2003)18. Ability grouping has an effect size of .12 (effect size needs to be .40 or above to impact learning, Hattie, 2013).19 The two most common forms of ability grouping are: 1. Within-class grouping, where students of similar ability are placed into small groups usually for reading or math instruction.

2. Between-class grouping where students are separated into different classes, courses, or course sequences (curricular tracks) based on their academic achievement, otherwise referred to as tracking.

Although the District has leveled up for Algebra, many focus group participants reported not understanding or believing that such practices are effective. Others discussed the amount of tracking at the elementary and middle school level that continues to occur and thus perpetuates disproportionality represented advanced placement classes by race, disability, language, and social class. Boaler (2019)20 also reports that "Tracked groups are often more limiting for students, as they allow teachers to presume they know what students need and provide narrow questions that do not allow students to achieve highly and do not encourage students to engage in complex, interesting thinking." Boaler interviewed ninth graders in two different school districts, one group who had experienced a tracked math middle school and the other group who attended schools without tracking but with highly rigorous math teaching and learning across all students. Compared to the students in tracked math, students with the heterogeneous math experience held more positive expectations of themselves and their math potential.

Other staff discussed that students in the ALPS programs were “served the least,” yet did not discuss more current research on the importance for heterogenous practices. The National Center for Research on Gifted Education conducted a 2019 study of gifted education across 3 states and 2000 students. They learned that “third-grade students in gifted programs were not making significant learning gains in comparison with their peers in general education. . . . [and that] pull-out programs or self-contained classrooms [for students labeled as gifted], were, on average, not helping to boost academic achievement" (cited within Potter & Burris, 2019).

Potter & Burris (2019)21 summarizes their review of the research:

18

Hnushek, Klin, Markman, & Rivkin, 2003 Hattie, J. (2011). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge 20 Boaler, J. (2019). Separating ‘gifted’ children hasn’t led to better achievement: The inherent dangers in telling students that their abilities are fixed. The Hechinger Report. Hechingerreport.org. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-separating-gifted-children-hasnt-led-to-betterachievement/ 21 Potter, H. & Burris, M. (2019). Should gifted students be in separate classrooms? The Century Foundation, NY. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-students-separate-classrooms/?session=1 19

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

92

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY "...identification for gifted programs is a problem but fixing the entrance criteria for a system still based on separating children into differently tracked classrooms is not enough to promote equity.

This very practice of separation is not supported by research."

Students identified as advanced learners who are homogeneously grouped also have limited opportunities to learn across difference. Some studies suggest that such groupings increase student test anxiety, lower self-esteem as students are in an environment that increases comparison among students, and can negatively impact raw course grades and class rankings.

(Bui, Craig, & Imberman, 2011; Ireson, Haliam, & Plewis, 2010; Preckel, Gotz, & Frenzel, 2010; Zeidner, & Schleyer, 1999).22 In the SPASD, students labeled as English Language Learners or linguistically diverse are proportionally represented in classrooms/courses versus placed in sheltered English or segregated in particular classrooms or courses. Moving forward with Co-Plan to Co-Serve to CoLearn Teams (C3 Teams) will support the goals of learning more academic English, making greater achievement gains, having more peer models of English, experiencing higher teacher expectations as teachers in the heterogeneous settings model a higher level of English, paired with higher levels of discussion and discourse (Brisk, 2006; Scanlan & Lopez, 2013; 23Thomas & Collier, 200224; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011 25). Further, students labeled as ELL in heterogeneous settings become bilingual language role models for students whose English is their home language.

Students identified for RtI in the SPASD are disproportionally represented by race, social class, language, and ability. Moreover, the process and procedures for RtI are inconsistent across the District. However, there is a strong push to support the work in Tier 1, which is supported by the research. For example, a 2015 national study funded by the Institute for Education Sciences examined RtI implementation in 13 states, 146 schools, and 20,000 first grade students.

Assignment to RtI interventions across Tiers 1, 2, and 3, not only did not improve reading outcomes but decreased reading achievement. “For those students just below the schooldetermined eligibility cut point in Grade 1, assignment to receive reading interventions did not improve reading outcomes; it produced negative impacts” (American Educational Research Association, p. 1).26 Figure 57 below reflects the Wisconsin RtI model of continuous improvement for instruction in the core of teaching and learning.

22

Bui, S. A., Steven, G., Imberman, S. A. (2014). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 6(3), 30-62.

23 Brisk, 2006; Scanlan & Lopez, 2013 24 Thomas & Collier, 2002 25 Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011 26 AERA © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

93

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY

Figure 57: Wisconsin’s RtI Continuous Improvement Model

Such a model is premised on research-based practices of high-quality teaching and learning. The model is premised on equity at its core through the following tenants: • • • •

•

•

•

•

Become self-aware: Staying alert to the ways that identity and culture affect who we are and how we interact with learners and families; Examine the impact of systems, structures, policies, and practices on learners and families: Analyzing who the system serves and underserves; Believe all learners can and will achieve at high levels: Examining and intentionally pushing back on societal biases and stereotypes; Understand all learners have a unique world view: Recognizing each adult and learner represents a complex blend of cultures, identities, and roles, with singular differences; Know and respect the communities: Understanding and valuing the behaviors, beliefs, and historical experiences of families and community members served by the school; Lead, model, and advocate for equity: Challenging prejudice and discrimination as barriers to equity and giving voice to those inequitably impacted by school and district decisions, policies, and practices; Accept the responsibility for learner success: Recognizing that equitable outcomes depend on changing the school’s and district’s beliefs and practices, rather than fixing learners and families, and Use practices, curriculum, and policies that respect the identities and cultures of learners and families served by schools.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

94

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY According the RtI Center of Wisconsin, such a multi-tiered design is not necessary: Schools provide a continuum or multi-level system of proactive and responsive supports built to match the range of learners’ developmental, academic, behavioral, social, and emotional needs. Supports are equitable and appropriate for the learners being served, validating their knowledge and experiences, and acknowledging their diverse identities.

Staff, learners, families, and the community are engaged in the selection and implementation of these supports.

Though not required, many schools develop a three-level system of supports to ensure the success of every learner. (Emphasis added by evaluation authors.)

A clear process to support students eligible for intervention in the core of teaching and learning through Co-Plan to Co-Learn to Co-Serve (C3) Teams (discussed later in this section) will be necessary, in order to create a consistent procedure across the District and to increase both achievement and student behavior.

Essential Next Steps 1.

2.

All educators and board members should know and understand the research on equity and best practices across all student identifiers, such as but not limited to, special education, ELL, advanced Learners, RtI, related to current practices.

The research practices presented should be applied in a systematic manner across the District schools to move beyond the performative nature of actions to authentic equity.

Develop Principles of Excellence As stated in Section II, focus group participants were both proud of the District’s equity framework and critical, in the sense that it feels piecemeal and has yet to significantly impact the classroom level. Much work has been completed by the District related to identities (e.g., Brown and Black students, gender, and sexuality) and those individuals who experience historical and current trauma based on their identities. Focus group participants consistently asked for a specific roadmap forward. They asked for the next steps and how to apply their learning. For example, a teacher could learn more about their own and others’ racial identities, but then continues to support low ability groups where children who are Brown and Black are clustered, the more the teacher will continue to perpetuate inequities. Therefore, it is essential to not only increase individual knowledge and collective knowledge within the SPASD regarding inequities, but it is essential to have shared practices in order to operationalize the work of equity through dismantling oppressive structural, instructional, procedural, and financial practices.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

95

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY We define equity as high-quality teaching and learning, holding both goals — achievement and belonging for all learners — in high priority and as essential for the achievement of all students in the District. Shared Principles of Excellence are essential to provide a road map to assist all educators, board members, administrators, students, and families to make consistent decisions and apply the work of equity that has been delineated in the District’s Equity Framework.

Specifically, “the how” behind the work.

Therefore, the following Principles of Excellence are offered as example to the challenges within the current system: 1. Eliminating inequities begins with ourselves.

2. The system is responsible for student failure.

3. All staff are aligned to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams (C3) to support cohesive instruction.

4. Students are proportionally represented in the core of teaching and learning.

5. Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams intentionally develop each other’s capacity.

6. Instruction is based on Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning (IRTL) and created for each learner the first time the concept/skill is taught.

7. Policies and funding are aligned to these principles.

Some focus group participants discussed the work of developing their own capacity, under these Principles of Excellence (1) Eliminating inequities begins with ourselves and (2) The system is responsible for student failure. Yet the Themes delineated in Table 1 of this evaluation, can be addressed through a unified commitment to the remaining Principles of Excellence. Once created and vetted out through all aspects of the educational community, the Principles of Excellence become Board policy of how to meet the vision, by aligning the strategic plan. It will be important to rely on the Principles of Excellence to create a pragmatic path forward for the District. In this way, all decisions are made in alignment to the District’s Principles of Excellence.

Essential Next Steps 1.

The District and Board should create District Principles of Excellence to operationalize the District’s commitment to equity and interrupt a piecemeal approach.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

96

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Conduct Equity Audit An equity audit should be completed annually at the school and District level. The data is not intended to blame and label more students, but to truly assess the effectiveness of current practices and set clear benchmarks and goals for success of all students. The equity audit is not about “fixing” students but instead about creating a proactive system.

As the District moves forward, the equity audit should be completed annually at each school and across the District. Once these equity audits are completed, the District can determine which data points they want to see move in a positive direction, which data points they are most proud of, and then this becomes their accountability guide.

Essential Next Steps 1.

The District should complete a District and per school equity audit annually to measure the District’s and individual schools’ progress.

B.

Align Staff and Students

High achieving school districts align staff and students in the core of teaching and learning. As mentioned earlier in this evaluation, equity is not a zero-sum game. Therefore, where students are physically placed to learn impacts the learning of all students. Student location for learning distinguishes between reactive or deficit-based practices resulting in segregated (including pullout) programs and that of integrated, comprehensive, proactive practices resulting in all students learning more in the core of instruction.

In deficit-based practices all students learn less. Such practices hold back the system. Under a segregated program model, educators believe that the primary reason for student failure is the student. There are inconsistent practices across the District that support this assumption that works in opposition of equitable structural practices. These inconsistent practices also overidentify and limit access to core instruction for students with disabilities, linguistically diverse, students identified for Tier 2 and 3, as well as students in alternative education.

1. District placement of a child in a specialized school other than the one they would typically attend as their home school, or school of choice.

Clustering students in specific schools (within or outside of the District) by an identifier, such as, but not limited to, Special Education or At-Risk, discussed as center-based programs. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

97

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 2. Removal of a child to segregated rooms for pull-out instruction, often defined as a Resource or Self-Contained classroom (for Special Education, RtI interventions, At-Risk, ELL, Gifted and Talented, etc.) for 10 minutes a day to all day within the schools they would typically attend as their home school, or school of choice.

3. Providing lower class tracks and programs for students, especially students with disabilities or those perceived as not prepared for a more accelerated course – predominately at the middle and high school level (such placements are referred to by the National Education Association as Between-class grouping – a school’s practice of separating students into different classes, courses, or course sequences (curricular tracks) based on their academic achievement or even student choice).

4. Ability grouping within the core of teaching and learning (such placements are referred to by the National Education Association as Within-class grouping – a teacher’s practice of putting students of similar ability into small groups usually for reading or math instruction).

To move beyond leveling and segregated or reactive pullout practices, a proactive or asset-based approach requires the formation of Co-Plan to Co-Learn to Co-Serve (C3) Teams. Co-Plan to CoServe to Co-Learn Teams (C3) at aligned at each grade level and by content (specific at the secondary level), along with the proportional representation of all students in the core of teaching and learning or Tier 1.

Construct Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams Teachers throughout the District reported experiences and opportunities to increase the access to support all learners in the core of teaching and learning through the goals of co-teaching.

Others described such practices as “a veneer of co-teaching”. Some educators in the focus groups recalled the usefulness of co-teaching but believe it is no longer supported through professional development. However, co-teaching does not reflect achievement gains for students with disabilities in the District’s equity audit or in John Hattie’s research (.19 using an effect size of .40 and above). A co-teaching model is often defined as an instructional arrangement where one special educator and one general educator are assigned to teach a specific group of students with disabilities who have been clustered into one classroom or a course section. A co-teaching model usually requires one general educator and one special educator to focus on the same group of students all day at the elementary and middle school levels and with a course section at the secondary level.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

98

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Research has confirmed that a co-teaching model (Hattie, 2012)27, does not positively impact student achievement. Below are the differences between a co-teaching model and a C3 structure: 1. Co-teaching or team-taught classrooms often host an unnatural proportion of students who struggle academically or behaviorally or who are eligible for special education. With a C3 Team, all students are naturally proportioned.

2. Co-teaching or team-taught classrooms are supported classroom by classroom, whereas the C3 Team plans across all classrooms at the grade level or multiple sections of a specific course at the secondary level.

3. Little co-planning often occurs in a co-teaching or team-taught model in the way we expect C3 Teams to co-create a lesson. Specifically, within co-teaching the lesson is often developed by the general educator and the special educator adapts and modifies the lesson – often limited to instruction for students with disabilities.

4. Special education teachers tend to do more turn-taking as compared to the general educator who remains the content expert and the special educator often functions as a support to the general education teacher. With a C3 Team, all team members facilitate learning.

5. At the secondary level, co-teaching or team-taught classrooms are low-tracked classrooms. With a C3 Team, all course sections are at grade level or above.

6. Co-teaching or team-taught classrooms often become a teacher dependent model – with the special education teacher and general education teacher dependent on each other. With a C3 Team, all teachers share expertise to intentionally develop each other’s capacity.

Others within the focus groups discussed their goal is to form Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams, but believed they were struggling with the logistics. Many reported little collaboration across expertise, inconsistent collaborative time, and that Co-Plan to Co-Serve Teams were a work in progress.

Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) teams work together to determine how a child learns best.

The team of teachers incorporate those understandings into their co-plan to better co-serve all students through heterogeneous-based small group, and 1:1 learning groupings in Tier 1 or the core of teaching and learning. Educators are then better able to move from a pull-out and selfcontained model to a proactive education where teachers are aligned to each grade and students may be involved in large group, small group, and 1:1 instruction based on their individual interest and how each child brings in information and shares what they know the most often. The Department of Public Instruction clearly lays out this information in their Inclusive Learning Communities Practice Profile in support of Co-Plan to Co-Serve.28 27 28

Hattie, J. (2012). https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/ilc-pp-horiz-tables.pdf

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

99

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY

Within Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) teams, educators purposely develop each other’s Collective Equity Capacity. According to John Hattie, that collective equity capacity is supported through Collective Teacher Efficacy, which has an impact on student learning at 1.57 relative to an effect size of .40 and above, far higher impact that Co-Teaching at a .19. C3 teams work together to determine how a child learns best and the teachers incorporate those understandings into their Co-Plan. In so doing, the C3 team can more effectively Co-Serve all students within heterogeneous large and small groups, one to one within Tier 1, or within the core of teaching and learning.

The first time a district places a student in a remediation or intervention group, low ability group, skill-specific group, or a group based on their disability, also becomes the first step to institutional marginalization that denies students access to high expectations and high-quality teaching and learning. These practices result in students falling further behind as described in the Cycle of Student Failure (see Figure 58 below).

Figure 58: Cycle of Student Failure

To intentionally interrupt the confusion between co-teaching and C3 teams, and a deficit-based, reactive academic cycle, identity relevant core instruction must be paired with common formative and summative assessments. When Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) teams design © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written100 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY instruction based on each learner, the amount of fragmented and non-instructional time decreases, while instructional time and continuity increase. Thus, the RtI process should be completed in the core of teaching and learning. In so doing, C3 Teams will need to complete the following agenda when they meet: a. Confirm meeting times and the C3 Team’s agenda b. Develop a Skills at a Glance template c. Develop the Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn template d. Define the role of team members e. Provide a step-by-step process to co-create a lesson f. Determine how the lesson will be staffed or facilitated Many student service staff discussed the need to meet IEP minutes. This conversation becomes part and parcel of a “push in” model where teachers are not structured into Co- Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams. In this manner, students who need the most continuity in instruction will not continue to receive the most fragmented education. In addition, such reactionary practices require the student to synthesize information from several different experts and environments, and often generalize what is taught in a pull-out environment back to the general education classroom, in which they have missed significant instructional content.

Therefore, the C3 teams must ask the questions developed by the DPI, and documented in the Alternate Professional Learning Communities (PLC) Questions from the Department of Public Instruction.

1. What do we want students to learn ?

2. How do we co-design the optimal learning process/format for each student the first time it is presented?

3. How do we co-design assessments so that every student has the best opportunity to demonstrate their learning?

4. How do we support additional and extended learning opportunities for each and every student based on need, strengths and interests?

Essential Next Steps 1.

All Educators must understand the role and function of Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to create equitable practices for all learners.

2.

The District should develop C3 Teams to proactively support a diverse normative in the core of teaching and learning.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written101 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 3.

All educators will facilitate learning through heterogeneous grouping practices for all learners, while supporting 1:1 instruction based on interest and student need in the core of teaching and learning.

Re-Align Staff and Students Proportional representation of students within the core of teaching and learning is essential. In this manner, there is a true representation of all learners within each classroom that is natural to the student demographics of the school. Specifically, proportional representation means that the demographic of the school is reflected in every classroom, course, activity, setting, and experience within the school. For example, if 16.6% of students are labeled with a disability, then no more than 16.6% of students in any classroom, course, activity, setting, or experience are students labeled with a disability. Proportional representation applies to grade levels when assigning students labeled with disabilities, students who are linguistically diverse, and students identified as advanced learners. That is, if 16.6% of the students in the school are labeled with a disability and 25% of the students in the school are linguistically diverse, and there are six thirdgrade classrooms, then no more than 16.6% of students in each third-grade classroom have a disability and no more than 25% of students in each classroom are linguistically diverse. Students who are linguistically diverse and students who have disabilities are equally assigned across these six classrooms.

Most staff across elementary, middle, and high schools reported practices that did not support proportional representation. Many of the practices reported, reflected more of a clustering, segregated rooms for pull-out instruction, co-teaching, tracking, and ability grouping.

The District spends just under $500,000.00 ($481,428.00) per year on out of District placements.

Although this is relatively minimal, the Code of Federal Regulations and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction make clear the importance of students attending the schools they would attend if not eligible for special education. Therefore, the District should determine if any child can be returned to the school and classroom they would attend if not disabled. Such expenditures could then be reallocated to better support students in the schools and classrooms they would attend if not disabled and to advance the District’s strategic plan.

Table 3: Out of District Placements Non SPASD Grade Area School

Common Threads

Race

SES Disability Gender

M 12

White

A

Cost for Tuition and Transportation

Cost for Tuition and Transportation

$10,725/quarter tuition

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written102 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Richardson School

10

Hispanic

EBD

M

$359/day tuition $64,620.00

Bus route = $265.70/day $47,826.00

Richardson School

8

African American

ID

M

$359/day tuition $64,620.00

Bus route = $265.70/day $47,826.00

Richardson School

8

White

OHI

M

$359/day tuition $64,620.00

Bus route = $265.70/day $47,826.00

Lad Lake

11

Two or More Races

EBD

M

$198.87/day tuition $35,796.00

$343.18/day transportation $61,772.00

WI School for the Deaf

11

Two or More Races

H

M

WI School for the Deaf

8

Two or More Races

H

F

Total

4 (total)

$276,178.00

$205,250.00

Most staff across elementary, middle, and high schools reported practices and desires of creating Co-plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) collaboration structures to proactively support students in the core of teaching and learning. Much of the practices reported, reflected models of clustering, pull-out instruction, co-teaching, tracking, and ability grouping.

Caseloads for Special Education teachers follow at 1:8 students elementary, 1:10 students Middle and 1: 12 students for High Schools which is completely aligned to move to C3 Teams. In addition, the District supports over 129 special education paraprofessionals. This is a very high number and should be analyzed to the usage relative to need in a proactive system.

Students who are linguistically diverse are often clustered into specific classes and receive pullout instruction. Teachers were concerned about meeting students’ needs and adapting and modifying curriculum, while also trying to support Universal Design for Learning (UDL) practices.

The identification of students requiring Tier 2 and 3 is reflected in the tables and range from 14% to 78% percent of the student population once again reflecting a very reactionary practice and model versus meeting the needs of all learners in the core of teaching and learning through heterogeneous small group instruction and Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams.

Table 4: FTE For Special Education, Paraprofessionals, Interventionist, ELL Teachers and Speech and Language Specialist © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written103 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY School 4K C.H. Bird Elementary Creekside Elementary Eastside Elementary Horizon Elementary Meadow View Elementary Northside Elementary Royal Oaks Elementary Token Springs Elementary Westside Elementary Patrick Marsh Middle School Prairie View Middle School Cardinal Heights Upper Middle School Sun Prairie High School Sun Prairie West High School Prairie Phoenix Sun Prairie Virtual TOTAL

# of Special Ed. Teachers 7 5

Number of Paras 4 8 (7.8 FTE)

6

# of Interventions

# of ELL or FTE ELL 0/0 1.4 FTE

# of Speech or FTE 5.4 1

9

2.0 FTE

1

5

5

1.0 FTE

1

5

7

1.5 FTE

1

3

6 (5.5 FTE)

3.5 FTE

0.6

5

7

2.0 FTE

1

4

6 (5.5 FTE)

2.0 FTE

1

3

3

.5 FTE

1

5

9

1.6 FTE

1

9

14

1.4 FTE

0.8

6

10

1.0 FTE

0.8

13

20

3.0 FTE

1

20

23 (23.1070 FTE)

2.6 FTE

1

0 1 1

0 0

98

129.8

0 0.4 23.5

17.6

In Tables 5 through 11, each school is represented by grade and the number of students within in grade, followed by the number of students with disabilities, eligible for Speech and Language, linguistically diverse, students receiving Tier 2 intervention and the number of students who are © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written104 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY advanced learners. Data from the schools reflects language is specific to a primary disability only.

Caseloads are higher when including students who receive speech and language as a secondary disability. Special education paraprofessionals are designated as well. Students who are advanced learners are supported through general education.

At 4K, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 4 students is appropriate for a proactive service. At the same time, the District employs 4 special education paraprofessionals.

Table 5: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for 4K Number of Students with Number Disabilities by Grades of grade (not Students including speech only students) 4K

483

26

Number of Students Speech and Language 14

Number of Number Number of Students of Students Advanced Students Eligible Tier Learners or in ELL 2 and 3 Advanced Courses NA

NA

NA

Staffing 1:3.7** 1:2.6(plus)* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 4 special education paraprofessionals At CH Bird, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 teacher to 6.4 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 7.8 special education paraprofessionals. There are 8 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility with one clinician. There are 36 students who are linguistically diverse with 1.4 ELL teacher and 126 students (35%) identified for Tier 2 or 3 with no specified supports. Four students who are advanced learners are supported through general education.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written105 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY The number of students labeled for Tier 2 and Tier 3 is quite high, a pattern that is reflected across the District, and reflects a broken Tier 1 system. The previous equity audit data revealed that students of color, especially Black students and students receiving free/reduced priced lunch are over-identified for Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction. Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions varied across the District, but in most schools, these interventions required students to be removed from Tier 1. Most educators we interviewed believed that this practice was effective. Yet, this practice does not reflect the previously reviewed equity research. In so doing, these students removed for interventions: A. Experience stereotype threat (Steele, 2005). That is, the practice reinforces a self belief and staff belief that students are not as smart and capable as other students. Students who do not have to leave for interventions (who are more likely to be White and middle/upper class) receive a stereotype lift, a message that they are smart and capable.

Thus, no matter how much identity development work that district engages in, through these practices, all staff and students are receiving racial messages throughout the day as to whom is smart and capable and who is not.

B. Students who must leave or who are ability grouped in the classroom, miss core classroom instruction. If students are not removed from core instruction, many educators shared with us that students who struggle are not able to take electives or other courses that they would find enjoyable like other students are, as these students must attend additional reading or math “booster” classes as part of their prescribed interventions.

C. These students then must synthesize the information they learn in their interventions back to Tier 1 and apply throughout the rest of the day, which is quite difficult for students to do.

D. When these students receive interventions from specialists outside of Tier 1, these practices also segregate educator expertise, and educators are not able to develop their collective teaching capacity as a result.

E. We heard repeatedly, across the schools at the elementary (including early elementary grades), middle, and high school, of increasing numbers of students “wandering the halls” who are not in classrooms, or students in classrooms who are not engaged, and that many of these students were Black and Brown students, with educators citing they did not know how to respond to this. This disengagement can be attributed in part to the points above. First, there is the Tier 1 curriculum and learning experience that staff identified as not as rigorous and as identity relevant as it could be to begin with, and then students of color, identified with disabilities, ELL are further marginalized from a marginalizing Tier 1 learning experience. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written106 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY F. All of the above contributes to student misbehavior. Students who experience a stereotype threat many times throughout the day over, for literally years in the District; who miss classroom instruction or other enjoyable courses and classes that other students enjoy; who find it difficult to synthesize the information that they are learning elsewhere back to Tier 1, and who experience a lack of identify relevant/rigorous Tier 1 curriculum, will act out. In fact, in these circumstances, acting out against this marginalizing system represents a heathy response to such a system.

Table 6: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or Linguistically Diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for CH Bird Elementary

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number of Students Speech and Language only

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

58

2

2

7

3

1

55

4

0

6

22

2

68

6

5

5

44

3

55

5

0

5

24

4

60

5

0

10

15

5

64

10

1

3

18

4

Total

360

32

8

36

126 (35%)

4

1:26

0

0

Staffing 1:6.4** 1:8* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 7.8 special education paraprofessionals

Creekside Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 teacher to 8 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 9 special education © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written107 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY paraprofessionals. There are 12 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 47 students who are linguistically diverse to two ELL teachers. Sixty-eight students (21%) are identified for Tier 2 or 3. Two students who are advanced learners are supported through general education.

Table 7: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Creekside Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

63

9

2

9

4

1

53

7

3

3

14

2

58

10

4

9

16

3

57

5

1

8

8

4

53

9

0

11

11

5

44

7

2

7

15

2

Total

328

47

12

47

68(21%)

2

1:23

0

0

Staffing 1:8** 1:12* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 9 special education paraprofessionals

Eastside Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 teacher to 6.4 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 5 special education © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written108 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY paraprofessionals. There are 20 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 18 students who are linguistically diverse to one ELL teacher. One hundred students (24%) identified for Tier 2 or 3. Twelve students who are advanced learners are supported through general education.

Table 8: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Eastside Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

54

2

5

1

12

1

72

6

6

5

31

2

70

5

2

1

22

3

77

5

4

6

20

4

65

5

2

4

9

5

72

9

1

1

6

12

Total

410

32

20

18

100 (24%)

12

Staffing 1:6.4** 1:20* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 5 special education paraprofessionals

1:18

Horizon Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 teacher to 5 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 7 special education © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written109 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY paraprofessionals. There are 16 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 29 students who are linguistically diverse to 1.5 ELL teacher. There are 50 students (14%) identified for Tier 2 or 3. Three students who are advanced learners are supported through general education.

Table 9: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Horizon Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

55

2

2

4

4

1

50

5

2

3

9

2

69

2

7

8

13

3

67

8

1

7

15

4

54

2

1

4

7

5

66

7

3

3

2

3

Total

361

26

16

29

50(14%)

3

1:19

0

0

Staffing 1:5** 1:16* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 7 special education paraprofessionals

Eastside Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 11 students, which is still appropriate for proactive services, but a little higher than other elementary schools. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written110 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY In addition, there are 5.5 special education paraprofessionals. There are 8 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 80 students who are linguistically diverse to 3.5 ELL teacher. There are 213 students out of 377 identified for Tier 2 or 3 which is over 50% of the student population.

This percentage should be addressed as discussed previously. One student is identified as advanced learners are supported through general education.

Table 10: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Meadow View Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

48

4

1

15

41

1

61

6

3

10

42

2

82

5

2

23

49

3

76

7

1

15

45

4

52

2

1

12

17

5

58

9

0

5

19

1

Total

377

33

8

80

213 (56%)

1

3.5

0

0

Staffing 1:11** 1:8 *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 5.5 special education paraprofessionals

Northside Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 6 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 7 special education © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written111 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY paraprofessionals. There are 29 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 46 students who are linguistically diverse to one ELL teacher. There are 150 students identified for Tier 2 or 3 or over 40% of the students in the school. This percentage should be addressed as such a high number indicates a broken Tier 1 system, as previously discussed. Two students who are advanced learners are supported through general education

Table 11: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Northside Elementary

Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

68

3

4

9

7

1

77

5

9

8

49

2

56

4

4

11

17

3

58

6

7

10

29

4

45

5

2

7

34

1

5

43

6

3

1

14

1

Total

347

29

29

46

150 (40%)

2

1:23

0

0

Staffing 1:6** 1:29* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 7 special education paraprofessionals

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written112 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Royal Oaks Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 9 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 5 special education paraprofessionals. There are 18 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 49 students who are linguistically diverse to two ELL teachers, or a case load of 1:24. There are 81(17%) students identified for Tier 2 or 3. Eleven students who are advanced learners are supported through general education.

Table 12: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Royal Oaks Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

59

6

1

6

6

1

70

6

2

3

19

2

93

6

5

10

19

3

85

8

5

14

14

4

80

6

2

6

6

1

5

89

6

3

10

17

10

Total

476

38

18

49

81(17%)

11

1:24

0

0

Staffing 1:9** 1:18* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 5.5 special education paraprofessionals

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written113 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Token Springs Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 6 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 3 special education paraprofessionals. There are 13 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 10 students who are linguistically diverse to .5 ELL teacher. There are 156 (37%) students identified for Tier 2 or 3.

This percentage should be addressed as such a high number indicates the potential of over identification as previously discussed. One student is an advanced learner and are supported through general education.

Table 13: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Token Springs Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

71

1

4

2

18

1

59

2

3

1

21

2

69

2

3

1

21

3

75

1

1

4

76

6

2

3

39

5

72

7

0

3

24

1

Total

422

19

13

10

156 (37%)

1

.5:10

0

0

Staffing 1:6** 1:13* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 3 special education paraprofessionals

33

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written114 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Westside Elementary, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 7.4 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 9 special education paraprofessionals. There are 23 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 46 students who are linguistically diverse to 1.5 ELL teacher. There are 321 (78%) students identified for Tier 2 or 3. This percentage should be addressed, as previously discussed. Three students are advanced learners and are supported through general education.

Table 14: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Westside Elementary Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

66

3

4

7

48

1

72

8

2

8

71

2

68

8

7

7

58

3

69

4

4

4

57

4

73

6

4

14

54

5

62

8

2

6

33

3

Total

410

37

23

46

321 (78%)

3

1.29

0

0

Staffing 1:7.4** 1:23* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 9 special education paraprofessionals

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written115 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Patrick Marsh Middle School, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 7 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 14 special education paraprofessionals. There are 11 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 33 students who are linguistically diverse to 1.4 ELL teacher. There are 321 (78%) students identified for Tier 2 or 3.

Table 15: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Patrick Marsh Middle School

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

6

313

30

4

18

34

41

7

313

36

7

15

24

62

Total

626

66

11

33

58 (9%)

103

Staffing 1:7.3** .8:11* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 14 special education paraprofessionals

1:23

Prairie View Middle School, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 9 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 10 special education paraprofessionals. There are 8 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 33 students who © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written116 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY are linguistically diverse to one ELL teacher. There are 80 (14%) students identified for Tier 2 or 3. This percentage should be addressed as such a high number indicates the potential of over identification. There are 82 student is an advanced learner and are supported through general education.

Table 16: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Prairie View Middle School

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number of Number Number of Students of Students Advanced Students Eligible Tier Learners or in ELL 2 and 3 Advanced Courses

6

248

26

2

18

45

25

7

297

29

6

15

35

57

Total

545

55

8

33

80 (14%)

82

1

0

0

Staffing 1:9 1:8* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 10 special education paraprofessionals

Cardinal Heights Upper Middle School, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 11 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 20 special education paraprofessionals. There are 8 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 72 students who are linguistically diverse to 3 ELL teachers. There are 110 (9 %) students identified © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written117 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY for Tier 2 or 3. There are 268 students identified as advanced learner and are supported through general education.

Table 17: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Cardinal Heights Upper Middle School Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

8

627

72

6

31

45

141

9

642

71

2

40

65

127

10

2

2

0

1

0

0

Total

1271

145

8

72

110 (8.7%)

268

1:24

0

0

Staffing 1:11** 1:8* *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 20 special education paraprofessionals

Sun Prairie East High School, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 11 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 3 special education paraprofessionals. There are 0 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to one clinician. There are 68 students who are linguistically diverse to 2.6 ELL teacher. There are 346 (19%) students identified for Tier 2 or 3. This percentage should be addressed as such a high number indicates the potential of over identification. There are 343 students identified as advanced learner and are supported through general education.

Table 18: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Sun Prairie East High School

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written118 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 10

615

68

0

32

226

121

11

592

63

0

15

61

117

12

572

90

0

21

59

105

Total

1779

221

0

68

346 (19%)

343

1:26

0

0

Staffing 1:11 1 *Plus speech as a secondary disability ** 23 special education paraprofessionals

Sun Prairie Phoenix Academy, the ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 16 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 3 special education paraprofessionals. There are 0 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to .4 clinician. There are 2 students who are linguistically diverse. No students identified for Tier 2 or 3. One student is an advanced learner.

Table 19: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Sun Prairie Phoenix Academy Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

1

10

13

5

0

11

22

4

0

12

51

7

0

2

Total

86

16

0

2

.4

0

Staffing 1:16 *Plus speech as a secondary disability

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

0

1

Sun Prairie Virtual School, ratio of special education teachers to students at 1 to 9 students, which is appropriate for proactive services. In addition, there are 3 special education paraprofessionals. There are 0 students eligible for Speech and Language only, plus additional students who have speech as a secondary eligibility to .4 clinician. There are 0 students who are

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written119 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY linguistically diverse. There are 0 students identified for Tier 2 or 3. One student is an advanced learner.

Table 20: Staffing Percentages and Ratios Relative to Students Identified for Special Education, Speech and Language, English Language Learners or linguistically diverse, Tier 2, and Advanced Learners for Sun Prairie Virtual School Number of Students with Disabilities by grade (not including speech only students)

Number Grades of Students

Number of Students Speech and Language

Number Number of of Students Students Eligible Tier ELL 2 and 3

Number of Students Advanced Learners or in Advanced Courses

5K

2

2

0

1

1

1

0

4

1

0

0

6

1

0

0

1

7

2

1

0

1

8

8

0

0

3

9

10

1

0

3

10

10

2

0

2

11

10

1

0

2

12

18

1

0

1

Total

63

9

0

Staffing 1:9 *Plus speech as a secondary disability

1

1

0

13

.04

Table 21 is provided as an example of a Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn elementary realignment. C3 teams are created by grade level. In this manner, all students are aligned to the chronological age-appropriate grade and then classroom. Each classroom mirrors the school’s student demographics. Special educators are assigned cross-categorical by caseloads to better function on a single grade level team or at the most two grade level teams. ELL, Speech and Advance learning staff are also assigned to a C3 Team based on the number of students they are serving at each grade level and based on the expertise of the core teaching staff at each grade level.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written120 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY In addition, any self-contained or resource rooms would be phased out over time to place students back in the schools they would attend if not disabled to support natural proportions of students across identifiers (ELL, special education, Tier 2) in the core of teaching and learning.

See Table 21 for an Elementary example.

Table 21: Elementary Example of Realignment by Grade Level Grade Level/ 3 Sections/ Grade

5K Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 1st Grade (2 Teachers with Sp.Ed. Cert) Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 2nd Grade Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 3rd Grade Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3

4th Grade Sec. 1

Number Number of of Students Students with Disabilities / Someplac e Else 84 9 28 3 28 3 28 3 87 12

Linguisticall y Diverse/Ide ntified as Tier 2

Recommend ed Staff

Certification

SL & BRS in Class Support

10 4 3 3 9

1 Intervention Specialist

EC OT

Speech

.5 Intervention Specialist .5 Reading Teacher

K-8 CrossCategorical Reading Specialist PT

Speech

29 29 29 86 28 29 29 91 30 30 31

4 4 4 14 5 4 5 12/1 4 4 5

3 3 3 6/1 2 3 2 6 2 2 2

1 Intervention Specialist .10 Psych 1 Intervention Specialist .5 Reading Teacher 1 Para .2 Gifted

K-8 LD Reading Specialist Psych k-8 Cross Categorical Reading Specialist Gifted

BRS

89 30

14 5

10 3

K-8 CD

Speech

BRS

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written121 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Sec. 2 Sec. 3

30 29

4 5

3 4

5th Grade Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3

78 26 26 26

13/1 5 5 4

12 4 4 4

1 Intervention Specialist .5 Reading Teacher 1 Intervention Specialist .5 Reading Teacher 1 Para .2 Gifted

Reading Specialist PT

K-12 EBD .5 Reading Specialist Gifted

Speech

* BRS = Bilingual Resource Specialist Secondary schools would align in the same manner, by grade, and then by content or specific courses. Most importantly, program options would be integrated into the core of teaching and learning to work against segregation by student choice.

Essential Next Steps 1.

The District must begin by consistent staffing for special education, ELL, Tier 2 and 3, across all elementary schools and secondary schools.

2.

The District Office and schools should begin a process to realign staff for Co-Plan to CoServe to Co-Learn (C3) Teams and create all environments in the core of teaching and learning and extra-curricular that are proportionally represented upon completing the work under the Essential Next Steps under the Focus on Equity

3.

The District should complete an analysis of the use of special education paraprofessionals as aligned to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams, as current numbers reflect a reaction to a deficit-based system.

4.

The District should complete an analysis of the students meeting criteria for Tier 2 and Tier 3, with the understanding that the more proactive the system is the less students meet eligibility based on a reactionary practice.

C.

Transform Teaching and Learning

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written122 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Design Identity Relevant Teaching for All Learners C3 Teams must consistently rely on strategies and instructional practices that have the greatest impact on student achievement 100% of the time. These practices should occur in heterogeneous small groups that represent the diverse normative of students. In so doing, C3 Teams are better able to create lessons that lift all learners academically, emotionally, and behaviorally.

Hattie provides a list of practices that support those strategies that have the greatest impact on student learning in his 2018 publication, 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success. Certainly, other researchers and practices can be included such as Max Teaching and Cooperative Learning. Below are just a few of those practices and their associated strategies that have the greatest impact on student learning from (Hattie & Zierer, 2018)29. The following practices are examples of opportunities to engage in high impact strategies for student learning: •

Worked examples (.67)

•

Meta Cognitive Strategies (.69)

•

Questioning (.48)

•

Study Skills (.63)

•

Dialogue vs Monologue (.82)

•

Peer Tutoring (.55)

•

Summarization (.74)

•

Highlighting (.44)

•

Small-Group Learning (.49)

•

Reciprocal Learning (.74)

•

Self-Reporting Grades (1.33)

More specifically, when educators use every minute of a student’s educational time to intentionally prevent stereotype threats ( .-33) and engage in collective teacher efficacy (1.33) through Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams that are orchestrated within heterogenous (Peer influence .53) small groups (.47), while not labeling students (.61), educators support all students in positive self-esteem (.47) and learning more. In this way, literally all students in the district learn more.

Educators in the SPASD shared that they are proud of their work specific to Universal Design for Learning. They reported that they view Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as an instructional 29

Hattie, J. (2018) 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written123 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY practice where teachers are required to teach by providing instruction with a visual component, hands-on component, and auditory component at all times. Teachers reported that UDL practices were only being used in some schools, but training had not occurred across the District.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, Public Law 110-315, August 14, 2008)30 supports Universal Design for Learning as “a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practices”: •

(A)“Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways, students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways, students are engaged...”

•

(B)“Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficiency.”

According to Dr. Rose and Dr. Meyer in 2008 31, the three Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles are: 1. To support recognition learning, provide multiple means of representation that is, offer flexible ways to present what we teach and learn.

2. To support strategic learning, provide multiple means of action and expression - that is, flexible options for how we learn and express what we know.

3. To support effective learning, provide multiple means of engagement - that is, flexible options for generating and sustaining motivation, the why of learning.

To date, the principles, and practices of UDL have not been considered nor been informed by identity-relevant pedagogy. That is, a teacher could engage in effective UDL practices of representation, expression, and engagement, per se, while the teaching remains centered in white, middle-class values, and not relevant to cultural difference nor developing critical consciousness in students, as does culturally relevant pedagogy. Thus, we suggest the merging of a UDL framework for lesson development with identity-relevant pedagogy.

Essential Next Steps

30 31

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, Public Law 110-315, August 14, 2008 Rose, D. (2008)

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written124 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 1.

The District will provide professional development in support of instructional practices and strategies that have the greatest impact on student achievement.

2.

Educators will continue to merge Universal Design for Learning practices with Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning.

3.

All educators will complete lesson development in support of all learners the first time the skill or concept is taught.

Design Identity Relevant Learning and Curriculum for All Learners Educators within focus groups were consistent in their perspective about the lack of resources and materials that represent all learners. In addition, educators shared confusion around what materials they can and cannot use to proactively serve a diverse normative. The District Leadership Team must complete an analysis and provide professional development for Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams in support of a diverse normative through: a) Curriculum and books reflecting a diverse normative in pictures, language, and examples b) Authors of books reflecting a diverse normative c) Curricular content that reflects a diverse normative Essential Next Steps 1.

All educators must complete an ongoing analysis of all curriculum and resources 4k-12, specifically books/resources, authors, curriculum, and content to affirm that it reflects a diverse normative.

2.

The District will evaluate current curriculum relative to the identities in the Wisconsin Pupil Nondiscrimination law and aligned with the intent of the law.

3.

The District must provide professional development specific to the usage of books/resources, authors, content that represents a diverse normative to better eliminate the fear expressed by staff.

Discipline and Behavior Student behavior and thus discipline are directly related to the culture of the district and the individual school. As such, educators have a choice to create school cultures that are cohesive rather than fragmented, comprehensive rather than not synthesized in the core of teaching and learning, and to provide access to high quality teaching. © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written125 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY An individualized student support plan provides both staff and the student continuity to proactively support a child and specifically teach how to navigate school through appropriate behavior. That is, the student knows that regardless of the environment they are in — whether it is the lunchroom, the school bus, the hall, or a particular class, that the proactive adult response will be consistent across all these environments. In addition, the process of developing the plan will help the adults who come in contact with the student to have a shared understanding of the situations that trigger the student’s inappropriate behavior(s) and the strategies that can help mitigate such behavior. In addition, a student support plan also allows for a layer of objectivity, which will help elicit clearer, more consistent staff responses. It is important to remember that student support plans must be written individually for each student. Using PBIS strategies is useful across the District, but does not address individual student behaviors.

Supporting a student with high behavior needs is never easy. It is important that students experience the district and school climate as supportive, that the C3 Teams work together with the student support plan developed by those individuals who are directly involved with the student, and that they never give up. We must approach every situation believing that we can prevail.

The work at the district level must begin by setting the standards of proactive behavioral supports for all learners. The following are 3 standards that are necessary for District Leadership Teams to support such a proactive culture.

Standard 1: Develop a district culture of respect for and value of all learners through the Principles of Excellence.

Standard 2: Collect district and school equity audit data - drill deeper into the District discipline data.

Standard 3: Create Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA’s) and Student Support Plans (SSP’s) to support consistency across all staff for the small percent of the students who require such a plan.

When the staff brainstorm proactive supports, keep in mind the importance of communication needs, instructional needs, proactive sensory support needs (provided through a daily sensory diet), and a consistent schedule (e.g., picture, written, auditory, etc.). In Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams, the range of expertise can be found with the speech and language clinician in the area of communication, occupational therapist in the areas of sensory integration, general and special educators attending to Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning, and the special educator attending to the appropriate sensory schedule.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written126 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY The C3 Teams must then analyze their results as a team and determine the top three behaviors to move on to use the information collected in the FBA to create a proactive Student Support Plan (SSP). See Appendix D for example forms.

Essential Next Steps 1.

The District will provide professional development specific to how to develop Proactive Student Behavioral plans that are equitable and identity relevant, while maintaining high expectations.

D.

Leveraging Policy and Funding

Align Human Resource Systems Often within a deficit-based system, the roles of educators are reactionary and many feel that they cannot meet the needs of all the students. Most specialist teachers move from classroom to classroom “helping out,” or “pulling-out” but are not organized to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to CoLearn (C3).

When the system is inverted to an asset-based system; one in which students are proportionally represented across all identities in the core of teaching and learning, staff roles transform from responding to student performance to facilitating student learning. Teachers are responsible for intentionally developing each other’s capacity to better meet the needs of all students the first time the concept is taught, thus requiring the need to re-think those practices associated with traditional roles. When those traditional practices are inverted from reactionary to proactive or asset-based, teachers are better able to Co-Plan to Co-Serve and move to a Co-Learning paradigm. At that time, position descriptions, evaluation practices, and interview posting should be aligned to the District’s Principles of Excellence.

Essential Next Steps 1.

All educators (teachers and administrators) are responsible for equitable structures and practices that shift the District culture of inequities through identity relevant, high-quality teaching and learning for all students vs. one administrator to be responsible for equity in the District, such as an Equity Director.

2.

The District and Board must create all position descriptions and interview questions for all District positions in alignment to the District’s Equity Principles of Excellence.

3.

The District and Board must continue to support the strategic partnerships with local universities and local organizations, and develop a district “grow your own program” in

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written127 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY partnership with community members and local organizations to increase the number of high-quality, diverse educational staff.

4.

The District and Board must continue and build on the strategic partnerships with local universities and local community organizations to increase the number of diverse educational staff. Hiring and retaining more diverse staff are predicated on the District being intentional about their equity efforts, as no staff of color will want to work or stay in the District if that is not so.

Leverage Funding Within focus groups, staff shared a belief that resources across the District were wellmanaged. It will be important to create a system where expenditures can be re-evaluated by cross-checking with the District’s Equity Principles for Excellence. How a district spends money defines their priorities. When money is spent in alignment with the District’s Equity Principles of Excellence, the priorities of what matters to the district are clear. This can include professional development, the increase or decrease of specific positions, determining that financially supporting alternative education programs through segregated practices are not in alignment to the Principles for Excellence, etc.

As the District confirms their Equity Principles for Excellence, all policy and funding decisions can be cross-checked to consistently operationalize and define high-quality teaching and learning for all students.

Essential Next Steps 1. The District and Board will, upon the development of the District Principles of Equity and Excellence or District Equity Non-Negotiables, complete an analysis of District expenditure practices and eliminate those expenses that do not align to them.

Cross-Check Policy and Procedures The District has added Equity Policy which is essential, but now should cross-check District policies and procedures against the District’s Equity Principles for Excellence as well as personfirst and asset-based language. Often districts choose to do this work as part of their policy revision cycle. Some policies are more pertinent than others, therefore rather than continue with a current policy, despite its contradictions to the Equity Principles for Excellence, it should be revised as soon as possible. That is, policies related to the implementation of curriculum and instruction, discipline, Title 1 supports, special education, advanced learners, English Language © 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written128 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Learners or linguistically diverse, and so forth should be revised after the District’s Equity Principles of Excellence are solidified.

In addition, all policies should be reviewed for person-first and asset-based language. Any deficitbased language or non-person first language should be edited and changed to asset-based language that support proactive practices. The District Leadership Team can often determine the policies most essential to revise in this way. The list of policies selected for immediate revisions are then forwarded to the School Board Policy and Procedure Committee. The most appropriate time to continue the dialogue of the importance of the Equity Principles of Excellence and how to operationalize such Equity Principles is when the information is presented to the School Board. Based on the analysis, the District will need to create a plan for revisions and a timeline for any procedural changes.

Most importantly, all staff need professional development in non-discrimination policies and procedures.

Essential Next Steps 1.

Upon the development of the District’s Equity Principles of Excellence, complete a cross check of policies and procedures relative to the Equity Principles of Excellence and person first and asset-based language to better leverage and sustain high-quality teaching and learning for all students.

2.

All staff should receive professional development in non-discrimination policies and procedures.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written129 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY V.

Summary of Essential Next Steps

1.

All educators and board members complete professional development on the educational history of marginalization to better understand current structures and practices to lay the groundwork to build on previous work and create a systematic and pragmatic journey to impact systems and policy at the core.

2.

All educators and board members complete professional development through an analysis of current educational structures and practices in relation to historical marginalization and how it relates to the District’s current over and under-representation within the equity audit.

3.

All educators, board members, and community members participate in activities to reflect and better understand stereotypes, myths, and assumptions to interrupt deficitbased language, thinking and practices for adults and students within the District and the Sun Prairie community.

4.

All educators and board members must model a shift from deficit-based language and practices to asset-based language and practices and set consistent expectations of all students within the school and educational community venues, including on social media platforms.

5.

All educators and board members complete consistent and authentic professional development related to identity development across all identities and their intersections and its implications for application in school and classroom environments.

6.

All educators and board members should participate in opportunities to increase their understanding of identities and their intersections.

7.

All educators and board members should know and understand the research on equity and best practices across all student identifiers, such as but not limited to, special education, ELL, advanced Learners, RtI, related to current practices.

8.

The research practices presented should be applied in a systematic manner across the District schools to move beyond the performative nature of actions to authentic equity.

9.

The District and Board should create District Principles of Excellence to operationalize the District’s commitment to equity and interrupt a piecemeal approach.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written130 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 10.

The District should complete a District and per school equity audit annually to measure the District’s and individual schools’ progress.

11.

All Educators must understand the role and function of Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to create equitable practices for all learners.

12.

The District should develop C3 Teams to proactively support a diverse normative in the core of teaching and learning.

13.

All educators will facilitate learning through heterogeneous grouping practices for all learners, while supporting 1:1 instruction based on interest and student need in the core of teaching and learning.

14.

The District must begin by consistent staffing for special education, ELL, Tier 2 and 3, across all elementary schools and secondary schools.

15.

The District Office and schools should begin a process to realign staff for Co-Plan to CoServe to Co-Learn (C3) Teams and create all environments in the core of teaching and learning and extra-curricular that are proportionally represented upon completing the work under the Essential Next Steps under the Focus on Equity

16.

The District should complete an analysis of the use of special education paraprofessionals as aligned to Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Teams, as current numbers reflect a reaction to a deficit-based system.

17.

The District should complete an analysis of the students meeting criteria for Tier 2 and Tier 3, with the understanding that the more proactive the system is the less students meet eligibility based on a reactionary practice.

18.

The District will provide professional development in support of instructional practices and strategies that have the greatest impact on student achievement.

19.

Educators will continue to merge Universal Design for Learning practices with Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning.

20.

All educators will complete lesson development in support of all learners the first time the skill or concept is taught.

21.

All educators must complete an ongoing analysis of all curriculum and resources 4k-12, specifically books/resources, authors, curriculum, and content to affirm that it reflects a diverse normative.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written131 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 22.

The District will evaluate current curriculum relative to the identities in the Wisconsin Pupil Nondiscrimination law and aligned with the intent of the law.

23.

The District must provide professional development specific to the usage of books/resources, authors, content that represents a diverse normative to better eliminate the fear expressed by staff.

24.

The District will provide professional development specific to how to develop Proactive Student Behavioral plans that are equitable and identity relevant, while maintaining high expectations.

25.

All educators (teachers and administrators) are responsible for equitable structures and practices that shift the District culture of inequities through identity relevant, high-quality teaching and learning for all students vs. one administrator to be responsible for equity in the District, such as an Equity Director.

26.

The District and Board must create all position descriptions and interview questions for all District positions in alignment to the District’s Equity Principles of Excellence.

27.

The District and Board must continue to support the strategic partnerships with local universities and local organizations, and develop a district “grow your own program” in partnership with community members and local organizations to increase the number of high-quality, diverse educational staff.

28.

The District and Board must continue and build on the strategic partnerships with local universities and local community organizations to increase the number of diverse educational staff. Hiring and retaining more diverse staff are predicated on the District being intentional about their equity efforts, as no staff of color will want to work or stay in the District if that is not so.

29.

The District and Board will, upon the development of the District Principles of Equity and Excellence or District Equity Non-Negotiables, complete an analysis of District expenditure practices and eliminate those expenses that do not align to them.

30.

Upon the development of the District’s Equity Principles of Excellence, complete a cross check of policies and procedures relative to the Equity Principles of Excellence and person first and asset-based language to better leverage and sustain high-quality teaching and learning for all students.

31.

All staff should receive professional development in non-discrimination policies and procedures.

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written132 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY VI.

Appendices

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written133 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Appendix A Skills at a Glance Skills at a Glance (ISAAG) Template Student Name________________________ Grade_________________________ Students Areas of Engagement____________________________ Date ISAAG Created _______________ _____________________________________________________ Check those subjects that the skill will be focused on and the application of instructional strategies Skills/Goals in Priority Order

Specific Instructional Strategies

Math

English Language Arts

Science

Social Studies

Specials/Electives

1

2

3

4

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written134 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY 5

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written135 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Appendix B Lesson Plan Template

Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Team (C3 Team) Lesson Plan Standards/Learning Targets: Unit/Lesson: Large Group Instruction (10%):

Student Grouped By Identity Relevant Engagement

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

Identity Relevant Assessment and Expression Identity Relevant Instruction representation

Staffing

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written136 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY ISAAG Instructional Strategies

Staff Completing Co-Planning Signature

Title

_____________________

________________________

_____________________

________________________

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written137 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY Appendix C Behavioral Support Plan Template STUDENT SUPPORT PLAN (SSP) 1. LIST THE PROACTIVE SYSTEM ASPECTS THAT ARE IN PLACE: (INTEGRATED, PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED ENVIRONMENT (E.G., NO PULLOUT, ABILITY GROUPING OR TRACKING); ANTI-OPPRESSIVE TEACHER AND TEACHING)

2. LIST THE PROACTIVE SYSTEM ASPECTS THAT NEED TO BE DEVELOPED: (INTEGRATED, PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED ENVIRONMENT (E.G., NO PULLOUT, ABILITY GROUPING OR TRACKING); ANTI-OPPRESSIVE TEACHER AND TEACHING)

3. LIST PROACTIVE STUDENT SUPPORTS THAT SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT CHALLENGING BEHAVIOR (e.g., morning swim, schedule, small heterogeneous grouping, sensory breaks, reinforcement, etc.),

STUDENT BEHAVIOR

INTITIAL ADULT RESPONSE

FOLLOW-UP RESOLUTION ADULT RESPONSE

Teachers Notes/Date

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written138 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .

SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY EVALUATION INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS FOR EQUITY

SIGNATURES OF SSP PARTICIPANTS ROLE/RELATIONSHIP

DATE

___________________________________________

_______________________________

___________________________________________

_______________________________

___________________________________________

_______________________________

© 2022 Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written139 consent from the authors or the Sun Prairie Area School District. Please email info@icsequity.org to obtain such permission. .