1.6 Classroom Equity

1.6 Classroom Equity: The classroom environment established by the teacher reflected attention to issues of access, equity, and diversity for students (e.g., cooperative learning, language-appropriate strategies and materials, attentiveness to student needs).

This indicator assesses the degree to which the classroom environment was unbiased related to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical abilities, English language learners, and students with learning differences, etc. Evidence of this indicator can be obtained by reviewing the wording and formatting of classroom handouts and/or presentation methods for the whole class as well as small groups, and/or by analyzing strategies and opportunities created to ensure participation by all students, and/or by the teacher’s handling of unacceptable comments made by students. Additional evidence of this indicator can be gained by analyzing the degree to which the teacher took the diversity and individual needs of his or her students into account when planning and teaching the lesson and how the teacher facilitated a respectful and open classroom environment and culture of learning where all students were comfortable sharing their ideas. This indicator is also evidenced by the way the teacher dealt with students who struggled with mathematics or science content and concepts, including how the teacher scaffolded and supported their learning, and how the teacher worked to include all students and their divergent ways of thinking in class discussions and activities.

General Rubric

1. This item should be rated a 1 if the rater noted a major issue relating to equity, access, or diversity that significantly negatively impacted the classroom environment and all students’ opportunities to learn.
   
    
2. This item should be rated a 2 if the rater noted one or two minor issues relating to equity, access, and diversity that may have had a small negative impact on students’ opportunities to learn. The teacher may have attempted some positive modifications to take into account issues of equity, access, and diversity, but ultimately these modifications were not successful.
   
    
3. This item should be rated a 3 if there were no major issues and no explicit moves made by the teacher relating to equity, access, and diversity, and the classroom environment was not positively or negatively impacted. This item also may be rated a 3 if there was no clear need for or evidence regarding issues of equity, access, and diversity in the classroom observed during the lesson.
   
    
4. This item should be rated a 4 if there was no evidence of actions the teacher took relating to equity, access, and diversity that negatively impacted the classroom environment, and, overall, the teacher’s actions relating to this indicator had a positive impact on the classroom environment. There may have been a small missed opportunity to provide equitable access to the content or recognize and adapt for a students’ individual needs.
   
    
5. This item should be rated as a 5 if there is evidence that the teacher explicitly took into account issues of equity, access, and diversity in the classroom throughout the lesson so that all students were equitably engaged, had easy access to lesson content and materials, and were treated with respect by all throughout the class session. In other words, the classroom environment clearly reflected thorough attention to equity, access, and diversity of all students.

Specific Examples of Supporting Evidence

1. The teacher was openly disrespectful to students who did not readily respond to his questions with the “correct” answer, resulting in an environment where there was very little participation or risk-taking. The teacher concentrated his attention on many negative interactions with the male students who were not working as directed, while ignoring the girls in his class who were attempting to solve the problems and repeatedly raised their hands for help.
   
    
2. In a class that included several English language learners, the teacher separated these students into groups by themselves though the rest of the class had many other students who could serve as English language resources for the non-native speakers. The teacher worked diligently with the ELL group but, because his ability to communicate was limited, these students had a difficult time completing the worksheet. Meanwhile, the English speakers worked semi-productively in their own groups, not able to get the teachers’ attention when they were stuck. Some of the English-speaking student groups were able to solve some problems and helped each other, but the level of success throughout the class session was low.
   
    
3. Students were arranged in cooperative learning groups, but the assignment required each individual to complete the same activity and no roles for each group member’s accountability were in evidence. Nonetheless, most students appeared able to complete the work with little assistance from each other or the teacher. The classroom environment was open and relaxed, and students appeared comfortable expressing themselves and their ideas to each other without teacher facilitation or direction to do so.
   
    
4. The teacher relied heavily on cooperative learning and student-to-student coaching of the English language learners by bilingual students in this mixed-ability classroom. The teacher had created a word wall with translations of the day’s new vocabulary words into Spanish. A variety of students at different levels and from different backgrounds were observed to participate in several aspects of the lesson, presenting problem solutions to the whole class or explaining their thinking and problem approaches in small groups. There was one pair of students, however, who were unable to engage in the final presentations due to their lack of communication skills, and they chose not to do so. 
   
    
5. The students in this class were gifted, and the format of the class and the project they were working took into account issues of access for gifted students. The students had the resources needed and freedom to explore and grapple with challenging content, while still working collaboratively with other students. It also allowed all of the students to engage in the sophisticated practice of justifying ideas with evidence and data, and the teacher encouraged and facilitated student-to-student argumentation and debate about the results and conjectures presented.