WHOLE-CHILD DESIGN

Universal, Enriching Experiences

The school environment is not intentionally designed to be enriching or to build off students’ interests and passions. Instead, experiences and relationships might be primarily oriented toward remediating deficits and/or building a narrowly defined set of skills and knowledge. Programming is primarily focused on academics, and it is rare to see evidence of the prioritization of holistic developmental opportunities that support social, emotional, identity development, and physical and mental health outcomes (e.g., school programming might solely consist of core academic subjects and remediation as measured by standardized test performance). The small number of enrichment activities that do exist may not be well received by students because they are poorly matched to students’ cultures, interests, contexts and needs.

Adults are overwhelmed by the needs their students demonstrate. They may refer most students for specialized supports, rather than reflecting on and adjusting the universal experience of students within the school community. Inequitable patterns likely persist and may manifest themselves in a variety of ways, such as systems of rewards and punishment that exclude students from accessing enrichment.

Asset-Driven, Collaborative Approach

Intervention and enrichment structures may take a deficit-based approach to collaboration, excluding or blaming students, caregivers, families or staff who work directly with students, and/or shutting them out of processes for planning, implementing and evaluating supports, instead making decisions about students in isolation (e.g., caregivers may be perceived as lacking competence or concern about students’ functioning in school and are not leveraged accordingly; staff might be blamed rather than consulted and supported when students struggle; student voice may be dismissed and/or problematized). Attempts at intervention and enrichment may compete for resources and undermine one another.

Roles and responsibilities for supporting students are siloed and rigid, or unclear. They are determined based on titles and assumptions. For example, teachers may be seen as purely responsible for academics. There may be a divisive culture with confusion about work across roles with minimal knowledge exchange (e.g., teachers may be frustrated with student support staff because their work is not transferring; student support staff might be unsure about what is happening in classrooms). Trust is likely limited, and there may be pervasive negative mindsets about students and families.

There are minimal partnerships with community providers. If things like after-school enrichment are available, they may simply use the school space and have only logistical interactions with school leadership and staff. School staff make little or no effort to understand or connect to these experiences.

Adults may fail to recognize that when they focus on student deficits and have negative beliefs and stereotypes, it harms how they treat students and the opportunities that they provide. Notably, there is likely a focus on gaps and deficits, creating a culture of blame and frustration. Structures likely exacerbate these beliefs (e.g., tiered supports processes might focus primarily on describing student deficits, rather than being structured around examining adult practice).

Personalized Webs of Support

There may be processes in place for some students to receive additional supports (e.g., only students who have failed a screener or standardized test; students who have been labeled as behaviorally challenging). These processes may be dehumanizing and/or may address one part of a student’s development (e.g., behavior, math skills) but have an overall negative impact by sidelining other facets of development such as sense of belonging or emotional and identity safety (e.g., shaming disciplinary interventions, stigmatizing academic supports).

Within these structures, when students demonstrate that they need supports, adults may see vulnerabilities as deficits rather than a predictable part of development. Strengths and students’ contexts may be ignored completely. Data is likely used in ways that reinforce a focus on students without helping adults reflect on their environments, relationships and experiences with students (e.g., end-of-year standardized test scores used to counsel students out).

Practices identified to support individual students are implemented inconsistently. Reflection likely focuses primarily on why things have not happened or have not worked. When seeking to improve practice, information may be siloed, and processes may focus on moving students around rather than building a shared understanding about how to support them (e.g., referrals for testing to remove students from general education). There are minimal structures in place to ensure that information is documented, updated and shared. Because of this, follow-through might be a challenge – students may fall through the cracks even though all involved adults feel as if they have done their part.

Universal, Enriching Experiences

The school environment may be designed to provide enrichment as a bonus or add-on, providing opportunities for students to explore interests and passions in some settings but not consistently. Programming may demonstrate a commitment to skills beyond just academics, but this approach may be set aside for large periods of the year (e.g., in the months leading up to standardized testing) or for some students (e.g., students who require “remedial” supports may not have access to enrichment coursework). Alternatively, enrichment might occur in silos, such as during STEAM blocks or clubs, but other settings might not be organized to leverage students’ passions and interests. Enriching experiences might prioritize the culture in power within the school, rather than the cultures, interests, contexts and needs of students (e.g., a heavy focus on exposure to opportunities outside of students’ communities and exclusion of community-based learning).

At times, adults recognize that when many students demonstrate an intensive need, it signals that changes to universal experiences are required. However, these changes might be constrained and technical. Some inequitable patterns may be addressed, while others persist (e.g., there may be a focus on moving away from disproportionate punitive disciplinary interventions, without recognizing the importance of also addressing unequal access to enriching experiences for students). There may be some efforts to make sure that enrichment opportunities are accessible to institutionally underserved students, but these experiences are still not universally accessible or may not be structured to work for all students.

Asset-Driven, Collaborative Approach

Intervention and enrichment structures facilitate connection and collaboration among many community members, but some may not be valued as fully. Collaboration may occur during some, but not all, phases of planning, implementation and evaluation of these systems (e.g., school staff and leaders might make most decisions and then look to families, caregivers and community members for perfunctory feedback). School and community members may share resources according to tradition, favoring the status quo rather than revisiting how to use resources to most equitably provide enriching supports and experiences to students.

Roles and responsibilities for supporting students may be clear but may also unduly burden certain adults as holding more responsibility for students’ development and skill building (e.g., teachers and staff from institutionally underserved communities may be disproportionally responsible for addressing inequities and serving students from their communities). Trust may occur in some groups and spaces but is not consistent throughout the school community.

Community partners are engaged to provide some services to students such as mental health supports, medical care, expanded learning and out-of-school activities. There are instances of bi-directional collaboration between school staff and community providers, but also missed opportunities to share knowledge about students and connect students with in-school and out-of-school experiences.

Adults may take some time to reflect on their mindsets and beliefs about students and acknowledge that this plays an important role in how they treat them. However, this work might be siloed, and it may still be common to hear adults have casual conversations that focus on student deficits. Structures may have formal processes in place to reduce bias (e.g., discussion protocols, structured questioning, the inclusion of multiple voices) but may also engage in practices that contribute to biases.

Personalized Webs of Support

There are some processes in place for personalized intervention and enrichment for most students. These processes are designed to ensure students who have been identified as requiring additional supports get what they need to learn and grow and take multiple parts of students’ experiences into account, such as their social, emotional and academic development and well-being (e.g., targeted academic supports, access to expanded learning, free meal programs). A small number of staff and/or community members might volunteer their time to connect students to these experiences, and responsibility might not be shared equitably.

Within these structures, when students struggle, adults may reflect on their role but may also default to blaming students rather than acknowledging systemic barriers. Strengths may be leveraged in limited ways. Data might support reflection on context and/or adult practice, but it primarily measures students’ ability to change.

Practices identified to support individual students are implemented consistently, and some ongoing reflection occurs to improve students’ experiences and growth. When seeking to improve practice, there may be a small number of adults who hold most of the expertise on what might be effective and/or what students need. There are likely some structures ensuring that information is documented, updated and shared to ensure follow-through and adjustment, and adults reflect on effectiveness but might not always have enough information to make sure students are getting what they need.