The Language of Possibility by Solution Tree

Foreword by Anthony Muhammad MICHAEL ROBERTS Possibility Language The of How Teachers’ Words Shape School Culture and Student Achievement

Copyright © 2023 by Solution Tree Press Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.” Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or oth erwise) without prior written permission of the publisher. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: VisitSolutionTree.comemail:812.336.7790info@SolutionTree.comgo.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement to download the free reproducibles in this book. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Roberts, Michael, 1970- author. Title: The language of possibility : how teachers’ words shape school culture and student achievement / Michael Roberts. Description: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022006781 (print) | LCCN 2022006782 (ebook) | ISBN 9781949539387 (paperback) | ISBN 9781954631007 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Communication in education. | Teachers--Language. | Motivation in education. | Teacher-student relationships. | School Classification:children--Psychology.LCCLB1033.5 .R63 2022 (print) | LCC LB1033.5 (ebook) | DDC 371.102/2--dc23/eng/20220316 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022006781 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022006782 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO Edmund M. Ackerman, President Solution Tree Press President and Publisher: Douglas M. Rife Associate Publisher: Sarah Payne-Mills Managing Production Editor: Kendra Slayton Editorial Director: Todd Brakke Art Director: Rian Anderson Copy Chief: Jessi Finn Senior Production Editor: Laurel Hecker Content Development Specialist: Amy Rubenstein Acquisitions Editor: Sarah Jubar Copy Editor: Kate St. Ives Proofreader: Madonna Evans Text and Cover Designer: Laura Cox Associate Editor: Sarah Ludwig Editorial Assistants: Charlotte Jones and Elijah Oates © 2023 by Solution Tree Press

While I was writing this book, my niece, Lauren, and sister-in-law, Morgan, joined this most noble profession. Both are spending their first year teaching in schools with a lot of students who are far from their potential. Here is hoping that they never give in to limiting language and always remember why they answered this calling in the first place. Thank you to my fantastic family who look past the missed games, practices, and nights of homework so I can do this work wherever I am called. Tree would like to thank the following reviewers: ExecutiveBennettDirector of Middle School Instruction County Schools North Carolina John D. by Tree

Solution

Gaston

- iii -

Press

Acknowledgments

Chris

Gastonia,

Frederick,FormerEducationEwaldConsultantSuperintendent,Principal,TeacherMaryland Rea AssociateStevenRogers,RogersMathSmithFacilitatorPublicSchoolsArkansasWeberSuperintendent for Teaching and FayettevilleLearningPublic Schools Fayetteville, Arkansas © 2023

Press

- vTable of Contents About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Introduction 1 How Limiting Language Impacts the Brain 4 How Limiting Language Impacts Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 How Limiting Language Impacts School and District Culture 11 How to Change Our Language 12 How to Use This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Part 1: What We Say About Students 21 1 Talking About Underserved Students 23 Students in Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Special Education Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 English Learners 29 Students of Color 32 Online Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Summary 39 Chapter Discussion Questions 39 2 Talking About Expectations for Students . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Limiting Language: “Some kids will never achieve, so they just need love.” 43 Language of Possibility: “If we understand their needs, we can help all students meet the standards.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Chapter Discussion Questions 49 © 2023 by Solution Tree Press

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITYvi | 3 Talking About Student Motivation 51 Limiting Language: “We care about students’ success more than they do.” 52 Language of Possibility: “We won’t allow students to be unsuccessful.” . . 54 Summary 58 Chapter Discussion Questions 59 4 Talking About Student Data 61 Limiting Language: “Our data are bad.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Language of Possibility: “We use data to better support students.” 65 Summary 66 Chapter Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Part 2: What We Say About Colleagues 71 5 Talking About Taking Responsibility 73 Limiting Language: “If other people did their jobs, these kids wouldn’t be so behind.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Language of Possibility: “It takes all of us to help all students succeed.” 76 Summary 82 Chapter Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6 Talking About Research and Best Practices . . . . . . . . . 85 Limiting Language: “We’re different; that research doesn’t apply to us.” 86 Language of Possibility: “Who greater than us can we learn from?” . . . . 87 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Chapter Discussion Questions 89 7 Talking About Teacher Individuality 91 Limiting Language: “They want us to be robot teachers.” . . . . . . . . . 92 Language of Possibility: “We can teach the same standards differently.” 93 Summary 96 Chapter Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 8 Talking About Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Limiting Language: “I don’t have time for meetings.” 100 Language of Possibility: “My team makes my job easier.” 102 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Chapter Discussion Questions 106 © 2023 by Solution Tree Press

| viiTable of Contents 9 Talking About Trust 107 Limiting Language: “I know my students best.” 109 Language of Possibility: “My students will benefit from my colleagues’ different strengths.” 110 Summary 112 Chapter Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Appendix 115 References and Resources 117 Index 129 © 2023 by Solution Tree Press

Michael earned his bachelor’s degree in elementary education from Washington State University and his master’s degree in educational leadership from Azusa Pacific University.

About the Author

- ix -

To learn more about Michael’s work, visit https://everykidnow.com, or follow him @everykidnow on Twitter or everykidnow on Instagram. To book Michael Roberts for professional development, contact pd@solution tree.com.

Michael Roberts is an author and consultant with more than two decades of experience in education. Michael has been an administrator at the district level and has served as an on-site administrator at the high school, middle school, and elementary levels. Prior to his stint as the director of elementary curricu lum and instruction in Scottsdale, Arizona, Michael was the principal of Desert View Elementary School (DVES) in Hermiston, Oregon. Under his leadership, DVES pro duced evidence of increased learning each year from 2013–2017 for all students and met the challenges of 40 percent growth over four years, a rising population of English learners, and a dramatic increase in the number of trauma-affected students. Michael attributes the success of DVES to the total commitment of staff to the three big ideas and the four critical questions of a professional learn ing community. This commitment led to a schoolwide transition from “me” to “we”—a fundamental shift in thinking that has made all the difference.

Previously, Michael served as an assistant principal in Prosser, Washington, where he was named the 2010–2011 Three Rivers Principal Association Assistant Principal of the Year. In 2011–2012, Michael was a finalist for Washington Assistant Principal of the Year.

- xi -

On my first day of class, the students dragged themselves into the classroom, stained with ten years of trauma experienced at the hands of a system that viewed them as throwaways. They expected that this new teacher, who was not much older than they were, would view them the same as those other teachers they had run off before. I assertively greeted them at the door, looked them in their eyes, and spoke their language. I recognized last names and physical features that connected them to their families, community, and friends. We were establishing mutual respect. I asked each student about their biggest hopes and dreams. They ©

What she and others did not understand was that these students were from my community. I knew their brothers, sisters, aunt, uncles, and close friends. I knew their stories and understood their experiences at their deepest core. These were the type of students that I intended to influence when I attended countless teacher education classes and studied late nights to pass my college exams. They were my destiny. I was a merchant of hope begging to have an opportunity to prove the haughty and the privileged class wrong.

Istarted my teaching career in 1991 at an alternative high school program in Flint, Michigan. I was twenty-one years old and had just graduated from col lege a month earlier. My predecessor had quit after only three weeks because the students locked her in a utility closet, and apparently I was the fifth person to fill this position in less than a year. As I completed my human resource paperwork at the school district office, the secretary who collected my documents asked me with a devilish grin, “Are you sure you want to take this job?” I looked her directly in the eyes and responded, “Absolutely!”

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Foreword By Anthony Muhammad

shared beautiful narratives about dreams of being an artist, entrepreneur, or trades person. At the end of the first day, I told each one of them that they were going to be successful and that was not negotiable! They looked hopeful, but skeptical.

As the weeks went by, the school principal and the program director would check on my well-being daily. They wanted to know if I had received any threats or physical abuse. Each time they asked, I replied with a very calm “no.” My students were thriving both academically and behaviorally for the first time in their academic careers. I never even thought about writing a disciplinary referral. Not because there weren’t occasional incidents of misbehavior—they were sixteenyear-old kids. I refused to turn them over to the system because we had a bond. I trusted them, and they trusted me. Soon, many started to refer to me as “Dad.” I was uncomfortable with it at first, but I realized that for the first time, some of my students felt loved and protected by a man. Their parents would call me in the middle of the night because one of my students was misbehaving at home or did not come home over the weekend, and I would have to talk both parties into retreating to neutral corners.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITYxii |

I spent one glorious year in that program, and then the grant that funded the program was cut. I took a teaching job at a middle school and employed the same concepts, but under much less extreme circumstances. I still view my first teach ing experience as my best, not because I had a beautiful classroom, earned a hefty salary, or worked in a “prestigious” school district. It was life-changing because I got a chance to experience, firsthand, the language of possibility. I kept in touch with the students from my first year of teaching for years. Some went on to do some great things, and others ended up in jail. But for one wonderful school year, they all felt loved, appreciated, and valued. That experience shaped their lives, and made an undeniable impact on my career and validated in my spirit the idea that all students can be successful. Later, I would go on to be a successful teacher, school administrator, and eventually an author and thought leader. My first teaching experience was as profoundly impactful to me as it was to my students. They forever changed me, and I hoped that I could inspire other educators to experience that same feeling. I hoped to inspire a generation of authors and thought leaders who can equip educators with the dose of com passion, courage, and skill necessary to touch children like this. I am proud to announce that Michael Roberts has entered this club.

The Language of Possibility is a brilliant manuscript for opening up the door of success for students who have been lost at school and left behind. Students do not control their life circumstances, but Michael Roberts makes an air-tight case for why how they are treated at school matters to their school and life success.

If we could all just be more mindful, deliberate, and skilled at how we interact with students, especially traumatized students, we would make our schools and our world better places.

He addresses the neuroscience connected to words, experiences, and emotions. He guides the reader on a self-directed journey to assess, “Am I speaking life or despair into students?” This book is full of research as well as practical reflection tools that allow educators to have a constructivist experience and create their own language of hope. I am grateful for this book because I have spent my entire pro fessional career trying to convince educators to shift their paradigms, especially for those students who have been so blatantly underserved in our schools.

| xiiiForeword

It is wonderful when educators share knowledge with students, but it is even better when they share their heart and touch the soul of someone whom life dealt a bad hand. I cannot claim that I successfully inspired every student I’ve ever had a chance to serve, but I can honestly declare that I did my best. This book is a gift to anyone who has this same desire, and just wants to get better. This book is also for those that don’t know that they need it—for those who lash out at students and don’t know the long-term consequences of their words and deeds.

Smiling professionals wait by classroom doors with greetings for all students, assuring them they are going to learn so much this year and make great friends. The teachers help untangle students from coats and backpacks, assure reluctant parents, and in some cases gently separate an upset child from mom’s leg so she can get to work. Administrators hand out tissues to moms and dads, go over pro tocols one last time, and remind parents it will all be OK.

—Michio Kaku Picture this: it’s the first day of kindergarten. Parents escort their five-year-olds down the halls to the children’s new classrooms. To say the new students are excited is an understatement. Brightly colored, too-big backpacks bounce. Loud, excited voices echo off the walls. There are some tears, too—some from children who do not want their parents to leave, but many from parents seeing their off spring taking their first tiny steps toward independence. First-time parents linger for a minute at the classroom door to watch their little ones find their desks.

Introduction

Veteran parents issue one last reminder to meet older siblings by the flagpole after school before warning the teacher that this one is a little more rambunc tious than the last two.

The brain weighs only three pounds, yet it is the most complex object in the solar system.

Some version of this scene happens at the start of the school year in every ele mentary school. Across many countries, from inner cities to rural schools, the children who arrive on campus with their first-day outfits and anxious faces are happy to be in school. They do not just want to learn, they are excited to learn

- 1 -

The implications of this mindset and language are significant. When students first enter the educational system, adults are making decisions about them. What can students do? How far can they be pushed academically? If the adults decide certain students can or cannot progress academically and teach them accordingly, the adults will be right. If the adults decide that because of socioeconomic status or skin color a student will not succeed, what chance does the student have?

Now imagine that during drop-off on this first day someone walks into each kindergarten classroom to observe the students. The observer studies if the students’ clothes fit right, whether their backpacks and outerwear are new or hand-medowns, what language their parents use as they wave goodbye, and whether their registration forms indicate free or reduced-price lunch. The observer also considers siblings who have come through the school and their performance. Then, using these highly unscientific first impressions, the observer judges the students one by one. The students with the messy hair, unwashed faces, or old clothes? They will never be successful, the observer says. The students who speak a language other than English with their parents? Forget about it. These students will struggle academically for the next thirteen years, and some won’t make it to graduation.

like no other time in their academic career—95 percent of students will report that they love school during the kindergarten year (Jenkins, 2019).

Most educators would recoil at the idea of an observer skulking through kin dergarten classrooms and setting the fate of five-year-olds based on nothing more than looks and background. “You can’t judge from outward appearances how a student will do,” they might protest. “Just because a student comes from a lowincome family, speaks a language other than English at home, or has melanated skin does not determine future academic success.” However, the preceding sce nario is not something that I completely made up. Early in my teaching career, several teachers told me that they could watch children on their first day of kindergarten and create a list of students who would struggle in school and graduate late or not at all. If you checked the list thirteen years later, these teachers claimed, it would be highly accurate—the students who are on the list will not be at graduation. I heard a similar version of this claim after beginning my administrative career. Educators who speak this way are using limiting language—language that subtly begins to lower expectations for students so educators can explain away and accept any lack of academic progress. This language is not always as extreme and obvious as predicting kindergarteners’ graduation rates; often it sounds as innocuous as “she’s low” or “we all know his family.” I have heard principals and teachers at every level use limiting language. “These kids can’t . . .” is as prevalent when discussing five-year-olds as it is for eighteen-year-olds.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY2 |

| 3Introduction

You may be reading this and thinking, “I would say something—I would challenge those teachers.” Perhaps you would, but I have found that standing up to this language can be more difficult than it seems. How often do your colleagues refer to “low” students or “those” kids or “that” school? Although not as brash as the first-day-of-kindergarten claim, calling students “low” can be just as lim iting to the students and show just as much about the educator’s thoughts. How often do educators communicate an unwillingness to examine their own practice through statements like “if someone else did their job . . .” or “because that’s how we’ve always done it”? Fellow staff members rarely challenge statements like these. I am sad to admit that at times in the past when my own colleagues used limiting language, I said nothing in reply—partly because I was dumbfounded, partly because I did not want to cause an argument or challenge a veteran edu cator’s perspective. Today, with the information I will share in this book, I know I would say something. I would passionately advocate for every student’s ability to grow and become successful. I would cite research that clearly shows students’ circumstances do not define their ability to learn, and quote priority school expert Sharon Kramer: “free and reduced tells you how they buy lunch, not how much they will learn” (personal communication, June 8, 2019). I would remind my coworkers that, even though teachers worked in isolation historically, we now know that collaboration is a better way to help all students learn at high levels. I would point out that seeking out best practices and current research does not mean teaching like a soulless robot; they can adapt strategies to their own teaching style and meld new practices with hard-earned knowledge of what has worked in the past.

Furthermore, what does it say about the culture of a school or district when some educators not only buy into this determinism, but also feel comfortable enough to voice it out loud?

Limiting language can extend beyond subtly disparaging statements about stu dents to include the way educators talk about their colleagues. When students arrive in a new grade or school unprepared, their teachers might blame the educators who previously taught them. When educational leaders or experts ask teachers to collaborate or implement a new instructional strategy, some teachers resist or refuse, suggesting that leaders are too controlling or experts’ ideas won’t work in their classrooms. This language leveled at other adults foments distrust among staff and damages the team’s ability to meet the needs of the students. Every time staff tear each other down or reject research-based best practices, they choose to limit their own learning, which is paradoxical in a profession where the goal is to create learning.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY4 |

Do staff talk about other grade levels, departments, or schools in the district as being incompetent, lazy, or untrustworthy? These descriptors are a real concern because “at least subconsciously, language is full of built-in assumptions and prejudices” (Burton, 2018). The main assumption in limiting language about students is that students labeled as “low” cannot or will not learn as much as their peers, and so the expectations for these students should be different. Students defined as the “red group” will never achieve proficiency. After all, these students have so many things working against them. They are English learners (ELs) or go to special education programs, and we all know what that means. They don’t care about their own education. Have you seen the part of town they live in? All last year, they were virtual; just getting them on campus regularly is enough. When limiting language extends to other adults, it assumes other educators are not as capable as the speaker and distances the speaker from students who do not reach proficiency. I don’t believe any of that team’s data, because when the students arrive in my class, they don’t know anything. Did you see who his teacher was last year? What I have always done has been just fine, why should I change now?

Let me be clear, when educators begin using language that limits expectations for students or professional growth for themselves and their colleagues, that does not mean they are bad people or unsuited to the profession. It is possible for caring, hardworking teachers to fall into the trap of limiting language because they have heard that language so much from others. Sometimes this language comes from outside the educational setting; the media is rife with commentaries from noneducators deriding students, teachers, and curricula. Sometimes, col leagues who have low expectations for students use limiting language so much that it becomes accepted. Ultimately though, the purpose of education is to help all students become successful. Limiting language keeps educators from complet ing this fundamental mission. In fact, such language actually opposes educators’ belief systems. Teachers are dedicated people who have chosen to invest copi ous amounts of time, often their own money, and parts of their souls to help all students succeed. So how does this shift to accepting some students not being successful happen? Part of the reason is because of how our brains function and how we incorporate information.

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Next time you are in a staff meeting or a collaborative team meeting in a school or district office, listen. Are terms like “low” or “red group” or “those kids” thrown around with regularity and little thought? Do these labels define these students?

How Limiting Language Impacts the Brain

The language we use matters because our brains are always trying to find patterns and make connections. When we allow ourselves to talk negatively about certain ©

The good news is, if we understand how the brain works, we can train our selves to overcome its propensity for negativity and bring intentional positivity to the language we use when discussing students and their challenges and successes.

Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman (2013), authors of Words Can Change Your Brain, explain that not only does spoken language inform one’s inner thoughts, but it can also rewire one’s brain. Psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene (2020) points out that any repeated cycle sets neural pathways that lead us to expect similar results in the future because “the brain seeks regularities on increasingly vast scales” (p. 11). In fact, it is the function of the brain that plays a large role in why well-meaning, hardworking educators fall into the trap of limiting language.

From a psychological point of view, bad is stronger than good. It takes four positive interactions to balance out a single negative one (Tierney & Baumeister, 2019). Bad memories resonate much more powerfully than good ones. A bad experience from ten years ago might appear in your mind’s eye in sharp focus with strong, clear emotions attached to it. A happy memory from the same time period may have fuzzier edges and just an overall sense of pleasantness. This is known as negativity bias or the negativity effect (Cherry, 2020; Tierney & Baumeister, 2019; Vaish, Grossman, & Woodward, 2008). The human brain is organized to sur vive by avoiding negative experiences and emotions. Our brains and emotional systems developed under evolutionary pressures to better keep us alive by remembering dangerous situations very clearly so we could avoid them in the future ( The Week Staff, 2015). In modern times, we are unlikely to die from getting split off from our tribe and becoming prey to a wild beast, but our brains still look for negativity in every situation. In education, we remember the few negative expe riences we’ve had with students, parents, or colleagues much more vividly and in greater detail than the thousands of positive ones we experience in a school year.

2023 by Solution Tree Press

The amygdala is located near the middle of the brain in the temporal lobe and is part of the limbic system, which is involved in memory and regulating all emotion. Once thought to be the center of fear, the amygdala is now seen as the ©

| 5Introduction

Amygdala

The following sections describe a few of the brain structures that play important roles in how we think and talk about students. For context, refer to the diagram of the brain with key structures labeled in figure I.1 (page 6).

students, the brain will subconsciously assign the same labels to any future stu dent who has similarities to “those kids.” When we disparage our colleagues, the brain assigns blame to those colleagues for any perceived shortcoming the students may display.

center of emotional learning—both positive and negative—and the regulation of emotions (Salzman, n.d.). The amygdala plays a key role in keeping us safe. Part of that role is to recall negative events more quickly and with more detail than positive events. The amygdala even assigns a negative connotation to neu tral clues if they appear during negative events (Admon, Vaisvaser, Erlich, Lin, Shapira-Lichter, et al., 2018).

To illustrate how the amygdala can have a negative influence, imagine Mr. Hawking, a first-year teacher who works with a few students who do not speak English at home. These students struggle academically and do not make the same progress as their native-English-speaking peers. The amygdala ensures Mr. Hawking recalls, in clear detail, the struggles he had in helping these students. The inadequacy and frustration he felt at the ends of days when he couldn’t reach these students are imprinted in the amygdala in sharp detail. Without conscious thought from this teacher, his brain seeks patterns and decides that “students who do not speak English at home will not learn as much as their peers.” This information becomes imprinted clearly on his amygdala and stored until he encounters the next group of students who are learning English, then all the struggles and frustrations come crashing back unbidden into his conscious mind. Mr. Hawking may even begin sharing these frustrations with his colleagues. CerebellumCortex

Figure I.1: The human brain and its key structures. Corpus Collosum

Prefrontal

Cerebral

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY6 |

BrainAmygdalaCortexThalamusStem

| 7Introduction

The cerebral cortex is the layer of brain tissue covering the outside of the cere brum. It helps with language processing, planning and organization, and processing sensory information. With all these functions in one place, the brain can easily compress information. According to distinguished neuroscience researcher Lisa Feldman Barrett (2020), “compression enables abstraction. Abstraction permits your highly complex brain to issue flexible predictions” (p. 118). For example, a pedestrian walking down a sidewalk takes in the sights, sounds, and smells of the street, observing a puddle to avoid, and noticing the color of the traffic light hovering over the street. As the light turns red, all this information is processed and organized, and subconsciously the pedestrian predicts all cars will stop on the red light and it will be safe to step into the street.

Cerebral Cortex

Mr. Divis was a student teacher on campus last year. Mrs. Barega’s amygdala begins pulling negative memories of other first-year teachers she has worked with during her career. They were needy, unorganized, took all the advice she gave but offered nothing in return. Their classes were zoos because they lacked the classroom man agement routines that come with years of practice. Her cerebral cortex processes and organizes those negative memories, and she makes a prediction, even as she is unaware that she is doing so: this guy is going to be a mess. Her collegial team will be ruined. Mrs. Barega braces for a difficult year.

Taking in multiple stimuli and processing and organizing it into a useable form is something teachers do all day long as they teach lessons. They make real-time, on-the-fly decisions: when to ask questions of students, whom to pose those ques tions to, where to move in the classroom to redirect student attention. All of this is thanks to the cerebral cortex. But educators need to be aware that the cerebral cortex also encourages predictions. Many of these predictions will be evidence based and correct (like all the cars will stop because the light is red), but in trying to make sense of stimuli, the cerebral cortex can also make much more speculative assumptions. Before students ever arrive in class, teachers begin predicting how they will learn and behave. Unfortunately, with the help of the amygdala, those cerebral cortex predictions trend toward the negative. This is particularly true when teachers have prior experience with a student’s siblings or other family members.

Educators might also make negative predictions about colleagues before get ting to know them. For example, before the start of the year, Mrs. Barega looks over the staff list, curious about who will be replacing the team member who retired over the summer. She recognizes the new team member’s name: Mr. Divis.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY8 |

The front portion of the brain, near the forehead, controls planning and decision making. Researchers have also identified this area of the brain as the center

Prefrontal Cortex

In 2020, neuroscientists Bin Wang, Lara Schlaffke, and Burkhard Pleger pub lished an article in the Journal of Neuroscience showing that the thalamus also plays a key role in decision making and learning. Wang and colleagues (2020) note that through intentional learning—learning done consciously, with intent— predictions can be modified. Examples of intentional learning include profes sional learning sessions and reading a book. The thalamus processes the learning the same as it does experiences. This new learning can morph negative predic tions into neutral or positive predictions. However, negative experiences in the classroom or with fellow staff members can reinforce the cerebral cortex’s pre dictions. The more a prediction gets reinforced, the longer it takes for learning to replace that prediction.

Thalamus

The thalamus is an egg-shaped mass of grey matter near the middle of the brain. It is involved in movement, integrating sensory perceptions and emotional responses, and controlling one’s level of consciousness (Thalamus, 2020). Interestingly, the thalamus treats thoughts the same way that it processes input from other senses, not differentiating between the inner and outer worlds (Newberg & Waldman, 2013). This means that our thoughts have a large effect on how we perceive real ity: “If you think you are safe, the rest of your brain assumes that you are safe. But if you ruminate on imaginary fears or self-doubt, your brain presumes that there may be a real threat in the outside world” (Newberg & Waldman, 2013, p. 57).

Consider Mrs. Shabazz, another teacher who is looking at her rosters for the upcoming year. She recognizes the last name of Tierce and is sure that this stu dent is the younger brother of the Tierce she had in class last year. Last year’s Tierce stood out in her mind because he made it through the year without ever turning in an assignment. The thought “here we go again” comes unbidden to Mrs. Shabazz as her brain predicts how this student will behave. But she rec ognizes the thought and quickly shakes it off; after all, she just completed a class over the summer on making connections with students who have socialemotional deficits. She begins to plan how to make connections with this Tierce if he shows similar behaviors to his brother. Mrs. Shabazz’s thalamus is now engaged as she has accessed her past training and made the conscious decision to help this student and make it a good year. Her positive thoughts have begun to override the amygdala’s negativity and the cerebral cortex’s predictions.

The day Veran comes on campus to work with the staff, she presents research study after research study. She gives Ms. Cait and the other teachers time to pro cess the research and discuss how it applies to their students, specifically the ones who have been struggling in class. Ms. Cait begins to see that by applying this research and working with her team, it might make a difference. The teachers ask many questions and Veran answers them. The day flies by, and Ms. Cait leaves feeling like this professional learning might have been a good use of her time for once. Without Ms. Cait knowing it, her prefrontal cortex overrode her amygda la’s negativity and her cerebral cortex’s prediction that all professional learning is a waste of time. After Veran’s visit, Ms. Cait approaches professional learning without an impending sense of doom. She views it with a sense of optimism.

Tree Press

Introduction

of optimism (Wang et al., 2018). In other words, the prefrontal cortex, in the healthy brain, can work in concert with the emotional part of the amygdala to counterbalance its pessimistic tendencies. University of Bern researchers Laura Kress and Tatjana Aue (2017) note that the prefrontal cortex is vital in updating optimism based on the most recent learning. For educators, this means that the more they learn about students or the effort their colleagues put into meeting students’ needs, the more likely the negative memories of the amygdala and neg ative predictions of the cerebral cortex can be replaced by optimism. However, for optimism bias to take hold and overwhelm the default pessimism, the new learning needs to be tied to a reward that is meaningful for the learner (Kress & Aue, 2017). Once established, though, such learned optimism can be long lasting.

| 9

For example, Ms. Cait is a strong educator with a decade’s experience planning lessons and carefully pondering how to ensure students have acquired the knowl edge she knows they will need. She turns in paperwork to the office on time and complies with what her administration asks of her. She often calls parents when needed. The only part of her job she hates is professional learning time. Her prac tice is good enough as it is. She likes her students, and they like her. Most of the students turn in work on time and study for her tests. She has never given an F to a student who did not go out of his or her way to earn it. What can someone tell her that her experience has not already taught her? Most guest speakers who come into the district give rah-rah keynotes or wildly exaggerate how easy and effective some new program will be. So, when the principal talks excitedly about the nationally known Kerri Veran coming in for the next professional learning day, Ms. Cait is not impressed and assumes it will be like any other session.

In summary, the human brain is designed to take in information, organize that information into recognizable patterns, and make predictions based on those patterns. Thanks largely to the amygdala, people expect the worst from those © 2023 by Solution

Solution Tree Press

How Limiting Language Impacts Students

predictive patterns. Overcoming these pessimistic predictions requires inten tional learning that results in a meaningful reward. In this context, it’s no surprise that we hear limiting language in educational settings because it is to the negative that human brains default first. Educators, despite their best efforts to be more, are in fact humans. However, once limiting language appears, it needs to be addressed as quickly as possible through intentional learning for educators. If it is not, the limiting language can translate into tangible impacts on students. Allowed to persist, limiting language can set itself into the culture and accepted practice of a district or school and will be much more difficult to change (Wang et al., 2020). These implications are the subject of the next sections.

Limiting language may seem benign; after all, what’s the harm in saying a student is behind or noting that a student will be fine once he transfers to special education? But limiting language is not benign at all. Newberg and Waldman (2013) state that “language shapes our behavior, and each word we use is imbued with multitudes of personal meaning” (p. 4). Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein argues in posthumously published writings that once we use a word or words to describe something, that description can become the definition of the object (Wittgenstein, 2009). In education, what is being defined are expectations for students’ academic success. Terms like low-achieving and troublemaker acquire a student’s face and voice. The negative descriptor defines the student in the teacher’s mind. Limiting language no longer becomes innocuous, but rather ensnaring. This is the mechanism behind perceptual predetermination, a bias that organiza tions may hold toward subgroups and individual students (Muhammad, 2018). This perceptual predetermination normalizes limiting language. However, John Hattie and Klaus Zierer’s (2018) research warns us that students’ life situations and prior achievements do not necessarily define them. Hattie and Zierer (2018) write that previous performance is not a guarantee of future performance, but when teachers assume students will continue to achieve at the same level through out their academic careers, it can become so. When educators refer to students as “low” or “behind,” they unknowingly launch a vicious cycle for the students. Using limiting language becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when the students in question do not make the same progress as their peers. The “adults implicitly learn, without effort or awareness” (Smith, 2011, p. 55), that the students whom they refer to as “red students” or “those kids” simply do not close their academic gaps. Once those subconscious thoughts move into the cerebral cortex, they become part of how the educator sees the world and treats students. According to Robert J. Marzano (2017), “the lower the expectations, © by

2023

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY10 |

And the vicious cycle continues. Although educators who use limiting language may not intend to be malicious, this language is problematic by nature because it caps expectations of academic achievement.

Organizations need to battle perceptual predetermination and the accompa nying limiting language because they affect not only students but also the adults who work with them. Limiting language about students and colleagues works to subtly destroy teacher efficacy, teachers’ own belief that they can cause learning and make a difference in students’ lives (Hattie, 2018). The opposite of teacher efficacy is burnout, when teachers feel emotional exhaustion, lack of personal accomplishment, and depersonalization (Kanold, 2021). These factors lead to the feeling that the job has become unpleasant, unfulfilling, and unrewarding (Saloviita & Pakarinen, 2021), which plays into the amygdala’s tendency toward negativity. Negativity in turn leads to predetermination and limiting language.

| 11Introduction

Overwhelmed and burned out teachers may express negativity to release stress or subconsciously affirm they are just doing the best they can, but that negativity will take hold of the individual and the organizational culture. Who you are as an organization is how you talk about those within the organization—that lan guage will influence the actions of the organization.

How Limiting Language Impacts School and District Culture

In his book Transforming School Culture, educational consultant and author Anthony Muhammad (2018) notes that every organization has two distinct cultures, the formal and the informal. In learning organizations, the formal cul ture is made up of staff meetings, professional learning, and any conversation the learning leader is involved in. The informal culture consists of discussions at the Friday happy hour, in the stands as staff members watch their own children’s Little League games, or on the playground as teachers are supervising recess. The informal culture is by far the stronger of the two (Muhammad, 2018). While administrators can monitor limiting language in formal settings, they are locked out of the informal culture of a district or school. To eliminate limiting language

the less teachers challenge and interact with students” (p. 97). Hattie (2009) confirms that teachers’ expectations for students’ academic success have signif icant effects on how students perform. Students will learn what is expected of them behaviorally and academically then rise to that level, no further. Students who do not experience success internalize the low expectations and continue to struggle because they do not believe they can succeed (Brown & Ferriter, 2021).

Within a society or organization, cultural norms become ingrained in its members to the subconscious, automatic level and become static (Crafa & Nagel, 2020). An individual no longer thinks about them, but simply follows the familiar neural pathways. It starts with an individual observing the group—the way members talk, act, and carry themselves. The individual then begins to consciously use language or behaviors common to the group. Repeated language and behaviors develop neural networks. These networks then guide the individual’s language and behavior subconsciously. Every input that confirms the language and behav ior more deeply embeds them into the subconscious. Once these paths are set in the brain, they cannot be changed without great difficulty (Crafa & Nagel, 2020). In the context of a district or school, when the culture dictates those stu dents identified as “behind” will never reach proficiency, that message embeds in educators’ subconscious minds and students are subjected to lowered expectations for their academic learning and behavioral compliance.

in the informal culture, teachers and staff must fully buy into the mindset that all students can learn and succeed.

How to Change Our Language

Understanding this mechanism that engrains behaviors can help us change our behaviors. Encouragingly, even after members of a group align their behavior and thoughts with a predominant norm to the point that neural networks cause culturally acceptable behaviors to become subconscious—even after limit ing language has wormed its way into the culture of an organization—that norm can be changed (Crafa & Nagel, 2020). Terms like low, behind, or red group no longer have to define students and limit expectations for academic achievement. Gripes like “they don’t do their jobs” or “these meetings are a waste of my time” need no longer sow mistrust or detract from professional collaboration in ser vice of students. However, that change does not just happen. Change depends on reflection and new learning. Only self-reflection or intentional learning will be able to alter the subconscious feedback loop.

Simply telling staff to stop using limiting language will not make a difference. Instead, leaders must inform and demonstrate to staff how their language can subconsciously, or in some cases consciously, reveal their feelings about their students and how far those students can progress academically or their feelings about their colleagues and their professional abilities. To truly change an orga nization’s culture, the adults must learn about themselves and how to do better. Learning is vital to the change process because it will engage the prefrontal cortex so optimism can override the pessimism of the amygdala and the patterning and predicting of the cerebral cortex and thalamus.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY12 |

1. Recognition: The leadership and staff of a learning organization acknowledge an issue. In this case, leaders and staff agree that the use of limiting language causes staff to lower learning expectations for students and is a factor in why students (either the whole student body or a subgroup) have not yet consistently achieved proficiency. Or, they recognize that the way staff talk about other professionals within the organization is a significant factor preventing them from helping students. An effective way to begin the recognition phase is for leadership (both administrators and teacher leaders) to conduct an audit of the use of limiting language directed at students and colleagues and share the results with the whole staff. Figure I.2 (page 14) shows a sample audit. In this example, school leaders sat in on collaborative team meetings and recorded instances of limiting language. This enables the leadership team to show staff what limiting language is most interfering with their work.

4. Impact: Leaders conduct regular follow-up audits to assess the impact on students and school culture to ensure the organization does not backslide into limiting language. The impact on student learning will not become apparent immediately; there is a lag from action to impact. Sustaining an initiative through this lag is what separates strong leaders from mediocre ones. Strong leaders will continue to work on eliminating limiting language until student learning data show results (and sustain the effort to maintain those results) while mediocre ones might give up and move on to “the next big thing” when they do not see an immediate change. Eliminating limiting language will also improve staff morale. Leaders can monitor staff retention data or survey staff on job satisfaction to assess staff optimism and collegial relationships.

| 13Introduction

3. Action: In this phase, leaders provide alternatives to limiting language and train staff to use this language of possibility. The remainder of this book provides guidance for the action phase of organizational change.

Change in organizations has four distinct phases (Jones, 2021).

2. Decision: In this critical phase, the district or school makes the choice to either ignore the issue or change it. If an organization ignores limiting language, it is usually because administrators and teacher leaders do not know how to address it or opt to maintain the comfort of the adults using the language. If leaders take this path of least resistance, adults remain unsatisfied and students continue to receive suboptimal education. If leaders make the decision to initiate the change process, they move to the next step.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY14 | AuditedGroup Date Time Number ofInstancesofLimitingLanguage Specific Limiting Language Used TeamScience September 3 9:40–10:30 a.m. ||| Going to special ed Those kids You know neighborhoodthis TeamHistory September 3 11:10 p.m.a.m.–12:00 |||| They don’t care Those kids They can’t read They don’t know Smartinganything off in my class TeamArtsLanguageGradeTenth- September 4 8:00–9:00 a.m. |||| | Those kids They lost all that They did not learn Youanythingknow they don’t Ireaddon’t worry about those kids They are not mine, ask Mrs. Burdick Algebra 1 Team September 4 9:10–10:10 a.m. |||| Students always referred to as “they” or “them” They don’t care Teach them enough to get by Fine TeamArts September 4 10:20–11:20 a.m. |||| They are so far Theybehinddon’t care They won’t listen Don’t know what their parents are doing Figure I.2: Sample audit for limiting language. Visit go.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement for a blank reproducible version of this figure. ||| © 2023 by Solution Tree Press

1. Reason: To employ this technique, the leader would work with the staff member to identify relevant factors, weighing each in turn, and making an overall assessment about the best way to help all students learn. Reason can involve logical arguments or the use of analogies. In some cases, creating a pro and con list with the teacher can make the difference.

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Following this advice can be difficult for a leader in the heat of a conversation. So, preplanning the conversation with a potentially reluctant staff member will help keep the conversation focused and work centered. To help with this, we can turn to Howard Gardner’s (2006) seven factors in changing someone’s mind.

4. Representational redescriptions: Using this factor requires the leader to place the situation in a different context. For example, with a teacher who does not want to collaborate with colleagues on providing interventions, a leader might reframe “letting other teachers teach my students” as “helping even more students learn.”

5. Real-world events: In this factor, the leader ties what is happening in the world outside of the schoolhouse to teacher and student experience in an effort to change the teacher’s mind. Big-picture information such ©

Leaders also need to engage with those few staff members who continue to use limiting language despite awareness of the problem and how it damages students and school culture. In doing so, follow Becky DuFour’s advice to “be hard on the work, yet soft on the people” (personal communication, November 3, 2017).

3. Resonance: Resonance appeals to what feels right or fits the current situation. Before leveraging this factor, a leader needs to consider that this factor relies on the relationship between the leader and the educator. If the relationship is a contentious one, resonance will rarely be an effective way to change an educator’s mind. However, if the relationship is one of mutual respect, resonance can be very effective. When resonance is used effectively, the staff member may leave the meeting feeling that he or she is doing a “favor” for the leader. For example, the teacher may be thinking “I still don’t want to do this, but Mr. Tufnell needs me to, so I will.”

2. Research: In this factor, the leader would look at current best practices by reviewing promising trends and systematic studies. Research can also include school and classroom data. The leader can do this side by side with the staff member or ask the educator to find research to support his or her stance while the leader finds research to support the other side of the argument. The principal and the teacher would then meet on a given date and time to compare current thinking.

| 15Introduction

6. Resources and rewards: This factor is a simple quid pro quo, which may work with those who are less open to the previous factors. The leader has tried many strategies to urge the individual to voluntarily stop the bad behavior; the goal at this stage is to mitigate damage. Offer something the teacher values in exchange for adopting the desired behavior. For example, the leader might prioritize getting the teacher the grade-level or course assignment she wants if she consistently brings her data to collaborative meetings. While the hope is that the teacher will finally see the value of the behavior change after trying it out in exchange for a reward, the caveat to this factor is it may not actually impact the staff member’s beliefs and may only last if the reward is there.

This book aims to make K–12 educators aware of how the words they use are important to the operation of a district or school and the success of the students they serve. It is a resource for identifying and eliminating limiting language and © by

7. Requirement: If the individual has not responded to the previous six factors and is resistant simply because he or she does not want to change, then the only answer the leader has left is to make the change nonnegotiable. If needed, a leader in a supervisory role can require a resistant staff member to change his or her practices. If the educator chooses not to do what is asked of him or her, the administrator needs to follow up with whatever discipline the district has deemed appropriate. This is a last resort and why this factor is number seven, not number one. If the leader has given every chance for behavior or attitude change and the staff member has refused, the leader has no choice. The leader must ensure that the culture of the district or school does not lose sight of the most important thing, which is the students’ learning.

Solution Tree Press

2023

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY16 | as what employers are seeking in future employees or projections of student earnings if they are not successful in school can be convincing.

Figure I.3 is a sample tool to help a leader plan and track conversations with reluctant staff. This tool can serve as documentation of conversations with staff members and what helped them change their minds. When recording these con versations over time, key insights into staff members can emerge. For example, if a leader has had several conversations with a staff member about changing and the factor that has always worked has been research, the next time a conversation is needed the leader can start there. This tool can also serve as documentation for the administrator if reaching the requirement stage.

How to Use This Book

Staff Member: Mr. Schmidt

| 17Introduction

replacing it with the language of possibility—language that helps build more effective teams that support academic achievement and social-emotional well-being.

Source: Adapted from Gardner, 2006. Figure I.3: Tool for tracking factors to change a staff member’s mind. for a blank reproducible version of this figure.

eventsReal-world December

Topic: Unwillingness to share students for interventions and extensions Did work?it If not, why not? 5 No Schmidt felt his knowledge of students outweighed all the positives on the list. 26 No Schmidt dismissed the research as not applicable. 24November No Schmidt feels that the other teachers need to be responsible for the students in their classes. 13 No Schmidt feels like the four examples provided did not include a grade level or demographic that matched his class exactly.

Reason October

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement

Requirement

This book is most applicable to learning leaders, though I believe anyone choos ing to tackle the issue of limiting language is a leader regardless of job title. Each chapter will guide you to listen carefully to colleagues and think about what edu cators are really saying about their expectations for student academic success and their opinions of effective teaching. For each instance, I provide alternative language that can rebuild teacher efficacy and battle perceptual predetermination.

Perhaps even more important, The Language of Possibility will support a culture change in schools and districts.

redescriptionRepresentational

Research October

January 16 Yes Schmidt will work collaboratively with his team to share students during interventions and extensions. In exchange, he will teach one period of biology next year.

Resources and rewards

Technique Date

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY18 |

While any school or district might choose to undertake this cultural change, the concepts in this book are perhaps best applied as part of the Professional Learning Communities at Work® process, “in which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016, p. 10). This approach to organizing the work of schools begins with a focus on learning, a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and a results orientation (DuFour et al., 2016). The first two of these foundational ideas cor relate precisely with the two parts of this book: (1) What We Say About Students and (2) What We Say About Colleagues. The way educators talk about students reflects their beliefs about whether all students can and will learn to a high level. The way educators talk about their colleagues directly affects the development of a collaborative, interdependent culture within a school. Language sets the foun dation for action. A school where that foundation undermines high expectations for students and degrades professional interactions for teachers cannot achieve its goals. If, however, a school develops a common language that unlocks student potential and promotes teacher collaboration, that school is well situated to pro vide high-quality education.

The chapters of this book each address specific instances of limiting language and how to replace them with the language of possibility in daily conversation.

Each chapter begins with a learning target and related success criteria because learners—including professionals reading books on education—assimilate and retain information best when they know the goal and how to tell if they’ve reached

In part 1, chapter 1 addresses limiting language about vulnerable groups of students. Chapter 2 explores how certain phrases inadvertently lower expectations for students, to their detriment. In chapter 3, we will see how educators’ lan guage about motivation can give students “licenses to fail” (Muhammad, 2018).

Limiting language does not only exist when members of organizations discuss the students; it also rears its head when staff discuss colleagues. To open part 2, chapter 5 investigates the toxic practice of blaming other educators when stu dents are not yet proficient. Next, chapter 6 dives into how educators react to research-based best practices. Continuing with the challenges of changing one’s instructional practices, we review fears about losing individuality when teaching a standards-based curriculum in chapter 7 and skepticism about teacher collaboration in chapter 8. Finally, chapter 9 discusses the importance of trust—both self-trust and trust in other educators.

To conclude the portion on limiting language about students, chapter 4 consid ers how teachers speak about student data.

| 19Introduction

On behalf of the students you serve, thank you for taking on the complex issue of limiting language in education. Let’s get started!

it (Brown & Ferriter, 2021; Buffum, Mattos, & Malone, 2018; Hattie, 2009; Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). The chapters all conclude with discussion questions to help learning leaders in teams spark conversations and apply the content of this book to their own situations. For individual readers, they provide an opportunity to assess your understanding and reflect on your organi zation. Throughout the book, you will find scenarios based on real schools and real people. Names and nonessential details have been changed. I use the stories of these organizations and professionals not to shame, but to represent the count less others who talk and act in the same manner.

The human brain is set up to take in the world of infinite possibilities and organize it in a way that is manageable and understandable for us to oper ate in. The words we use reflect the world as we see it. For most people, this is not an issue. However, those of us called to the profession of education need to be intentional about what we say and how we say it. This is especially true when it comes to the students we serve. When we fall into the trap of speaking about students’ deficits as their identity, we cue our brains to limit expectations for that student. “He’s a low baby.” “She’s sped.” Phrases like these can sentence students to thirteen years of academic struggles. Yet many educators use them without thinking as part of regular discourse. The goal of the first part of this book is to challenge this limiting language and prompt educators to slow down and really think about the words they use to describe the students they work so very hard for. Because what we say about students really does matter.

What We Say About Students

- 21Part 1

I was walking across campus with a high school principal, and she was expressing her opinion about why other schools in the district had achieved the highest rating on the state report card while hers had not. This comment came as we walked by several students lounging on the grass during their lunch period. I asked her for clarification, and she explained that this group of teenagers had just come from one of the special educa tion classrooms. She said that the special education population at her school was 7 percent higher than the state average and those students never performed well on the state assessment that state report cards were largely based on. She contin ued that the district’s other high schools had lower numbers of special education students. Her message was clear: the makeup of her school’s student population was keeping her school from getting a higher rating from the state.

Success Criteria

- 23CHAPTER 1

• I can offer examples of the language of possibility to substitute for terms that limit students. by Tree Press

Solution

• I can identify commonly underserved populations of students and explain how limiting language harms them.

Begin by making a more careful study of your pupils, for it is clear that you know nothing about them.

—Jean-Jacques Rousseau “Sure, that school has an A rating; they don’t have many . . . you know, sped kids.”

Learning Target: I know I have met the goal of the chapter when I can explain to a colleague how limiting language can keep students who belong to underserved subgroups from being successful academically.

Talking About Underserved Students

Limiting language directed at subgroups is a particular problem in schools because it attacks the equity of opportunity that a district or school provides for its students. This foundational issue acts in direct opposition to every mission and vision statement that proclaims the educational organization is dedicated to suc cess for all students. The characteristics that place students in these subgroups—a learning disability, socioeconomic status, the color of their skin—are beyond their control, and all students deserve a high-quality education. Furthermore, all students can learn and achieve when they have the opportunity. Racial achieve ment gaps, for example, while persistent, have been shrinking over time and are explained by disparate educational opportunities (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2021; Reardon, 2019).

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY24 |

Attitudes and biases reveal themselves in the words leaders and staff choose. Words used on a daily basis more clearly define the culture of a learning organi zation than any presentation to the governing board or written statement. How successfully schools support students of traditionally underserved subgroups largely depends on those attitudes and biases. Here are examples of some subgroups that are often victims of limiting language. Students in Poverty Childhood poverty is a significant and enduring problem. In the United States and Canada, about 20 percent of all children live below the poverty line (Canada Without Poverty, 2022; Center for Poverty and Inequality, 2022). For both countries, rates are higher for historically marginalized ethnic groups: Black and Indigenous children in the United States (34 percent; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019) and First Nations children in Canada (50 percent; Canada Without Poverty, 2022). In Australia, the overall child poverty rate is around 16 percent (Research Into Poverty and Inequality in Australia, 2021). Regardless of country, students who live in poverty have traditionally lagged behind the academic progress of their peers in both reading and mathe matics (Canada Without Poverty, 2022; Hattie, 2009; Redmond, 2022).

Unfortunately, this thought—that we could be an amazing school, if it were not for a certain subgroup of students—is a common one on many campuses. In plain or coded language, educators blame underserved segments of the student population for the school’s low test scores or out-of-control behavior. Based on little more than stereotypes or generalizations, they assume that some students can, while others probably won’t.

However,backgrounds.theHartand Risley (1995) findings have come under reexamina tion. For example, Douglas Sperry, Linda Sperry, and Peggy Miller published a study in April of 2018 that finds there are many factors that contribute to a child’s exposure to language in the first forty-eight months of life. To rely only on number of utterances, they assert, gives a wholly incomplete picture of early childhood language development. Sperry and colleagues (2018) note that many variables affect early language development and that children from low socioeco nomic households arrive at school behind their peers for reasons other than the utterances they have been exposed to. While we can argue the merits and meth ods of such studies, early childhood researchers and educators know that children who live below the poverty line arrive at school less prepared (Kamenetz, 2018; Pondiscio, 2019; Purpura, 2020; Williams, 2020). The important question is not “Why is the gap there?” but “What are we going to do to support these students?”

As long as educators continue to refer to students from impoverished back grounds as “behind,” the students will remain so. Other limiting language like ©

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Talking About Underserved Students | 25

Limiting Language “Poor students fall behind from birth, so we can’t expect them to catch up.”

In almost every school, there are students growing up in poverty. These stu dents might arrive at school with ill-fitting clothes or unkempt hair, without basic school supplies or adequate food, or with family responsibilities that supersede homework assignments. The educator’s brain makes subconscious connections to previous negative experiences with students who looked similarly or came from a similar socioeconomic background (Newberg & Waldman, 2013). That is not to say that teachers do not love these students and want what is best for them, but they will have lower academic expectations for these students. “After all,” teachers might think, “these students arrive at school already behind in reading, mathe matics, and nutrition, so it does not seem fair to expect them to learn as much as the students who arrive prepared.”

When working in schools with high numbers of students living below the pov erty line, I often hear references to Betty Hart and Todd Risley’s (1995) research that says students of low socioeconomic status are behind before they start school because they are exposed to thirty million fewer words than their more affluent peers during early childhood. This study has had an enormous impact on discus sions about early childhood education and methods of educating poor students, but it may also serve as an excuse to lower expectations for students from disad vantaged

“poor babies” infantilizes students and makes them dependent on adults. In either case, educators who use this language focus on students’ deficits rather than their strengths or potential. Students who are poor can learn to read or understand fractions or master Punnett squares just as well as their more affluent peers if they are viewed as having strengths and taught to those strengths. When they are not, “behind” is not just an observation but a prediction. The cerebral cortex and amygdala are constantly looking to organize information into predictions and then seek confirmation of the predictions. As soon as the word behind becomes attached to the students, educators subconsciously contribute to these students’ achieving at a lower academic level than their peers.

Students with learning disabilities receive protection at the federal level in most countries. Australia’s Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons and the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are just two examples of such ©

Special Education Students

1. at the present time 2. up to a particular time; thus far 3. in the time still remaining, before all is done 4. from the preceding time; as previously 5. in Referringadditiontothe status of a student challenged by poverty “at the present time” or “thus far” has no bearing on their future success if educators meet that student’s needs. It is an accurate but optimistic way to talk about these students. With sys tematic interventions and strong staff efficacy, students in poverty will achieve on a similar academic level as their peers “before all is done.” Students who haven’t demonstrated proficiency yet are not defined by where they start. They can over come gaps and have every door open to them when they graduate high school. If staff embrace the positive message of yet and focus on adding knowledge and skills that may be missing, students can achieve proficiency regardless of socio economic background.

When talking about students from impoverished backgrounds, educators should focus on shifting their attention from past or current deficiencies to future poten tial. The simplest way to do this is to use the word yet. The word yet has multiple meanings (Yet, n.d.).

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY26 |

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Language of Possibility

“These students haven’t had a chance to reach their potential yet.”

I once worked with a team that was trying to get better at analyzing student assessment data. To better see patterns in their data, the team made a note card for each student. Key demographics determined the color of each card, with dif ferent ethnic and gender groups appearing as green, orange, fuchsia, or light blue.

protections. A significant number of students rely on these protections. In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that 14 percent of students have a learning disability (NCES, 2022). Ten percent of Canadian students meet the criteria for having a learning disability (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2021), as well as approximately one in five Australian stu dents (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2020). Students who qualify to receive an individualized education plan (IEP) to mitigate their learning disabilities do not have an easy road, however. In fact, students who receive IEPs achieve proficiency and graduate at significantly lower rates than their general education peers (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020; Ladner, 2021; The Nation’s Report Card, 2018).

Limiting Language

This dismissive statement suggests that these students should not be counted in the data for the classroom because they have a disability that makes school diffi cult for them and qualify for special education services. The language of “going to special ed” reinforces a separation between these students and the rest of the class in educators’ minds. It is as if special ed is a place that students will go to be fixed, rather than a service provided to students to offset a disability that exists beyond their control. Some general education teachers even feel they do not need to provide interventions for these students because it is special education teachers’ responsibility to provide help, additional time, and targeted support (Friziellie, Schmidt, & Spiller, 2016). The implication is the special education team alone is responsible for fixing issues with special education students (Friziellie et al., 2016). This attitude places the onus of helping these students only on the specialists and absolves the general education teacher of any responsibility.

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Limiting language about students who receive special education also tends to overgeneralize. Teachers who dismiss students with IEPs or 504 plans assume that ©

Talking About Underserved Students

| 27

“Those students don’t count; they go to special ed.”

Students with IEPs or 504 plans were on white cards. When the team organized the cards by achievement level, there was a wide distribution of cards of different colors—except the white cards. Almost every white card was in the far-fromproficient range. When I asked the team what they thought about that, one teacher said, “Well, those students go to special ed.”

First, it keeps the student in the classroom as an integral part of the class, present in the least restrictive environment not only physically but also in the classroom teacher’s mind. “Going to special ed” suggests physically separating the student and relieves the general education teacher of responsibility. Who can be responsible for a student who has gone somewhere else? Leveling brings none of those conno tations. Leveling allows students to receive accommodations without the language that releases teachers from responsibility for these students’ academic success.

Language of Possibility “IEPs and special education services level the playing field.”

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY28 |

The goal of IEPs, 504 plans, or other special education services is to give stu dents with disabilities, which make learning and school more difficult for them, the opportunity to be successful. Accommodations, such as additional time, short ened assignments, or written copies of lessons are designed to create equity by compensating for a student’s disability. They level the playing field for a student.

Referring to the time students receive specialized support from a professional trained to help with learning disabilities as leveling accomplishes two things.

When students “go to special education,” they are someone else’s responsibility. When teachers work collaboratively to level opportunities for students, everyone shares responsibility for helping make those students successful. Students who need it will receive specially designed instruction, but the way general education staff perceive and talk about students who receive those services shifts.

they struggle academically in all areas and cannot meet any of the general education standards in spite of classroom accommodations or curricular modifications pre scribed in their individualized plans. For example, it does not make sense to lower academic expectations for a student who qualifies for special education support for a speech impediment. A student with a specific learning disability in reading may need help in that subject but achieve on a level similar to her peers without extra support in mathematics. Broad statements about students who “are special ed” or “go to special ed” (rather than referencing specific, identified disabilities) play into the brain’s tendency to create sweeping, all-encompassing predictions.

Second, leveling does not change the academic expectations for students with disabilities. Expectations for students who receive special education services are level with those for their peers. It is important to remember that accommoda tions and modifications guaranteed by IEPs are designed to allow most students to achieve the same standards as other students.

The most concrete way to support the idea of leveling is to include the stu dents who receive special education services in the general education classroom.

Limiting Language

Talking About Underserved Students

| 29

By eliminating the separation, you eliminate the limiting language of “going to special ed.” If an inclusive classroom model is not implemented, leaders can still help change the perception of and language about special education by including special education teachers in professional learning activities like peer walkthroughs, collaborative teams, and teacher-led professional development sessions. These steps may seem simplistic, but general education teachers are often so busy with the students assigned to them, their instruction, and their grade-level or depart ment team that they do not have a deep knowledge of what is happening outside of their classroom or team. As a principal, I included special education teachers in annual peer observations and every year at least one general education teacher commented that he or she had no idea the level of support and quality of instruc tion that our students with disabilities were receiving.

English Learners There are over seven thousand languages and dialects spoken in the world (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2022). If a student arrives at school primarily speak ing a language that does not match the predominant language of the school, he or she will have the challenging task of learning the dominant language simultane ously with the academic curriculum. In North America, this is not a small group of students. In the United States alone there are five million students who do not speak English as a first language (NCES, 2021). In Canada, where English and French are both official languages, over 2.2 million students are first-generation immigrants, and most do not speak either of the majority languages (Volante, Lara, Klinger, & Siegel, 2020). In the United States and Canada, there contin ues to be a significant gap in achievement between those acquiring English and those who are native speakers (Abedi, n.d.; Volante et al., 2020). It is in response to this gap that educators tend to use language that limits these students.

“We need to make assignments easier for the ELs.”

Diane Kerr (2021), nationally recognized principal, author, and consultant, notes that educators use many terms to refer to nonnative-English-speaking students and those names are not necessarily positive: English as a second language (ESL) students, English language learners (ELLs), limited English proficient (LEP) students, students with interrupted formal edu cation (SIFE), and language minority students (LMS) are all terms educators use to describe subcategories of students. . . . I recommend that educators refrain from labeling students with these acronyms as they often carry with them a negative connotation. (p. 82)

While these terms merely intend to describe students who do not speak English as a native language, as Kerr points out, they have become limiting language. They have gone from descriptions that give teachers more information about a student to limiting language that defines the student.

Students who are learning English may need a moment to process or trans late the question and answer; that pause may prompt the teacher to assume the student needs help or doesn’t know. The teacher just wants the student to feel comfortable, but the result is lower expectations and the student feeling singled out. These lowered expectations communicate to students that they are unable to do the work.

It is well known that teachers do not allow students much time to answer questions and, if they don’t receive a response quickly, they will “help” the student by providing another clue or weakening the question in some way, or even moving on to another student.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY30 |

I once consulted in a high-performing school with a very low number of students who did not speak English at home. During one of my classroom observations, a particular teacher was leading class discussion, asking complex, prepared ques tions of students. She would then ask other students to restate or respond to the original answer. However, when it came to the one student who was a nonnative English speaker, the teacher would ask simple recall questions. Across the forty-five minutes I observed this teacher, she did this several times. Following the class, the principal and I debriefed with the teacher. I complimented her on most of the discourse happening in her class but asked why she only asked simplistic questions of the nonnative speaker. Her response was that she did not want him to feel bad if he took a long time to answer the questions that require higher levels of thinking. The teacher went on to say that, in the past, the student had displayed good thinking, but it just took him longer than his peers. This is a good example of a teacher whose heart is in the right place, but who focuses on ©

2023 by Solution Tree Press

In a study of attitudes toward English learners, researcher Kerry Carly Rizzuto (2017) finds that even though educators “were eager to draw on their students’ cultural backgrounds and languages, most were ill-equipped or unwilling to dif ferentiate their instruction for ELL students” (Rizzuto, 2017). Even when teachers try in good faith to differentiate for English learners, in many cases, “the word differentiation has unfortunately become synonymous with watered down cur riculum—or so much sheltering that teachers do all the work” (Calderón et al., 2016, p. 4). Students who are learning English have been limited by ineffective program structures and ineffective practices (Calderón et al., 2016). For exam ple, formative assessment expert Dylan Wiliam (2007) writes:

the student’s deficits, not his strengths. Her well-intentioned efforts to help him are actually hurting him because he does not receive the same opportunities or expectations as his native-speaking peers.

Researchers Jenna Min Shim and Anna Mikhaylovna Shur (2017) compare teachers’ perspectives on ELs with the perspectives of ELs themselves. Both the students and their teachers feel ELs are not successful in school, but the causes each group identifies conflict. The students blame their lack of academic success on an easy and unengaging curriculum. For example, one student was assigned to write down a list of words ten times every day. Another student commented that his class was covering material he had learned “a long time ago in Mexico” (Shim & Shur, 2017, p. 26). Teachers, on the other hand, attribute the students’ low achievement to their use of a language other than English at home and a perception that ELs’ parents do not value education (Shim & Shur, 2017).

How can the identification as an English learner be anything more than lim iting when teachers, although theoretically willing to support these students, are often undertrained, unintentionally lower their academic expectations, and look outside the schoolhouse for reasons why students are not successful? Similar to qualification for an IEP, it is not the identification itself that limits the expectations for academic success. The label attached to the student then becomes the student’s identity. Educators’ brains group the student with other students who have been similarly labeled and produce generalized predictions. Just like that, academic expectations for the student have been completely redefined. Language of Possibility “Our ELs are halfway to being bilingual.”

Author and consultant Luis Cruz (2018) coined the positive phrase “halfway to bilingual” to battle the limiting nature of labels for students who are learning English while they attend school. Students are not less intelligent because English is not their native language, and in fact bilingualism is a benefit. Being bilingual is a tremendous asset for employment; jobs requiring bilingual employees more than doubled from 2010 to 2015 and the demand for workers who can speak more than one language has only gone up from there. Among remote employ ment opportunities, bilingual postings increased 30 percent from February 2020 to March 2021 (Reese, 2021). Bilingual employees often earn more than those who can only read and write one language (Colón, 2019).

2023 by Solution Tree Press

Talking About Underserved Students | 31

Teachers need to adjust their mindsets about halfway-to-bilingual students, and one way to help with this is intentional training in techniques that sup port these students, such as Total Physical Response (TPR), a system of teaching ©

“What do we do about those kids?”

English language acquisition by incorporating physical actions. Developed by professor James Asher at San Jose State University, TPR has shown consistent results in helping students’ English language usage and comprehension by pairing language with actions (Fahrurrozi, 2017). When staff learn this system and see the positive academic results that usually come as a result of TPR, they begin to expect halfway-to-bilingual students to perform academically on a level with their peers. That expectation alone is often enough to redefine a student’s aca demic destiny. When adults are better trained to support halfway-to-bilingual students, not only does the prefrontal cortex offset the amygdala’s propensity for pessimism, but the improved teaching practices help halfway-to-bilingual students grow academically. This growth leads to recognition that these halfwayto-bilingual students can be successful when given rigorous content, which in turn helps students maintain motivation and enthusiasm for learning until they become fluent in their second language of English.

Historical and current marginalization also leads to lower achievement rates for students of color. In Australia, efforts to improve outcomes for Indigenous stu dents led to the massive Closing the Gap Implementation Plan, which includes $126 million aimed specifically at supporting majority Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander schools (Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021). Canada also continues to work on closing achievement and funding gaps for First Nations students (Giroux, 2020). In the United States, learning gaps persist for Black, Latino, Pacific Islander, and Indigenous students (Fortner, Lalas, & Strikwerda, 2021).

Limiting Language

The term students of color includes Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial students, who are often treated differently from their White peers. Note that students of color are more likely to additionally appear in other underserved demographics, such as students in poverty, special educa tion students, and English learners, creating layers of harmful limiting language.

Students of Color

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY32 |

While the underserved subgroups we have discussed so far are subject to lim iting language about their ability to achieve at a high level, students of color experience subtle othering when teachers talk about a vague “them” or “those kids.” As the brain looks for patterns and makes predictions, the factor that may be most obvious about these students is the amount of melanin in their skin, creating a complexion-based outgroup. This subconscious action of patterning

Talking About Underserved Students | 33

Educators also impose stricter discipline on students of color. In a single school year in the United States, Black students lost 4.9 school days to out-of-school sus pension for every one day of suspension their White classmates received (Camera, 2020). Students of color lost a total of 11 million instructional days due to outof-school suspension (Camera, 2020). Older students of color were the most affected by these punishments, with students in middle and high school losing roughly five times more days to out-of-school suspensions than elementary students. The disparities grow even larger in individual states:

For example, disproportionally high numbers of students of color receive special education referrals. In 2020, the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) published a report showing Black students of non-low-income backgrounds are about twice as likely to be diagnosed with intellectual disabilities and emotional disturbances as their White non-low-income peers (NCLD, 2020). Indigenous students qualify in the area of specific learning disability at a rate almost twice that of White students in their peer group (NCLD, 2020). The overidentification of students of color for special education services has been observed and studied since the late 1960s in American education (Fish, 2019; Gordon, 2017; Morgan, 2020; NCLD, 2020). The reason for this overrepresentation, particularly in areas associated with student behavior, is still debated. Researchers postulate differ ent reasons for overidentification, including culturally and linguistically biased assessments (Morgan, 2020; NCLD, 2020), the composition of schools (Fish, 2019), and outside causes like poverty and access to healthcare (Gordon, 2017). The answer may well be all of the above. Regardless, once a student of color has been deemed to qualify for special education, he or she is subject to yet another label that limits potential.

students based on skin color is rife with issues; for one, it treats heterogeneous populations as though they are homogenous. The only thing students in a group of “those kids” may have in common is skin tone. Within broad ethnic labels, people may look similar, but there are significant differences between, say, Lakota and Cayuse cultures or Mexican and Colombian cultures. Even students who share a common culture, or even share a family, are individuals and can react to the same stimuli in very different ways. Treating students homogenously when there are clear differences in their personal identities and cultural groups can further distance students of color from the adults on campus. Yet, that is what our cerebral cortex often does as it groups students and makes predictions based on nothing more than appearances. Unfortunately, this can result in differential treatment for students of color.

Students of color who also have disabilities are subject to school discipline at an even more alarming rate: Students of color with disabilities receive severe punishments at very high rates. Among Black, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native, and multiracial students with disabilities, one in four boys and nearly one in five girls receive an out-of-school suspension. Black males from low-income backgrounds receiving special education services are sus pended at the highest rates of any subgroup. (NCLD, 2020, p. 5)

More frequent and longer out-of-school suspensions remove students from the general education classroom. When students of color receive disproportionately high levels of discipline they are, simply put, not in the classroom. One cannot connect with and teach children who are not there, which further distances and others students of color from their teachers and peers.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY34 |

“We are in this together.”

We is a powerful concept. Individuals can be inspired to delay self-interest; groups can accomplish great things simply by buying into the power that we generates (van Dijk & van Dijk, n.d.). A common trope in sports is “There’s no I in team.” We can do big things because we can draw on diverse strengths and perspectives.

To ensure students of color are treated equitably in schools, the limiting lan guage of them needs to be replaced with we. Organizations can build a we culture by developing mutual trust and valuing collaboration, innovation, and compas sion (Fedders, 2020). In the culture of a school or district, this means that it is necessary for the adults on campus to do what is best for students. The adults expect the students to make mistakes and support them to correct those mistakes and not repeat them. Adults provide meaningful, targeted, specific interventions for academic mistakes. Grades are not used as punishment but instead show what ©

Several states [report] “exceedingly high” rates of instruction loss for stu dents of color when compared to their white peers. In Missouri, for example, Black students lost 162 more days of instructional time than white stu dents. In New Hampshire, Hispanic students lost 75 more days than white students. And in North Carolina, Native American students lost 102 more days than white students. Glaring disparities were also visible at the school district level, with some large districts reporting rates of more than a year’s worth of school—over 182 days per 100 students. (Camera, 2020)

Language of Possibility

2023 by Solution Tree Press

students know and how far they have progressed. Behavioral mistakes are met with a similar approach. Discipline is appropriate and the adults do not hold grudges, allowing students to move on from their mistakes. In a we environment, students’ mistakes do not define the duration of their time in that school. We cultures of trust and collaboration develop when adults view academic and behav ioral mistakes as opportunities for learning and teach students the knowledge and skills they need to do better. This approach keeps students from becoming dis enfranchised at school. When every adult on campus takes ownership of every student’s success and teams deeply discuss student data and how to help all students become engaged and proficient, the students know it. They can feel that their school cares about them and will help them get where they need to be. The students know they are part of the we

When this kind of limiting language is met with comments like “they are part of our community” or “we are those kids, and we are in this together” then it will be clear that the we culture is really taking hold in a district or school. “Those kids” are us. There is no we without all of us.

In order for this culture to develop, the leader needs to ensure staff under stand that the goal of success for all students can be accomplished when teachers become interdependent. By releasing the pressure that comes from teachers operating alone and doing everything themselves, staff are healthier and happier and students’ needs are better met. But this requires a truly collaborative culture: teachers in meaningful teams collaborating on instruction, assessments, interventions, and extensions. A culture like this better supports not just students of color, but all students.

I cannot emphasize enough that a we culture really takes hold when leaders and teachers are ready to immediately step in to professionally and respectfully chal lenge colleagues if they begin to talk about “those kids” or how “they” behave.

| 35

Leaders should also conduct regular audits to ensure students of color are not disproportionally referred to special education or disciplined. A periodic review (perhaps each quarter of the school year) of discipline data, special education referrals, and other similar data allows leaders to identify patterns and disparities. This simply requires looking at the demographics of students who appear in these data sets. For example, if students of color make up 12 percent of the student population but 60 percent of special education referrals, there is likely a problem. Such an audit can also reveal biases against other subgroups: Are halfwayto-bilingual students overrepresented? Are there four boys for every one girl?

Talking About Underserved Students

The Brookings Institution and Education Week describe the learning loss in eco nomic terms. Brookings Institution researchers calculate that students worldwide who learned remotely will lose a combined $10 trillion of labor earnings over ©

2023 by Solution Tree Press

The majority of educators and students would agree that, despite their best efforts, virtual learning does not provide the same kind of educational experi ence that on-campus learning does. Accordingly, concerns about learning loss took over the educational conversation. A Google search for “learning loss 2020” produces over 1.4 billion hits. Articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Education Week join studies from Stanford University and the Brookings Institution in the effort to quantify how much further behind students are because of the pandemic and the educational response to it. New York Times national cor respondent Dana Goldstein (2021) highlights the challenges of remote learning and emphasizes that students of color, students in poverty, and students in rural areas have experienced the greatest learning loss. Washington Post social issues reporter Nicole Asbury (2021) explains testing data that show D.C. students falling behind, especially at-risk students. Young students were also particularly harmed, with a Stanford study finding that, for first- through fourth-grade stu dents across the U.S., “development of oral reading fluency—the ability to quickly and accurately read aloud—largely stopped in spring 2020” and resumed growth has not made up for the loss (Spector, 2021).

Following the first school year of the COVID-19 pandemic, terms like vir tual student appeared in the limiting language lexicon. A teacher might say or think, “Well, Maria was a virtual student all year, so you cannot expect her to have learned as much as the ones who were here in person,” and place that stu dent in a lower lesson group.

Online students or virtual students are those who spent a significant length of time attending school virtually. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many students received their education through meeting apps. As students return to brickand-mortar classrooms, educators may have strong emotions or subconscious expectations related to online students. They may recall the frustration of teaching to a screen full of black squares and the dozens of times they had to remind students to mute themselves. They may worry about the ways being isolated at home has affected or traumatized students. They may expect that online students will not have learned as much academically as students would in a typical year.

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY36 |

“There’s so much learning loss from virtual school.”

Online Students

Limiting Language

Although there are differing opinions on just how much learning and earning was lost, most educators and experts agree that students did not learn as much as they would have in a normal year of in-person schooling.

While these statistics are troubling and important, metaphorical handwringing about the loss of time in the classroom will not close the gap created by circum stances educators had no control over. It is much more productive to accept students where they are academically. As Mike Mattos (2020), author and RTI at Work™ expert, points out, there would have been many students going into the next grade level behind academically even without the global pandemic. Educators need to assess students individually and fill gaps in their learning if they are not where they need to be academically. Spending one’s energy thinking “if only” (as in, “If only these students were at school every day last year, they would not be so behind right now”) is neither productive nor positive and should be avoided as much as humanly possible.

Language of Possibility

“Students are where they are, and we have to meet them there.”

Talking About Underserved Students | 37 their lifetimes (Azevedo, Hasan, Geven, Goldemberg, & Iqbal, 2020). When it comes to solutions to learning loss, an Education Week article by associate editor Stephen Sawchuck (2020) explains that the most effective intervention for the loss is intensive, high-dosage tutoring, which could cost school systems up to $3,800 per student for a single school year. The article notes that the United Kingdom set aside £1 billion for such tutoring to help alleviate the effects of the pandemic.

There’s no arguing that student learning progressed less than normal during the pandemic. How much students have been affected varies wildly from place to place, but it appears significant across the board. The Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University released a study in October of 2020 that looked at the learning loss from school closures in the spring of 2020 in eighteen states and the District of Columbia. By using nationally normed standardized tests and cross-referencing those tests with typical student growth for students in each state, they created a “days lost” equivalency. The estimates for reading ranged from 183 days of learning lost in South Carolina to 57 days lost in North Carolina. In mathematics, the study estimated days lost ranged from 232 days in Illinois to 136 days in Wisconsin (Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2020). While Canada has done less large-scale standardized testing since the pandemic, smaller studies reveal lower test scores than in years prior. One analysis based on data from Ontario estimates up to a “three-month learn ing shortfall” (Vaillancourt, Davies, & Aurini, 2021).

THE LANGUAGE OF POSSIBILITY38 |

Even though educators might expect a gap between in-person and virtual learn ers, there may not be one—and if there is, educators should focus on helping students overcome it. It is important for school and district leaders to remind staff that the reasons students are where they are academically are less important than what staff are going to do to help students move forward. Teachers may understandably tend to bemoan the months and years of virtual learning, so leaders may need to repeatedly redirect this limiting language. The following are strate gies a learning leader can use to reinforce the language of possibility.

Solution Tree Press

There is also evidence that teachers are able to minimize learning loss during virtual learning. One effective approach is to focus on ensuring students master what is truly essential in a grade level or course and omitting nonessential standards. At L.L. Owen Elementary School in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, virtual students progressed at a rate similar to their in-person peers. The nationally normed endof-year assessment showed an average in-person student grew 0.9 years in reading and 1.0 years in mathematics during the 2020–2021 school year. Students who remained virtual for the entirety of the 2020–2021 school year grew an average of 1.0 year in reading and 1.0 in mathematics (E. Cooper, personal communication, October 6, 2021).

2023

1. Fall back on the data: Compare student data from common formative assessments, summative assessments, benchmark assessments, or nationally normed assessments from the 2018–2019 school year (the last full year before the pandemic) to current performance data—it may not be as bad as you expect. I have done this with several principals and district office administrators and in each case the students were performing within a range one would expect from different cohorts of students, showing slight differences but not extreme. Leaders can share these data with staff.

2. Provide staff resources for intervening to support students: If the data do show students are significantly behind where they were in 2018–2019, then the leader should acknowledge that and immediately shift the conversation to “What are we going to do about it?” Leaders should provide resources and interventions for staff to use or work with the district or school’s guiding coalition to find resources.

3. Impose a “swear jar” for when staff use limiting language associated with virtual learners: In schools where the leader has a very good relationship with staff, this strategy can be used in a playful way. The leader can inform staff that anytime they are heard complaining about virtual learners without providing ideas for closing the gap they owe a © by

Solution Tree Press

Chapter Discussion Questions Visit go.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement for a free reproducible version of these discussion questions.

Talking About Underserved

Find out where students really are in their learning, accept it for what it is, and work to close any gaps. Summary There are a lot of words and phrases used to describe underserved subgroups of students. Unfortunately, most of this language serves to separate these students from the rest of the student body and from the staff. “We can’t expect them to catch up,” “they don’t count,” “we need to make things easier,” and the like are euphemisms for lowering expectations for students. It is imperative that limiting language such as “behind,” “them,” or “going to special education” be addressed because it creates separation and changes expectations based on students’ attri butes that are completely beyond their control. Using the language of possibility to refer to underserved students is vital because it shifts the speaker’s focus from per ceived deficits to the strengths students may display. Administrators and teachers can work with students with strengths. Students with strengths are supported and included. In the next chapter, we explore expectations for students more broadly.

Students | 39

1. What limiting language about underserved groups have you heard within your learning organization?

one-dollar fine. Actually collecting the money is usually unnecessary, or it could be used to purchase rewards for staff. Staff quickly catch on that this language is unproductive and often join in by fining themselves when they slip into the limiting language.

2. In your opinion, which subgroup is most affected by limiting language in your organization? What data or experiences have led to limiting language becoming acceptable in this culture? What steps can you take immediately to begin eliminating limiting language about underserved students in your organization? by

• Improve communication and collaboration within their school or district

—Kris Treat Director of Professional Development, Higley Unified School District, Gilbert, Arizona

“Those kids are so behind.” “If the sixth-grade teachers did their job, my students would be prepared.” “Kids these days just don’t care.” Teachers employ these kinds of phrases without much thought, but what is their impact?

In The Language of Possibility: How Teachers’ Words Shape School Culture and Student Achievement, author Michael Roberts dives into the limiting lan guage educators inadvertently use in schools and how built-in assumptions negatively affect students’ ability to learn and teachers’ professional collaboration. With research-backed analysis, real-life anecdotes, and a pas sionate emphasis on positive change, Roberts demon strates to K–12 leaders how paying attention to the way educators speak can transform student learning and school culture.

• Understand how limiting language stifles student growth and teacher efficacy

• Access strategies to challenge and redirect those who use limiting language

go.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement

• Recognize limiting language and replace it with positive alternatives

Readers will:

download the

SolutionTree.com ATPLCWORK ®

—Ken Williams Educational Consultant and Author Visit to free reproducibles in this book. How Teachers’ Words Shape School Culture and Student Achievement

The Language of Possibility is an unflinchingly bold attempt to earn our focus and turn it away from the marginalizing language that has plagued education for decades. Roberts sets our gaze on what’s possible when educators lean into the language of power and promise and how it showcases the brilliance inside each and every student we serve.”

“

“Michael Roberts has created an essential guide for educators to reflect on and improve the way they think and speak about students and colleagues. If you wish to make lasting positive changes in key areas such as student motivation, teacher collaboration, and meeting the needs of underserved students, put this book on your required reading list.”

• Reflect on their school culture and how staff talk about students and colleagues

The Language of Possibility

Articles inside

Online Students

Students of Color

Special Education Students

Part 1: What We Say About Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 1 Talking About Underserved Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Students in Poverty

How Limiting Language Impacts Students

How to Use This Book

How to Change Our Language

How Limiting Language Impacts School and District Culture

How Limiting Language Impacts the Brain

English Learners