Shannon Renkly and Katherine Bertolini argue that school leaders must intentionally shift from deficit oriented thinking to asset based models by recognizing and building on the strengths of students, families, and communities in order to create more equitable and transformative schools.
In Shifting the Paradigm from Deficit Oriented Schools to Asset Based Models: Why Leaders Need to Promote an Asset Orientation in Our Schools, Renkly and Bertolini push readers to really rethink how schools talk about and respond to students. Instead of focusing on what students supposedly lack academically, socially, culturally, or economically, they encourage leaders to start with what students already bring to the table. The article makes it clear that this is not just about changing a few words in staff meetings. It is about changing mindsets, systems, and everyday leadership practices.
At the beginning of the text, the authors describe deficit thinking as a framework that treats students and families as “problems to be fixed.” That line really stood out to me because it feels uncomfortably accurate. Schools often use labels like “at risk,” “low performing,” or “behind,” and those labels quietly shape expectations. When that happens, the conversation becomes about remediation instead of possibility. It made me think about how common practices like tracking or grouping students by perceived ability might unintentionally (or intentionally) reinforce these deficit narratives.
In the middle of the article, the authors explain that an asset based approach requires leaders to intentionally identify and leverage the cultural wealth and strengths within their school communities. I liked that they emphasized the word intentionally because this kind of shift does not happen automatically. It takes effort and reflection. An asset orientation does not ignore challenges, but it starts from a different place. It starts by asking what students know, what they value, and what experiences they bring. That idea connects to the concept of funds of knowledge, where families and communities are seen as sources of expertise instead of obstacles.
By the end of the text, the focus turns strongly to leadership. The authors argue that leaders have to model asset based language and decision making if they want the culture of the school to change. If principals and district leaders still talk about students through a deficit lens during data meetings or policy discussions, then the broader culture will stay the same.
Hi Symone! I appreciate your video links this week. The one with the elder man resonated with me because in my programs application review we must check off if a student is academically At-Risk and accounts for a piece of eligibility in Upward Bound. When I inform students and families of that being a possibility I do use the words "At-Risk" but then always mention that it comes from state testing and try to not put a label on the student. After the video clip I plan to adjust my wording finding more positive language.
ReplyDeleteYes, to me this is about language as well as frameworks. We are so trained to talk about "at risk" et and it powerfully influences the approaches that we take. How we ask the question determines the kind of answers we will seek.
ReplyDeleteSymone!!!!!! Yes, I loved every bit of this. The title can I just say genius! Your use of the video to illustrate was masterful. We can frame anything to evoke the answer or side of the fence so to speak we would like someone to be on. Language and tone along with space are very influencing to say the least.
ReplyDeleteHi Symone! I enjoyed your blog and video clips. The statement about language and labeling shaping expectations resonated with me. I think back to my daughter's neuro developmental evaluation as she was to transitioning from early intervention to Pre K. She had started EI at my insistence due to a speech delay. Although I did notice she appeared "younger" than other children her age and had great difficulty with transitions which I considered "toddler tantrums", I did not suspect any other "deficits". By the way, "deficits" is a word that I learned as a young nurse many years ago. It was the wording we were instructed to use in our documentation for reimbursement. So, when I received the results of the eval, I was upset to learn that my Maddie had not only a speech delay but also a cogntive delay- she demonstrated the abilities of a 22-month old at three years old. Being the "cup half empty" kind of girl I am, I immediately began thinking about the challenges she would face. My husband (who is "cup half full" kind of guy) refused to accept this and immediately began teaching her math! Long story short, she has exceled academically throughout school, something that nearly prevented her from receiving the social-emotional supports she does need. I truly believed that the testing results were inaccurate due to her speech delay. I am ashamed to admit that I almost allowed a label to define my daughter and limit her potential. My four year old grandson has been having behavioral difficulties in school and was recently expelled from the preK program at the Catholic school his mother (my oldest daughter) attended! I am praying that when he starts kindergarten in the public school system this September, they will use an asset-based approach to acknowlege what he "can do" and then put the appropriate supports into place. Also, I loved the statement..."Students don't care how much you know until they know how much you care"! So very true!
ReplyDelete