Asset based models for the win

In Shifting the Paradigm from Deficit-Oriented Schools to Asset-Based Models, the authors argue that schools need to shift from a deficit-oriented model to an asset-based model. A deficit-oriented model focuses on students’ weaknesses and misbehavior, whereas an asset-based model builds on students’ strengths, relationships, and potential.

The first quote that stood out to me was, “When schools focus solely on at-risk behaviors exhibited by students, they tend to work reactively rather than proactively.” This quote clearly sets up the central problem. When schools only respond to misbehavior or low performance, they are constantly putting out fires instead of building systems that prevent problems. This is very obvious when students are labeled as “behavior students.” Sometimes the only time the student gets attention is when they are talking out of turn, refusing work, or off task. In my first year teaching, I spent a lot of my energy correcting behavior (moving seats, giving warnings, or writing referrals). But students were not improving because I was only responding after problems happened. When I started checking in during independent work and giving the students a small classroom responsibility (like collecting papers), their behavior improved. Instead of reacting to the problem, I was preventing it by making students feel noticed and important.

The second quote is, “They have proven repeatedly that the more assets a student possesses, the more thriving behaviors the student showcases and the less likely that student will exhibit risky behaviors.” I had a student who struggled with writing, and because of this he would become highly frustrated and opt out of doing work. I had seen many teachers label him as a “problem student” and give him a referral every time he didn’t participate. I started letting him verbally explain his thinking during exit tickets and called on him when I knew he had the correct answer. Over time, I noticed he participated more and even attempted writing because he felt successful first.

I think sometimes we forget that we are dealing with children. We hear other teachers talk about certain students they’ve had in the past and how they behaved in their classes, and I think sometimes that impacts how we act toward them before we even get to know them ourselves. We come in with the pre-assumption that they are “bad students,” when in reality many of them are carrying frustration, insecurity, or past school experiences where they felt unsuccessful. This leads me to the last quote: “If we surround young people with respect and love… give them chances to make a difference… we’re metaphorically letting them jump into our arms.” The way we think about students is often the way they begin to think about themselves. Many of my students come in believing they are bad at math or writing because they have struggled before or have heard that message repeatedly. When a student hears year after year that they are “low,” “behind,” or “lazy,” they eventually internalize it and stop trying because failure feels expected.

This also connects to racism in education because deficit thinking does not affect all students equally. Students of color, multilingual learners, and students from low-income communities are more often labeled as behavior problems or low performers before teachers fully understand their abilities. Instead of questioning instruction, curriculum access, or language barriers, the system can place responsibility on the student.

Those expectations influence classroom interactions such as who gets called on, who receives encouragement, and who is disciplined more quickly. This is also where racism can appear in subtle ways inside a classroom. Because of implicit bias and long-standing stereotypes in education, students of color (especially Black and Latino students) are more likely to be perceived as disruptive, less capable, or less academically motivated even when their behavior or performance is similar to their peers. A teacher may unconsciously give more thinking time, patience, and academic challenge to students they assume are high achieving, while correcting or redirecting other students more quickly. As a result, some students consistently receive opportunities to participate and grow, while others receive more surveillance and discipline. Over time, these patterns create racial disparities in both learning and behavior consequences. The same action, such as talking out of turn, can be interpreted as enthusiasm in one student but defiance in another. When students repeatedly experience lower expectations, fewer chances to contribute, and harsher discipline, they begin to disengage because school feels unfair and unwelcoming (not a place where they can succeed). In this way, deficit thinking does not just affect individual students, it can reproduce systemic racism in everyday classroom decisions. An asset-based approach helps interrupt this by pushing teachers to question their assumptions, recognize students’ cultural and linguistic strengths, and intentionally provide equal opportunities for participation, support, and trust.

In my classroom, this looks like celebrating small growth, allowing redo opportunities, and acknowledging effort just as much as correctness. I try to point out what a student did well before addressing mistakes so they see themselves as capable learners. I have noticed that when students feel respected and safe, they are more willing to ask questions, attempt challenging problems, and admit confusion. The academic risk-taking comes after the relationship is built. Students will only push themselves when they trust that mistakes will not lead to embarrassment or punishment. By consistently showing belief in them, we are not only improving their performance in class, but also helping them develop a more positive identity as learners.

The Broken Model

In the chapter, The Broken Model, Khan argues that the education system in the United States is flawed and in need of reform. However, he does not suggest dismantling the system entirely. Instead, he believes the solution lies in changing how we view the education system so that we can identify and address its weaknesses. 

He begins the chapter by discussing habits, explaining that long-standing systems develop a “stubborn staying power,” even after it becomes clear that they are no longer working effectively. I completely agree with this point. Many people do not question the education system because it has existed in the same general form for so long, and because education is often seen as an authority above us, people tend to accept it rather than challenge it or push for meaningful change.

The section that stood out the most to me was his discussion of the Prussian model. He explains that the system was built on the idea that isolating students from first-hand information and fragmenting knowledge presented by teachers would produce obedient and subordinate graduates. This model discourages students from questioning what they are taught. Reading this brought back memories of my own experience. I attended a Catholic school in Madrid, which was the same school my aunts attended decades earlier when it was an all-girls school. In past classes, when learning about traditional education vs. non-traditional education, I would always use my old school as a traditional school. There was a strong emphasis on discipline, assessments, and teacher-centered instruction. As students, we were not encouraged or even allowed to question the teacher. Whatever we were taught was the truth. 

However, just as an add-on yesterday, I had a very nice conversation with a taxi driver regarding the differences between when he was growing up and now. He grew up in the 70s and never questioned his teachers about anything he learned. But according to him, this was because he wasn’t always able to fact-check his teachers. There was no internet for him to access. According to him, more and more people now question what they learn because it is easier for us to access information. So I guess my question is: how has technology impacted the model of traditional schools? 

I do believe that education today is beginning to move away from that model. Although some traditional elements, such as discipline and structured routines, still exist in my school, there are also many more student-centered practices. For example, my students are encouraged to ask questions. As a science teacher, I know that inquiry is essential for understanding concepts, especially during experiments when students naturally develop curiosity and need clarification. Another example is in math. When I learned multiplication, I was taught only the standard algorithm. Now, students learn multiple strategies, such as the area model, and they use manipulatives to build conceptual understanding. Today, the focus is on helping students understand the reasoning behind mathematical operations. In contrast, when I was in school, I memorized procedures without truly understanding what I was doing. 

                                                    

Times are changing, and this is what Khan meant when he said the system was created in the 1800s, when most of our technology hadn't been invested in yet. This system is outdated and old. 

Looking at the education system more broadly, it does not operate independently. It reflects and reinforces the inequalities and power structures present in society. Here is how:

• Political system
• The government determines curriculum standards, assessments, funding priorities, and educational laws.
• Economic system
• School funding often depends on local property taxes, which creates disparities between communities.
• The quality of education students receive significantly affects their future economic opportunities.
• Social and cultural systems
• Schools reflect societal norms and cultural expectations.
• Schools can either challenge social inequalities or reproduce them.

In my opinion, meaningful change in education requires structural reform. Small adjustments here and there would only act as a bandage rather than addressing the root problems. Reforming the educational system would shift patterns of inequality across society, this is because all systems influence one another, so lasting and meaningful reform must occur across multiple areas, not just within schools alone.

Colorblindness is the New Racism

Although I really appreciated Mellody Hobson’s TED Talk, this blog post focuses on my reflections on Colorblindness Is the New Racism. In the reading, the authors argue that racial inequality is maintained not only through individual prejudice, but through systemic white privilege that gives unearned advantages to white people. They explain that this privilege often goes unnoticed and is reinforced by colorblind thinking (the belief that ignoring race promotes equality). However, by refusing to acknowledge race, colorblindness ignores very real disparities in wealth, education, representation, and opportunity. The authors ultimately argue that meaningful change requires recognizing these hidden advantages and challenging the structures that maintain inequality.

This reading immediately made me think of people who say they “don’t see color.” In my experience, that statement often comes from someone who either wants to avoid a conversation about race or wants to clarify that they are not personally racist. While it may be well-intentioned, it suggests that race and the lived realities attached to it, do not matter. When someone claims not to see color, it can dismiss the ongoing effects of racism and systemic inequality. Ignoring race does not eliminate inequity, it simply makes it harder to address. So long story short, saying that you don't see color actually has the opposite effect of what some people intend it to be.

One quote that stood out to me came up at the very beginning of the reading: “faculty and students of color often carry the major responsibility for highlighting issues of racial justice.” This resonated because people of color are typically the ones who most directly experience racism and exclusion, and as a result, they are often treated as “experts” on these issues. There are many layers to this dynamic. Institutions in the United States were historically built around white, dominant cultural norms. When those norms are treated as standard, issues of race are framed as “special interest” concerns instead of institutional and societal responsibilities. This, in my opinion, makes racial justice work seem optional instead of essential. Therefore, people of color often become the primary advocates for change because the system does not automatically prioritize their concerns.

This expectation creates an unfair burden, often described as cultural taxation. This is a term used to refer to the extra responsibilities (emotional and intellectual labor) placed on individuals from underrepresented groups simply because of their identity. Faculty and students of color may be expected to educate others about racism, or speak up during racial tensions. There is an unspoken pressure that if we do not step in, no one else will. This emotional and intellectual labor is rarely acknowledged, yet it can be exhausting and take time away from other academic or professional responsibilities. Even though this is a term mostly used within the academia world, this is very much true in other professions. I think this term can even be applied to small everyday scenarios such as, always relying on the one POC at your job to be the spokesperson about diversity, or even to speak about their experiences with microaggressions.

Lastly, I really liked the section titled Examining Systems of Privilege: The Power Line Exercise. It highlights that society is not neutral, rather some groups are positioned closer to power and privilege, while others are positioned further away due to structural factors. This exercise encouraged me to reflect on my own position in regards to the power line. I am non-White, an immigrant, and a woman, which can place me at certain disadvantages within dominant systems. At the same time, I attend an institution of higher education, I am able-bodied, and I identify as Christian, these are identities that grant me forms of privilege. Privilege and marginalization can coexist within the same person. I think that recognizing these layered identities are important to understanding how systems of power operate and how to dismantle them. 

Privilege, Power, and Difference

 In Privilege, Power, and Difference, Alan Johnson argues that interconnected systems of power and privilege cause inequality in the United States. To dismantle these systems, he emphasizes that we need to first understand how they work and where they originate. 

At the very introduction, Johnson says that "the social advantage of being white will tend to be more significant for lower- and working-class whites than it will for whites in the middle and upper classes." This was interesting and something I had not thought about before. However, I think I disagree. Just because a white person is going up in the class ladder, it does not make their race disappear; if anything, it multiplies the influence they have. I think saying this underestimates how powerful and consequential whiteness remains in upper-class levels.

While reading chapter 2, I very much realized that Johnson's point of view is very privileged. This is something he very much acknowledged, having mentioned multiple times that he is a straight white male. However, especially in page 10 and 11, I realized how his audience was meant to be white. As a POC woman, when I am in spaces with people like me, many times our conversations have gravitated towards talks about privilege and power. This is something that is very much at the forefront of our minds because it is something we have to deal with every day. As Johnson points out, this is not something a straight white male thinks about (and that in itself is a privilege). So when he says, "we can't talk about it if we can't use the words," he is talking to them, not to me. At the same time, this made me reflect on my own experiences and ask myself: when have I ever felt as comfortable talking to a white person about power and privilege as I do talking about it with other POC? 

Another thought about page 10, Johnson says, "these groups can't do it on their own, because they don't have the power to change entrenched systems of privilege by themselves. If they could do that, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place." While some of what he is saying I do agree with, for me his claim is drifting into a white-savior framework by denying the agency of oppressed groups. Yes, entrenched institutions are controlled by dominant groups, however, framing oppressed communities as incapable erases the historical and ongoing power we exercise through organizing and cultural leadership. Systematic change does not occur when those in power grant it; it is the result of collective struggle and resistance. 

For last thoughts, I am glad Johnson mentioned that many think that privilege means "having all the goodies." This really showcases how privilege is often invisible to those who have it. People tend to notice what they lack, not what comes automatically. therefore it is easy for many to assume that privileged = perfect life.