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.