Beginning reflections: In the introduction of the article, Renkly explains that currently in a deficit based approach educational model that school functions in a reactive way instead of a proactive way. To expand on this idea a bit, reactive decisions are made when teachers or other adults in the building receive data or information from students-- typically in the moment, and react to it, they make changes. For example, in a situation where a student is escalated to the point where they are either unsafe with themselves or others, a reactive measure would be to remove the child from the classroom. Typically what happens after that is that when the student is deescalated, adults try to teach the child tools for when they are escalated in the future. Proactive teaching is recognizing when the child is beginning to get escalated and recognizing and giving them de-escalation strategies or asking if they want to take space before they are entirely escalated. My question is what else a proactive approach would include in an education system?
Middle Reflections: One thing that I noticed about the application of an asset based approach was that the studies done on secondary students (grades 6-12) yielded favorable results. The more assets a student had, the more success they had. I am also wondering when students can learn these assets. It's fairly obvious-- at least to me-- that not every student will be born with every asset. While we can use the assets that students possess to teach them in specific ways, we also need to target specific gaps. Asset and deficit based thinking does not replace teaching students core subjects. I'm also thinking that we have to understand a student's deficits within the 40 competencies that make up the asset based approach to be able to teach them the skills and mindsets they need to build (I suppose this would be done in elementary school if the application is happening in secondary).
Ending reflections: "No matter how old a child is,
they all need adults that are willing to mentor them, catch them if they fall, and encourage them
to get back up and try again. This can only be done with an asset model" (26) The part that catches my attention specifically is the idea that encouragement can only be done in an asset based model. I would love to find out more information about how a deficit approach innately goes against the encouragement of children. Additionally, I noticed that throughout the article, the only information that was given about how to implement an asset based approach is that teachers, administrators and the school community should all agree about it's importance and to potentially include this in the school's mission. I would have loved to hear more concrete steps on how to implement asset based approaches in schools that are so focused on deficits and how deficits relate to test scores.
Connection: This reminded me a lot about the TFA (Teach for America) conference that we had on asset vs deficit based approaches. When we learned about it in TFA it was complemented with the idea that multiple truths can be true at the same time and we used deficit and asset based approaches to identify our personal thought patterns. I thought that the multiple truths at the same time was especially helpful and to connect it to this reading and my reflections so far: an asset based approach may identify and celebrate a student's successes in being empathetic, being a problem solver and having good communication. However, these assets do not negate the severity of a student who cannot read.
Hey Lexi, I love how you first brought up an example of what a reactive versus proactive strategy looks like in the classroom. I think a proactive approach in the education system would be designing and implementing systems that do not allow for reactive strategies to occur. For example, if curriculums were predesigned in a Universal Design for Learning, educators would not have to spend extra time recognizing how the current curriculum is not meeting their students needs and fixing it to make students more engaged. I feel like a lot of the principles of instruction associated with asset based models fall on teachers laps which is why many teachers quickly develop reactive or negative views on their students capabilities because they are burnt out trying to figure out solutions to motivate or engage their students when the system is not allowing them to teach in universal or culturally responsive ways.
ReplyDeleteGreat point about UDL, Michele. I do agree that the "proactive" part is about intentional design and community building which reduce the need for putting out fires.
DeleteHey! I really liked your reflection, a lot of what you said really resonated with me. I totally agree that proactive support makes such a different. I see this in my classroom all the time when students get help before things escalate, they bounce back so much faster.
ReplyDeleteI thought your question about when students actually learn these assets was interesting. It does seem like schools would need to start much earlier than secondary grades. It makes me think that the asset model would work better if it was built into the whole school system and not just added later.
ReplyDeleteYes, two things can (and are) true at the same time. I absolutely agree that we have to know what a child can or can not do, but figuring that out and addressing that can still be asset-based. My son learned early in his young life that ADHD was his superpower. It was framed as an asset for him and he was able to internalize that as truth. Did his ADHD impulsivity make schooling hard for him sometimes? Of course. Did we choose to medicate him so that he could learn and practice his executive function tools without the constant ADHD inner monologue? Absolutely. But even though we had to address his struggles directly, we still did it in the context of his superpower. Would love to talk more about this.
ReplyDeleteLexi,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated how you broke down the difference between reactive and proactive approaches using de-escalation as an example. That framing made the article feel very practical. Your question about what else proactive practice would include is important. To me, proactive practice is not only about catching escalation early, but about building systems that reduce the likelihood of escalation in the first place. That includes relationship building, predictable routines, culturally responsive curriculum, and leadership language that frames students through strengths rather than surveillance.
I also thought your point about assets not replacing core instruction was key. Asset-based thinking does not ignore academic gaps. It changes how we approach them. A student who cannot read absolutely needs targeted support, but how we frame that support matters. Are we positioning the child as deficient, or are we identifying strengths to leverage while building skills? I appreciated your connection to “multiple truths.” A student can struggle academically and still possess tremendous social, creative, or leadership strengths. Recognizing that does not minimize the struggle. It humanizes it.
Your final reflection about implementation is something I wondered as well. It is easy to say schools should adopt an asset model, but harder to describe how to shift institutional culture when test scores dominate accountability systems. That is where leadership becomes central. If leaders change the narrative in meetings, professional development, and evaluation structures, the culture begins to shift.
Your post highlights that asset-based thinking is not soft. It is strategic and systemic.