I want to make something clear before this becomes the wrong argument.
This is not an article about whether equity is good or bad.
Woodland School District 50 put the word in its employment expectations.
I asked what the expectation means.
That is it.
I recently applied for an Instructional Coach position at Woodland Middle School. Woodland’s public application page tells prospective employees that the district is committed to a culturally diverse workforce. It says applicants should “welcome inclusion, equity and diversity” and have an “unwavering commitment to the success of all students.” Applicants are also told to address experiences related to the stated expectations in their application materials.
Fine.
If that is part of the job, I want to know what the job is.
Not because I am looking for an interview question.
Not because I want a secret scoring rubric.
Because if an employer tells me before I apply that something is an expectation of the position, I think I should be able to ask a very basic question before I agree to be evaluated on it:
What does success look like?
So on August 31, I emailed Woodland Superintendent Dr. Robert Machak and Executive Director of Human Resources Martha Gutierrez. I copied Assistant Superintendent Thomas Drake.
Here is the substance of what I asked. The wording below is exactly what I sent; signatures are omitted.
WHAT I ASKED
“What does Woodland mean by ‘equity’ in its employment expectations? Is the term referring to equal treatment, differentiated resources based on need, reduced demographic disparities in outcomes, proportional representation, equal outcomes, or something else?
“If Woodland expects an employee to ‘welcome inclusion, equity and diversity,’ what specific actions, decisions, or measurable outcomes would demonstrate that the employee is successfully meeting that expectation?
“Does the District maintain current baseline data showing an equity-related problem or opportunity that applicants and employees are expected to address? If so, what measures are used and what result would constitute improvement or success?
“When Woodland refers to an ‘unwavering commitment to the success of all students,’ how does the District define ‘success’? What measurable standard would show that this expectation has been met?
“If students from different racial, ethnic, economic, or other demographic groups continue to have different outcomes after the District determines that equitable opportunities and supports have been provided, does Woodland consider those outcomes inequitable? If so, what is the District’s standard for distinguishing an acceptable difference in outcomes from an inequitable difference?
“What would have to be true for Woodland to conclude that it has provided equitable opportunities and supports even if outcomes among demographic groups remain unequal?
“Are any of these expectations incorporated into the formal evaluation of principals, instructional coaches, teachers, or other employees? If so, what specific indicators, baselines, targets, or evaluation criteria are used?
“Are the same definitions and accountability standards applied to district-level leadership, including the superintendent, or are these expectations different depending on the position?”
Then I wrote this:
“I am not asking these questions rhetorically. As an applicant, I want to know what I would actually be responsible for accomplishing and how Woodland would determine whether I was successful.”
That is the question underneath all of this.
What am I actually responsible for accomplishing?
The next morning, Ms. Gutierrez responded.
WOODLAND’S FIRST RESPONSE
Here is the substantive body of the response exactly as I received it, with the signature and email boilerplate removed:
“Mr. Pope, thank you for your interest in employment with Woodland School District 50.
“The District has received your application. Once the hiring manager begins reviewing the submitted applications for the position for which you applied, your application will be considered with those other candidates who have applied. You will be notified if you are selected to move forward in the formal interview process.
“Some of the questions which you have posed could be addressed as part of the interview process as the hiring committee assesses each candidate’s experience and fit within the District. Providing you with an explanation of criteria and expectations that is not provided to all of the applicants could impact the fairness and the consistency of the process. If you are chosen for a position in the District, the expectations and evaluative criteria for your position will be explained and provided to you. If you have additional questions about the District, its policies or its mission, we encourage you to review information available on the District’ website at: www.dist50.net/.
“We wish you the best of luck in the hiring process.”
I read that a few times.
The part that got my attention was this:
The district said that providing an explanation of criteria and expectations to me could affect the fairness and consistency of the hiring process.
But I was not asking for something that had to be provided only to me.
If the definition and criteria are public, give them to everybody.
That would seem to make the process more consistent, not less.
So I narrowed the question dramatically.
MY FOLLOW-UP
Again, this is exactly what I sent:
“Ms. Gutierrez,
“Thank you for responding. I want to make sure I understand the District’s position correctly.
“I am not asking for interview questions, candidate-specific scoring information, or anything that would give me an advantage over another applicant. I am asking what a publicly stated employment expectation means before deciding whether I want to pursue positions requiring it.
“Woodland publicly states that applicants should ‘welcome inclusion, equity and diversity.’ My question is simply: What does Woodland mean by ‘equity’ in that employment expectation?
“Your response indicates that explaining criteria or expectations to me before an interview could affect the fairness and consistency of the process. If that is the concern, the District could provide the same definition publicly to all applicants.
“So could you please clarify one of the following:
“- Woodland has a public operational definition of ‘equity’ for applicants and employees — in which case, please direct me to it; or
“- Woodland does not provide applicants with that definition before they are selected for an interview or hired.
“I am asking because this affects whether I would choose to apply for future administrative positions at Woodland. I think it is reasonable for a prospective applicant to understand a stated job expectation before deciding whether to seek the job.
“Thank you,
“Mike Pope”
A few hours later, I received another response.
WOODLAND’S SECOND RESPONSE
“In response to your email, Woodland School District 50 provides information in several areas of our website, including our online application, which addresses your question. We have also updated our Human Resources webpage to provide prospective candidates with relevant information as they explore employment opportunities and determine which positions and employers they may be interested in applying to.
“I have provided the links below for you to review. Thanks.
“District Webpage https://www.dist50.net/page/equity
“HR Webpage https://www.dist50.net/page/human-resources
“Online Application Page https://www.applitrack.com/dist50/OnlineApp/default.aspx”
Okay.
That is an answer to part of my question.
Woodland does publicly define equity.
Its current Parent and Student Handbook says equity means members of the Woodland community are treated fairly, impartially and non-judgmentally, and that every student receives the tools and supports needed to develop to full academic and social potential.
The district’s policy language goes further. It says Woodland is committed to education and training around equity and inclusion and to the continuous monitoring, measuring and sharing of collective progress.
Good.
Now we are somewhere.
But I still do not know what I would be accountable for doing.
And that is the part I care about.
DEFINE THE JOB
Suppose I am hired as an instructional coach.
I understand the district’s definition of equity.
Now what?
What action am I expected to take tomorrow?
What current condition am I responsible for changing?
What baseline tells us where we started?
What measure tells us whether the work improved anything?
What result constitutes success?
When is it measured?
And if the result does not change, who owns that failure?
Those are not hostile questions.
Those are management questions.
In fact, those are accountability questions.
If I told a teacher, “You are responsible for improving student achievement,” the teacher would be completely justified in asking me:
Which students?
Which measure?
From what baseline?
To what target?
Over what period of time?
With what authority and resources?
I could not reasonably wait until the end of the year and then announce what I had meant.
That would not be accountability.
That would be discretion.
And this is where the conversation becomes much bigger than one word in one school district’s employment page.
WE USE ACCOUNTABILITY LANGUAGE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ACCOUNTABILITY
Schools are full of statements like these:
We are all responsible for student achievement.
We are all responsible for belonging.
We are all responsible for equity.
We are all responsible for school culture.
We are all responsible for attendance.
We are all responsible for behavior.
It sounds collaborative.
Sometimes it is collaborative.
But there is a problem hiding inside the word all.
If everybody owns the same outcome, who owns it when the outcome does not happen?
The superintendent can say it was the principal.
The principal can say it was the dean.
The dean can say it was the teacher.
The teacher can say it was the student.
The system can keep moving responsibility downward because the responsibility was never clearly divided in the first place.
That is not shared accountability.
That is shared language with unassigned ownership.
Real shared responsibility is possible.
But then tell me what each person owns.
Tell the superintendent what the superintendent owns.
Tell the principal what the principal owns.
Tell the instructional coach what the instructional coach owns.
Tell the teacher what the teacher owns.
Tell the student what the student owns.
And do it before you know whether the result is good or bad.
Because accountability assigned after the result is not accountability.
It is blame.
THE EVALUATION PROBLEM
This is also why vague job language bothers me so much.
The person being evaluated needs to know the standard before the evaluation.
That seems obvious.
But organizations increasingly fill job descriptions, strategic plans and evaluation language with words that everybody likes and almost nobody can operationalize the same way.
Equity.
Belonging.
Student-centered.
Instructional leadership.
Collaboration.
Innovation.
Rigor.
Excellence.
Culture.
Fine.
Use every one of those words.
But if the word can affect whether someone gets hired, promoted, evaluated, disciplined or retained, tell that person what the word requires them to do.
If it is measurable, show the measure.
If it is subjective, say it is subjective.
If it is a value rather than an outcome, say it is a value.
If it is an aspiration shared by the whole organization, do not quietly turn it into an individual performance metric after the fact.
That distinction matters.
And I think we have blurred it almost completely.
THIS IS NOT A GOTCHA
There is an easy way for Woodland to make this article boring.
Answer the questions.
Maybe there is a complete operational framework I have not found.
Great.
Send it to me.
I will publish the answer.
Maybe the district’s position is that “equity” is a broad organizational value, not a measurable individual employment outcome.
Fine.
Say that.
Maybe different jobs carry different responsibilities and those responsibilities are explained after hiring.
Fine.
Then tell applicants that the public language describes values, while role-specific accountability is established separately.
That is an answer too.
What I do not think works is telling applicants that a concept matters enough to put in the employment language, asking them to address their experience with it, and then treating a request for operational clarity as something that belongs later in the process.
If it matters before I apply, I should be allowed to understand it before I apply.
And this is exactly the kind of question I am going to keep asking schools.
Not just about equity.
About every word that carries responsibility without telling us what responsibility actually belongs to whom.
Because I think we have built an entire accountability culture around evaluating people while leaving the ownership of the outcomes blurry.
Then when something goes wrong, everybody suddenly becomes very precise about whose fault it was.
That is backward.
Define the expectation first.
Name the owner first.
Give the owner the authority first.
State the measure first.
Then evaluate the result.
Anything else gives the person above you the power to decide what the job meant after you already did it.
And I am not sure that is accountability at all.
I think it is just power.
