Executive Summary
ICS Equity is a Wisconsin-based consulting company that contracts to school districts in order to create an Integrated Comprehensive System (ICS) for equity. This firm was founded by Elise M. Frattura (Professor Emeritus, School of Education, UW-Milwaukee), and Colleen A. Capper (Professor Emeritus, School of Education, UW-Madison). This firm pushes for the radical restructuring of school districts for equity (forced equality of outcomes not fairness) in all areas – academics, sports, clubs, staff, administration, etc – in the name of Social Justice. The philosophies and methods of ICS Equity are described in the book Leading For Social Justice written by Frattura and Capper (Frattura, Elise and Capper, Colleen. Leading For Social Justice: Transforming Schools for All Learners. Corwin Press, 2007).
Core Idea
The core idea, in the book Leading for Social Justice, which is reiterated ad nauseam, is that heterogeneous settings under the philosophy of Critical Pedagogy (CRT praxis for education) are nonnegotiable, and, when implemented, will create a Utopia (in the Marxist-sense) and socially just school district. The term heterogeneous, in the ICS context, means that in any setting (classroom, club, sports team, etc) all skill levels (gifted, special need, remedial, etc) and targeted identities (race, sex, religion, etc) are proportioned according to the overall levels of the school or district or city or state or country – a clear definition is not provided as normal academic standards of precision and rigor are not applied in this text. This is contrasted with the segregated setting, where students are streamed into appropriate levels based on current skill levels. Fundamentally, ICS means no special education, no gifted or advanced, and no remedial courses. The goal of ICS is not rigor or academic excellence or basic competencies, but rather is to “increase the number of school graduates who feel a sense of belonging to our greater society” (p.xxxii).
ICS proposes a radical, authoritarian restructuring of the education system: “In sum, for deep, second-order change to occur via ICS, the core of the education system has to be completely assessed and realigned to the principles of ICS” (p.215).
Fundamentally, ICS means no special education, no gifted or advanced, and no remedial courses. The goal of ICS is not rigor or academic excellence or basic competencies, but rather is to “increase the number of school graduates who feel a sense of belonging to our greater society”
Foundations
The foundations of this text are strongly rooted in Critical Pedagogy (also called Liberation Pedagogy). This is the application of Critical Theories to education – it centers education around notions of Critical Race Theory, Post-Modernism, and other neo-Marxist-based philosophies.
The seminal work of Critical Pedagogy is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, a devout Marxist. In this text, he does not cite great educational philosophers like Piaget, Montessori, or even the progressive pragmatist Dewey, but rather radical and often violent revolutionaries like Marcuse, Sartre, Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro. It is a Utopian political tract concerned about overthrowing the “capitalist hegemony” that is poorly disguised as education theory. In the book, Freire frames education and particularly direct instruction – the classic and proven method of education – within Marxist conflict theory. That is, teachers who explicitly teach skills and knowledge to students are oppressors that are oppressing the students. He focuses on “liberating” (i.e. not teaching skills and knowledge) the students by “raising critical consciousness” for the revolution in order to have “democratic” (in the Marxist-sense) education. He perpetuates classic dehumanizing social constructivist myths wherein humans are completely plastic and have no agency.
From this Marxian foundation, Frattura and Capper develop their ICS Equity framework. In the ICS Handbook on p.xxvii, the authors begin the introduction with a quote from Pedagogy of the Oppressed:
It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate
them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the
repressive methods of the government bureaucracy to the forms of cultural action with
which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they are being
helped. (p.141)
This is followed by the unsubstantiated claim that: “The population of oppressed or dehumanized students in our schools is growing.” (p.xxvii) This work follows the general trend in “Education Science” research, where normal academic standards and methods rooted in the scientific method are eschewed for a mythological, religious belief system – the book contains many professions of belief instead of rigorous studies. Some examples are:
To better understand the state of Education Schools and “Education Science”, I refer the reader to two recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education: How Ed Schools Became a Menace (also published in Quilette), and, How Ed Schools Became a Bastion of Bad Ideas. In Language at the Speed of Sight, Mark Seidenberg, Univerity of Wisconsin-Madison, also covers these issues in the last part of his book, especially, in Chapter 11: The Two Cultures of Science and Education.
Is it CRT?
In a word, yes: ICS is a tool to “create schools of social justice” p.232. It is a change that “can only and must only happen through a passion for social justice first and foremost” p.233. More precisely, ICS does not teach the legal origins of CRT, but through Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Relevant Teaching, it is the “praxis” of CRT. That is the application of CRT to education. Delgado and Stefancic, in Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, p7, subsection 1 of the section: “Spin-Off Movements”:
Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many scholars in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, affirmative action, high-stakes testing, controversies over curriculum and history, bilingual and multicultural education, and alternative and charter schools. (See, e.g., Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education [Edward Taylor, David Gillborn & Gloria Ladson-Billing eds. 2d ed. 2015].)
This connects directly to ICS, where, in the ICS Handbook: “In ICS, the curriculum and instruction are built on a culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995) [curriculum].” p.21. To further substantiate this CRT connection, Ladson-Billings, in a 1998 paper entitled Just What Is Critical Race Theory And What’s It Doing In A Nice Field Like Education? holds up her work defining Culturally Relevant Teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1995) referenced in the previous citation as an example of CRT instruction.
Moreover, the authors argue that CRT and Culturally Relevant Teaching are the sole criteria for good teaching: “Landson-Billings suggests that we need to reconceptualize good teaching to mean teaching that is composed of culturally relevant instruction… …There is nothing magic or mysterious about culturally relevant instruction–it is just good teaching.” p.117
ICS Implementation
The process for ICS taking over a school district seems formulaic and has been repeated in Middleton-Cross Plains, New Berlin, Mequon-Thiensville, and Elmbrook (see below for a list of districts connected with ICS).
The goal under ICS is to neuter the school board so as to ensure that the board will rubber-stamping all the initiatives of the technocrats in the administration who are pushing the ICS agenda.
Based on the experiences of school districts in Wisconsin that are at different stages of implementing ICS, the methodology appears to be:
School Districts Under ICS Equity
No advanced, remedial, or special needs programs:
This heterogenous education setting requires the elimination of all special needs, remedial, and advanced programs. Recall that under ICS, a segregated program is a program where students are separated by ability so advanced, remedial, or special needs programs would be called “segregated” under ICS. This sort of overloading of terms is quite common in Marxist and neo-Marxist works in order to obfuscate, and trick people into agreement by changing the definitions of words essentially doublespeak, the combination of newspeak and doublethink from Orwell’s 1984.
Against academic standards, excellence, and success:
The impact on the teaching in the school is significant. All advanced, remedial, and special needs programs will be discouraged, diminished, and eventually terminated.
Against any student agency: ICS demands an extreme social constructivist view, denying students have any agency.
Authoritarian, anti-democratic and neuters the school board:
Encourages subversion:
Encourages misappropriation of funds:
Manipulate data for their own ends:
Disdain for parents and overreach of schools into the lives of children:
Poor and Detrimental Learning Practices
Underlying the learning approach of the ICS Equity program called “Co-Plan to Co-Server to CoLearn Teams” (abbreviate C3 Teams) are multiple education myths that are not just inefficient, but actually detrimental to the learning process. In particular, ICS requires the myth of “learning styles” and the myth of pure discovery-based learning.
For further reading, there is an excellent text: How Learning Happens by Kirschner & Hendrick which provides a great introduction to 28 key works in educational and cognitive psychology, and the implications to education. These disciplines take a scientific approach, and the results are typically ignored by “Education Science” found in the Ed Schools. Hence, the preponderance of educational myths in public schools. In addition to the great works, they also caution against educational myths and the final chapter describes the “Ten Deadly Sins in Education”.
Learning Style Myths: ICS promotes that “The curriculum is based on learning styles, and students aligned in project groups to meet their individual needs” (p.124). Again, this is one of the most damaging myths in education and is central to ICS’ “child-centric” education (Chapter 8). The notions of learning styles were invented by an educator not based on research, but based on his belief in magic, much like the belief that is professed by the adherents of ICS: “But one topic that seemed to hold some magic, some explanatory power, was preferred modes of learning, ’modal preferences.”’
To understand the myth, Chapter 29 from How Learning Happens goes into detail. Prior to Chapter 29, they succinctly say on p.46: “LEARNING STYLES: Bogus theory claiming learners learn best in a preferred style.” and “These so-called learning styles have been exposed as nonsense in research time after time.” This is the second of the “Ten Deadly Sins in Education” of How Learning Happens (Kirschner, Paul, and Hendrick, Carl. How Learning Happens: Seminal Works in Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice. Routledge, 2020).
To learn more about the Learning Style Myth, there is a well-done YouTube video by Veritasium, and the references therein.
“In this model, the school board is a support mechanism but does not have top-down authority. It actually is at the bottom of the heap, wrapped around the central office as a support.”
Pure Discovery-Based Learning: Again, ICS promotes that “The curriculum is based on learning styles, and students aligned in project groups to meet their individual needs” (ICS Handbook, p.124). The second part of the statement of “project groups” references their promotion of pure discovery-based learning which is another education myth promoted by educators with anti-science biases.
This myth is discussed well in the following: Mayer RE. Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case For Guided Methods of Instruction. Am Psychol. 2004 Jan;59(1):14-9, and Chapter 19 of How Learning Happens. This is the seventh of the “Ten Deadly Sins in Education” of How Learning Happens.
Whole Language Reading: Whole Language Reading is the discovery-based approach to reading, and is alluded to in the ICS Handbook, in particular, in Chapter 10. This approach is based on the wholly erroneous idea that humans learn to read in the same way that they learn to talk. It was thoroughly discredited over 30 years ago.
It is typically sold under the moniker of “balanced reading” or “balanced literature”. It is important to note that not all “balanced literature” programs are whole language approaches.
One example of a whole language approach is the very popular Lucy Calkins. A recent review of Lucy Calkins by Achieve the Core and reported on by APM Reports notes its deficiencies. A particularly salient quote is:
For students who come from homes where they’re exposed to sophisticated oral language
and who acquire knowledge from well-educated parents, the lack of explicit instruction
in these areas [referring to knowledge-building and language development] might not
be a problem. But other students may be left behind, according to reviewer Marilyn
Adams, a prominent reading researcher who is a visiting scholar at Brown University.
“Students who enter school having had fewer opportunities to grow academic knowledge
and vocabulary depends critically on such opportunities to catch up and move forward,”
Adams wrote.
Anti-science and Pro-activist Science Standards: While not explicitly endorsed in the ICS handbook, they call for all teaching to be aligned with the CRT social justice viewpoint as this is the only “good teaching”. As such, an ICS district will likely switch to the Next Generation Science Standards. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has published a comprehensive report on this anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-rigor, “science” standard.
From the NAS report: “The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have done more to degrade American K-12 science education than any other ‘education reform’ in the last generation.” and “Education ‘reformers’ who dislike rigor and rich content dislike any proper science education—because scientific reasoning cannot be taught without rigor and rich content.”
School Districts that have been Linked with ICS Equity:
• Cedarburg School District
• DeForest Area School District
• Elmbrook School District
• Fond du Lac School District
• Greendale School District
• Greenfield, School District of
• Glendale-River Hills District
• Hudson School District
• Mequon-Thiensville School District
• Middleton-Cross Plains School District
• Milwaukee Public Schools
• Monona Grove School District
• Northland Pines School District
• Oshkosh School District
• Shorewood School District
• South Milwaukee, School District of
• Stoughton Area School District
• Verona Area School District
• Wauwatosa School District
• West Allis-West Milwaukee School District
• Whitefish Bay School District
**UPDATE: The School District of New Berlin was removed from the list of schools linked with ICS Equity, as it appears the board was considering working with the group but in the end voted against it.
Marc Renault, PhD, is a computer scientist and a father of two boys. Originally from Canada, Marc spent many years in Paris where he got his PhD in Algorithms (Theoretical Computer Science) with a teaching mission. After his doctorate, he held research and teaching positions in both France and Canada before coming to Wisconsin, where his principal focus is on proven, science-based teaching of undergraduate Computer Science courses. Marc is also the co-Chapter Leader for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) Dane County (https://www.fairforall.org/dane-county/)
Interested in the content of this Article?
Reach out to the MacIver Institute to aquire more information